!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
talisman@indiana.edu logs sept 95 #5b
From s0a7254@tam2000.tamu.eduFri Sep 29 12:13:38 1995
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 13:25:05 -0500 (CDT)
From: Saman Ahmadi
To: talisman
Subject: Re: Women and the House
Dear Tony amd All,
Your wrote:
> 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.
>
Is the following correct:
* At the time of the receipt of the second letter to Corine
True, 1909, the Chicago institution was considered a House of
Justice - by the Chicago House itself and by Abdul Baha *
a) If so, did the reference to the head of the House being male
raise any questions among them? I suppose one could say that
since the Chicago House was composed of only men and therefore the
chairperson was male, the statement did not give rise to any concern.
However, Abdul Baha does explicitly distinguish between the members
of the House and the head of the House.
b) But, if Abdul Baha did not consider the Chicago institution
as a House of Justice, then in fact Corine True did understand
Abdul Baha correctly and the Chicago House did not.
A few questions:
1) What terminology did Abdul Baha use when refering
to the Universal House of Justice when corresponding
to Persians? Did He use baytu'l adl-i-azam/Supreme House of
Justice ? This is how Iranian Baha'is refer to the
Universal House of Justice. Or did He use different
titles?
2) When speaking about Houses (plural) of Justice, did
Abdul Baha use the plural? If we assume that the adjective
"general/ummumi" refered to the most important institution
in an area (I hope I am not misunderstanding Juan), why
did not Abdul Baha say the "general Houses of Justice"?
3) Are we sure we have all the pertinent letters?
regards,
sAmAn
From pjohnson@leo.vsla.eduFri Sep 29 12:14:34 1995
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 95 14:27:37 EDT
From: "K. Paul Johnson"
To: Bruce Burrill
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Dead Buddhism
According to Bruce Burrill:
>
> At one time some twenty plus years ago, I seriously considered Baha'i, but
> opted for the richer and deeper traditions of Buddhism.
It is a matter of faith for Baha'is that fundamental change in a religious
tradition must be negative. That is, revelation starts out
perfect and any modification can but introduce imperfection.
The richness and depth of Buddhism is clearly a cumulative
quality that increased over time. The very fact of such
progressive development must be rejected to fit the Baha'i
paradigm.
>
SF-> > "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?
To pursue a more direct parallel, belief in an afterlife with
no reincarnation has had awful consequences too. So has belief
in no afterlife at all. An argument that cuts this many ways
thus has no power to reject any particular view. BTW, as a
Theosophist I accepted Blavatsky's teaching that if people
believed in reincarnation they would behave more responsibly,
compassionately, etc.-- UNTIL I spent some time in India.
>
> > "Everywhere that Buddhism once shown brightly, and brightly indeed
> did it shine, it is dead, ignored by the populations it once educated,
> rejected.
Sri Lanka? Thailand? Mongolia? There are about 350 million
Buddhists in the world, so I suggest your report of its death
is greatly exaggerated.
Cheers
From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comFri Sep 29 12:15:15 1995
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 95 18:32:01 -0400
From: Ahang Rabbani
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: UHJ goal on simplified Writings
[This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII]
Dear Moojan:
You wrote:
> 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
As an example: On 25 February 1986, the House of Justice shared a
letter with all the National Spiritual Assemblies, providing them
the major objectives of the Six Year Plan -- based on this document
and in consultation with their respective Counselors and
communities, the NSAs were expected to form their national plans
and submit them to the World Centre for approval.
On page 3, of "The Major Objectives" documents, the House gives the
following goal:
"Produce simplified versions of the Sacred Scriptures, the
writings of the Guardian and the statements of the
Universal House of Justice."
Also, if memory serves, at the conclusion of the Seven Year Plan,
we sent you from the World Centre a substantial booklet that
detailed the achievements of the Seven Year Plan -- you will find
references to production of simplified Writings in Africa in that
booklet.
As to your experience, which I'm sorry to learn, I can only say
that perhaps the particular approach taken did not meet with the
approval of the House. For example, I remember when Mary Hardy
simplified the Peace Statement, it was received very
enthusiastically where a number of previous efforts were
discourage.
So, let's not give up. Not everyone in the world is a college
grad. We owe it to the masses.
All the best, ahang.
From think@ucla.eduFri Sep 29 12:15:50 1995
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 17:22:29 -0700
From: Safa Sadeghpour
To: John Haukness ,
Robert Johnston
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: God and attributes
At 04:10 PM 9/28/95 -0500, John Haukness wrote:
>"Their words, the effusions of Their infallible grace and sanctifying
>breeze of Their Revelation for the cleansing of every longing
>heart...Then and only then, will the Trust of God, latent in the reality
>of man, emerge, as resplendend as the rising Orb of Divine Revelation,
>from behind the veil of concealment, and implan the ensign of its
>revealed glory upon the summits of men's hearts.
>
>Wha I want to ask in this Baha'i Buddhist (as a former Buddhist myself)
>conference, is do we really think there is a direction here, I happen to
>think not, one can go anywhere. Knowing God, not knowing, Dhrama, in the
>Tao te ching we have "The more he gives, The more he gets. The more he
>does for others, the more he has himself." So we have a few paradoxes, is
Dear John,
Not all valuable knowledge is practical. There is, at least, some value in
seeking
the meaning of the fundamental; God, Metaphysics, and other light stuff. What
is practical in a specific situation is randomical, or should I say,
circumstantial. What
is fundamental in *any* situation is universal, and unique.
Take care.
Safa
>this a surprise or hasn't this always been the case.
>
>
>haukness@tenet.edu
>2015 Bay St. N.
>Texas City, TX 77590
>voice/fax 409-948-6074
>One planet one people please!
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"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 derekmc@ix.netcom.comFri Sep 29 12:16:13 1995
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 18:05:28 -0700
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: ABS TALISMAN AWARD DINNER bun fight and DICKIES BARBER SHOP.
Eric Pierce raised a very delicate and personal item of personal
grooming with me that I thought one should share in the intimate World
of Talisman for assistance and clarification no doubt from an
unrevealed and mistranslated work . Eric's Hair is rather long and needs cutting, he was wondering about the chance of
the very famous Dickie's Barber's Shop coming to ABS and offering their
hair service in the Bookshop . It is not beyond the realms of reason to
have a Talisman Cut from Dickie's just for Talisman types at ABS a
statement of Unity pointing us out to all.Personally I am not keen on
tobacco chewing and spitting Barbers but my friend Burl might gives the
latest from Walla Walla. I can see Talismanians flying in for this
Annual Award Banquet , Burl with his hair slicked back , Linda with her
Lovebird Lucia on her shoulder , Mary
from New Zealand her hair just fixed , a wonder of Kiwi creation
dazzling us all , Rick with his better manners book from Beth in hand
and all of us , good old Rob Stockman's Guests . By the way Burl it is
not true that the Ladies down under are taking our good friend Ahmad
'the Seed' to a special readjustment course , so please stop spreading
that one.
Kindest Regards Derek Cockshut
From mfoster@tyrell.netFri Sep 29 12:18:50 1995
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 21:49:16 -0500 (EDT)
From: "Mark A. Foster"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Dead Buddhism
To: talisman@indiana.edu
K. Paul Johnson wrote to the multiple recipients of talisman@indiana.edu:
P >It is a matter of faith for Baha'is that fundamental change
P >in a religious tradition must be negative. That is, revelation
P >starts out perfect and any modification can but introduce
P >imperfection. The richness and depth of Buddhism is clearly a
P >cumulative quality that increased over time. The very fact of
P >such progressive development must be rejected to fit the Baha'i
P >paradigm.
Hi, Paul -
I agree with you about "the richness and depth of Buddhism" being a
"cumulative quality that increased over time." In principle, I believe
that, using `Abdu'l-Baha's *seasonal* metaphor (spiritual springtime,
summer, fall, and winter), religions become progressively more
perfected, or mature, throughout the course of a Dispensation, and then,
at least on one level, a decline sets in. However, for a specific
reason, I do not think that this decline is always evident. But more on
that later.
From my POV, the seasonal analogy should not be taken too literally.
For example, in Christianity, some of the greatest spiritual triumphs
took place after the conclusion of the Christian Dispensation, i.e.,
pietism (esp. the Society of Friends), New England Transcendentalism,
and the Church of the New Jerusalem (Swedenborgianism). In Hinduism, we
see the flowering of Vedanta in the person of Sri Ramakrishna and the
gradual refinements in the beauty of Kashmir Shaivism. In Judaism,
Sephardic Qabalism and the contemporary Jewish Renewal Movement have,
IMO, captured much of the wonder of the eternal message of Moses.
As I see it, the spiritual Kingdom of God manifested (the Greater
World of Prophethood) is not limited by time and place. The inner
reality of Manifestation (the Holy Spirit), although connected with the
Souls of the individual Prophets, is, along with the divine Word, Will,
and Cause, the Unity which transcends the diversity of Messengers. On
the Akashic level (that of spiritual substance), there is no difference.
But even in the realm of the rational soul, the differences are only
apparent.
On the plane of time (the world of human reason), each Prophet can
be _seen_ (using the mental faculties) as having a precise period, or
Dispensation, during which His Law (Will, Love, Revelation, Order,
Covenant, or divine Linking) provides the Point of connection between
the Reality of the Kingdom and human souls. When the cup of creation is
full, God manifested appears once again and initiates a new creation.
Therefore, I would say that the various religions of God, after
their Dispensations have concluded, may continue to develop - though, on
the inward level, their sustenance (spirit of faith) would now be
derived from a subsequent divine Revelator. To me, this recognition of
the oneness of the spiritual Kingdom manifested and its integrative
influences in the kingdom of creation is what Baha'u'llah meant by the
Valley of Unity. IOW (in other words), it is all one. All existence is a
continuity - a manifestation or emanation from the One Divine Reality.
On a more mundane level, I do not think it strange that Baha'u'llah
encouraged His followers to view the various religions from a unified
perspective. According to Harold Garfinkel's ethnomethodology, it is
normative for belief systems to accept certain rules ("common sense
reasonings" - Garfinkel) by which apparently contradictory data can be
reconciled. For example, on the Meher Baba list, there has been a
discussion on the subject of "Avataric mistakes." According to Meher
Baba, each time the Avatar has come, He has made one major mistake.
Buddha's mistake, Baba said, was not to teach a belief in God, and
Muhammad's mistake was not to acknowledge that He was God!
Blessings,
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 think@ucla.eduFri Sep 29 12:19:11 1995
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 19:51:56 -0700
From: Safa Sadeghpour
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: God and attributes
At 04:40 PM 9/28/95 +1200, Robert Johnston wrote:
>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.
>
Dearest Robert,
I'll use this chance to explore the cosmological proof for the existence of God.
As you properly stated, Aristotle did use the argument the First Mover argument,
but it must be recognized that Plato was the first known philosopher to
employ it.
Taken from The Laws:
"Athenian Stranger: Or, to put the question in another way, making answer to
ourselves: -- If, as most of these philosophers have the audacity to affirm, all
things were at rest in one mass, which of the above-mentioned principles of
motion must necessarily be the first to spring up among them? Clearly the
self-moving; for there could be no change in them arising out of any
external cause; the change must first take place in themselves. Then we must
say that self-motion being the origin of all motions, and the first which
arises among things at rest as well as among things in motion, is eldest and
mightiest principle of change, and that which is changed by
another and yet moves other is second."
After the greeks it was revived most famously by the work of Aquinas in the
Summa
Theologica and the Summa Contra Gentiles in the first three of his five ways
to prove the existence of God (motion, causation, and existence).
The whole argument can be simplified in the following way:
1. All things have a cause (There are no things which don't have a cause).
2. No things are the cause of themselves.
3. It is absurd to imagine an infinite series of causes and effects, without
a First Cause.
4. Therefore, there *is* a self-originating First Cause known as God.
The argument is not even valid. Moreover, its premises are not true,
or better stated, we *cannot* be sure, in principle, that they are.
Premise #1 makes a universal assumption on no better foundation
than inductive reasoning. There is no way in which that the
statement "Some things have a cause" to be transformed to the
universal "All thing have a cause" by mere use of inductive reasoning.
Moreover, it seems that many aspects of Quantum Mechanics cannot
be justified by classical causal analysis (e.g. Schwarzchild radiation,
emission of photons from excited electron), but rather by probabilistic
calculations. Even if we were to accept the truth of this premise, it
would defy the conclusion insomuch that God would not have a cause.
Bertrand Russell, in Why I'm not a Christian, and Kant, among others,
propose this rebuttal.
Premise #2 suffers from the same inductive reasoning problems of Premise #1.
Additionally, just like premise #2, it would defeat the final conclusion.
Premise #3 is totally unwarranted. Since when has absurdity played
a role in what is true, and what is false? Isn't this same "absurdity problem"
which has faced most revolutionary changes in the way of our thinking?
As Faraday once said, "Nothing is too wonderful to be true." In fact,
it is easier to imagine an infinite series of causes and effects, than to
imagine
an all powerful, all encompassing, all knowing being which is self-originating,
and has the power to defeat every single physical law we know of.
Other problems include the following:
1. There is no reason to believe that the "Supreme Reality", that is, our notion
of an all powerful being, *is* First Cause even if it exists (Kant, Critique
of Pure Reason, 611). IOW, this First Cause, if it exists, could be
something that has no similarity to our notion of God. It might as well be a
self-originating and necessary ant.
2. Even if the principle of causality should exist in the physical world, there
is no reason, other than mere speculation, to believe that it should also
affect the spiritual world (Kant, CPR, 609), and the relation between these
two spheres.
3. "Nothing is demonstrable unless the contrary implies contradiction.
Nothing that is
distinctly conceivable implies a contradiction. There is no being,
therefore, whose
non-existence implies a contradiction. Consequently, there is no being whose
existence
is demonstrable." (Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, 96).
4. Even if we accept the whole argument, we might postulate that it is not
God who is the First Cause but the universe itself! (Hume, DCNR, 97).
5. It is accepted that there has *always* been a Creation insomuch that the
title
of "Creator" necessitates a creation. "How can anything that exists from
eternity
have a cause, since that relation implies a priority in time and a beginning of
existence?" (Hume, DCNR, 98).
As mentioned in another post some time ago, even if we are to accept whole-
heartedly this argument, there is no salvation from the self defeating
nature of it.
If we accept that *All* things have a cause, then God must also have a
cause. If we
then say that only *Some* thing have a cause, then the whole argument falls.
Thus,
it has been shown that the argument is not only epistemologically, but also
ontologically, untenable.
Please direct replies to specific rebuttals.
your friend,
Safa Sadeghpour
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"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 haukness@tenet.eduFri Sep 29 12:20:29 1995
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 22:34:51 -0500 (CDT)
From: John Haukness
To: "K. Paul Johnson"
Cc: Bruce Burrill , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Dead Buddhism
Allah-u-abha Friends: Abdul Baha said that Christiandom is dead. As the
worlds largest religion, his statement certainly will be scoffed at by
the majority, but then when the romans watched Christ's crusifiction,
they scoffed at Him, His repy was forgive them father for they know not
what they are doing.
No one wants Christianity or Buddhism to die, but death and rebirth are a
natural life process. Bahullah said "May my life be a sacrifice for Him
(Christ)" I'm sure Buddha as well. The point is the world is saying that
Buddha can not come back and change His name. So if hypothetically Buddha
did come back and did change His name, and the people who recognized this
reformation stated that This was a new day and the old day was now past,
(because hypothetically now Buddha was with man again in physical form)
then this is not a case of any one wanting 1000 year old traditions to be
dead, it would be as Abdul Baha stated, a representational fact,
hypothetically.
haukness@tenet.edu
2015 Bay St. N.
Texas City, TX 77590
voice/fax 409-948-6074
One planet one people please!
From haukness@tenet.eduFri Sep 29 12:21:27 1995
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 22:57:27 -0500 (CDT)
From: John Haukness
To: talisman
Subject: Buddhism wanted dead or alive
Allah-u-abha Friends: Just have to share the revelation I picked up today
that Buddhism cannot be a dead religion because of the millions
practicing what the newspapers call Buddhism, or the millions more
Moslems practicing forms of what we call Islam, this means that God's
sending a manifestation of God or a figure like Buddha to earth, lets say
in a 14 year old girl form 150 miles north of Kampala, and that let's say
after 150 years only a few million humans would recognize that Buddha was
that female, say she lived 50 years, that if only a few million people
recognized her, they would have to be wrong because there would be many
millions more who rejected Her now Buddha. So it is a thing of majority,
humans get to decide by census. This is wonderful logic and so simple.
Thanks.
haukness@tenet.edu
2015 Bay St. N.
Texas City, TX 77590
voice/fax 409-948-6074
One planet one people please!
From richs@microsoft.comFri Sep 29 12:21:42 1995
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 95 21:30:05 PDT
From: Rick Schaut
To: 72110.2126@compuserve.com, Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: RE: An Open Judicial Process
Dear David and Friends,
>From: David Langness <72110.2126@compuserve.com>
>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?
Easy. We restrict our discussion to hypotheticals and princple,
and we don't allow ourselves to be disturbed by our impressions
of an institution's decision. At least that's what I would regard
as the middle path between undermining an institution's ability
to fulfill it's responsibility and squelching discussion altogether.
Warmest Regards,
Rick Schaut
From friberg@will.brl.ntt.jpFri Sep 29 12:22:53 1995
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 95 14:13:54 JST
From: "Stephen R. Friberg"
To: talisman@indiana.edu, friberg@will.brl.ntt.jp
Subject: Death and Buddhism
Dear Paul, Bruce and all:
You take me to task, and rightly so, for prematurely announcing the
death of Buddhism:
Me: "Everywhere that Buddhism once shown brightly, and brightly indeed
Me: did it shine, it is dead, ignored by the populations it once
Me: educated, rejected.
Paul: Sri Lanka? Thailand? Mongolia? There are about 350 million
Paul: Buddhists in the world, so I suggest your report of its death
Paul: is greatly exaggerated.
But, exaggerated as is my claim, it may not be far off the mark.
We know that Buddhism has disappeared from India and almost
disappeared in China, Mongolia, Vietnam, and North Korea (former or
present communist countries). In other countries its voice is
muted and increasing less influential, it appears.
Anyone who has visited Kyoto, or Hanchou, or Bangkok or many other
places has probably been profoundly moved by the beauty and
wonderousness of Buddhist temples. Few fair-minded person can but
marvel at the profoundity of Buddhist wisdom and insight, which
seems to have preceded the development of a comparable western set of
psychological insights by more than 2000 years. And it may not be
even an exaggeration to say that the Dalai Lama is the most
respected religious leader of the last several decades.
Yet, all these marvels appear to be but the sunset rays of a day
now past. Searching the horizon, Buddhism appears much less vital
in the hearts and minds of citizens of Buddhist countries than does
either Islam or Christianity. There are exceptions, of course.
Chinese persecution has turned Tibet's exiled Buddhist community into
an increasingly-respected dynamic force with a strong missionary
zeal. And southeast Asia maintains peace-loving Buddhist communities
well-regarded the world over. But, this said, I have a hard time
feeling that Buddhism enters at all into the thinking about the future
in Asian countries. It seems to be only on the agenda in terms of
environmental concerns, and, of course, traditional cultural heritage
concerns.
I may be too strongly influenced by mainstream Japanese thinking on
these matters. In Japan, Buddhism is almost literally only for the
dead. The main role that Buddhism plays in the life of most Japanese
is when they die. Then, almost always, a priest is called for and the
burial is conducted according to Buddhist rites, very often in the
many Buddhist cemeteries which are the main source of income for the
many privately owned Buddhist temples dotting the land.
We tend to think of Buddhism as being for tourists and the dead.
Of course, the older generation maintains more of an affection for
Buddhism than the younger generation. But, lately, there has been
much pessimistic discussion that even that support is rapidly dying
away. Aum Shinri Kyo, a murderous Buddhist sect that gassed thousands
of Japanese with sarin last year and has a record of atrocities much
stranger than that even of a Batman comic book villain, has not helped
matters much. The newspapers now says that less than 45% of the
Japanese population claims to have any religion at all, be it Buddhism
or the 5 or 6% who are Christians.
Most educated Japanese see Buddhism as dead, something for their
grandparents to be interested in, or a profit making scheme. And, I
think this "modern" thinking is becoming increasingly widespread
even outside the Japan and the communist east Asian countries.
While this does dampen my enthusiasm for Buddhism as a source of
ideas for the next century, it doesn't dampen my enthusiasm for
Buddhist thinking. Perhaps more importantly, it doesn't dampen
my appreciation for the task that Buddhism, along with Confucianism,
has accomplished in raising the Asian people to the peak heights of
civilization. And, I fully expect that this most dynamic of
civilizations (of which my children are a part) will continue to
progress rapidly, leaving as myth to be discarded vain dreams
of Western superiority.
And I fully expect that the many Lessons learned, the Beauty
understood, and the Mystic Knowing unfurled by the Buddha
will live on.
But I will not insist that the Brand Name remain the same.
Yours respectfully,
Stephen R. Friberg
From cbuck@ccs.carleton.caFri Sep 29 15:27:13 1995
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 95 1:30:20 EDT
From: Christopher Buck
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Cc: Christopher Buck
Subject: Is Buddhism *Dead*?
Many Persian Baha'is I know (including relatives) regard
Buddhism and, indeed, any pre-Baha'i religion as *dead*. My appeals to
Shoghi Effendi's strikingly eloquent theology of pluralism (WOB pp.
57-58) notwithstanding, learned Persian Baha'is can summon very
particularistic texts with no interest in reconciling these with
Baha'i universalisms. That's why, for me, Bijan Masumian is my *great
Persian hope*--in anticipation of his forthcoming Texas paper,
*Religious Intolerance in a Pluralistic World: Dangers of Absolutist
Claims*.
Christopher Buck
**********************************************************************
* * * * * *
* * * Christopher Buck Invenire ducere est.
* * * Carleton University * * *
* * * Internet: CBuck@CCS.Carleton.CA * * *
* * * P O Box 77077 * Ottawa, Ontario * K1S 5N2 Canada * * *
* * * * * *
**********************************************************************
From CMathenge@aol.comFri Sep 29 15:29:23 1995
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 01:48:37 -0400
From: CMathenge@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: pagans
In a message dated 95-09-24 22:09:18 EDT, belove@sover.net writes:
Dear Philip,
As I'm running several days behind in reading all this stuff--gosh you guys
on Talisman are a prolific bunch!--I've just read your thoughtful post.
>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.
Well, I think it's more that an insistence on defining God according to a
specific set of limits or characteristics impoverishes the soul. The Baha'i
Writings constantly refer to God as the Unknowable Essence, the Unlimited,
the Unconstrained, etc., etc.
>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)
Yet if one regards these various "deities," as personifications of aspects of
The One, as my friend from Sri Lanka tells me many Hindus do, we can retain
our sense of wonder without being too literal and superstitious, and still
remain within a context of monotheism. It's one of those paradoxes where two
concepts seem mutually exclusive yet perhaps when one's framework is broader
it will turn out that both ways of looking at reality are true.
>He seems to be saying that something spiritually vital and holy dies or
>disappears when people forget their local deities.
We've been talking a lot on Talisman about the need for Baha'is to have more
worship services and use Gospel music and chanting and Sufi practices and
many other expressions derived from various cultural backgrounds, and I think
this will be happening. This may be related to what you are saying--people
need ways to acknowledge their relationship with God and express themselves
so that there is a framework into which everyday life can fit without losing
joy and wonder and celebration.
>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?
Personally, I don't see any problem with celebrating those times as long as
you feel it is meaningful to do so. I chose to raise my children without
celebrating Christmas because I didn't want them to develop an attachment to
it and because, realistically, it is difficult to make Ayyam-i-Ha really
special if you have just spent a fortune on Christmas, especially when there
is no time off, and there may not be many Baha'is in your community. Shoghi
Effendi said the Baha'i should not celebrate Christmas *in relation to each
other.* I interpret that to mean we don't need to hold community Christmas
parties or give other Baha'is gifts at Christmas. However, there is nothing
wrong with celebrating with your Christian (or Jewish, or whatever) relatives
and friends. Some Baha'is, in my opinion, go too far the other way; grumpily
pointing out that you don't celebrate Christmas can give the erroneous
impression that you don't believe in Christ. So, for whatever it's worth, my
$.02 is "chill out," as the kids say.
>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.
Well, it doesn't say the world is to have one language--it's an *auxilliary*
language. So that we can all communicate with each other, no matter where we
may happen to go in the world. That doesn't mean we are going to speak the
auxilliary language in our homes or with our friends and families. National
and tribal languages are to be retained. Of course it's possible that some
may eventually be lost, but this probably won't happen any time soon.
Differences in languages are desirable--some express one kind of thing
better, and some another. That's why Baha'u'llah sometimes wrote in Persian,
which I believe He called "the sweetest language," and sometimes in Arabic,
which He called (I think) "the eloquent language" or something of the kind.
While Shoghi Effendi wrote mainly in English, which he apparently found
conducive to the sort of explanations he needed to go into regarding the
building of the administrative order, etc.
>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.
Here again, I don't think the two concepts are mutually exclusive. If you
read about the lives of the Bab and Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi
Effendi, you will notice that they grieved deeply when someone was martyred
or someone they loved passed away, and Baha'u'llah speaks in many passages of
His sorrow about the actions of the Covenant-Breakers as well as the misdeeds
of some of the believers. I think the intent of the passage you quoted,
which says "Yield not to grief and sorrow," is that not that we are to
pretend they don't exist, but that we are to feel those feelings when
appropriate and then let go of them, not obsess on them. We have all known
people who are simply determined to wallow in the negative and make
themselves and everyone around them as miserable as possible, and I think
that is what this passage is warning against. It doesn't, in my opinion,
mean that we must pretend we don't feel what we feel, or that we must be
absolutely happy and delighted all of the time even if our best friend has
just been run over by a truck or something.
I hope the above thoughts related to some of your questions. Thanks for
sharing your concerns, and keep it up.
With loving Baha'i greetings,
Carmen
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzFri Sep 29 15:30:59 1995
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 18:58:47 +1200
From: Robert Johnston
To: Safa Sadeghpour , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: God and attributes
My dear Safa,
I have no patience for enagaging in yet another round of me being
silly. I don't wish to un-convince you of your scepticism. Please keep
it. Indeed: cherish it. If Plato, Aristotle and whoever else are deemed
by you to be in error, then who am I that I could convince you otherwise?
Come on, pal...I'm not THAT stupid. The proofs you might have expected
from me are well-expressed in 'Abd'ul-Baha's Tablet to August Forel. Do
you have a copy?
Your tetchy friend,
Robert
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comFri Sep 29 15:31:41 1995
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 00:07:02 -0700
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: The Reno Conference from Years Ago
As requested I interviewed Jeff and Janie Rhodes about this Conference
.At the Conference was Charlotte Linfoot and Florence Mayberry amongest
others . Ruhiyyih Khanum both Jeff and Janie say was not there.The
Conference was they believe in 1972 , although the taking of drugs was
an item one of the debates then was ; is it okay to use LSD because it
wasn't around at the time of Baha'u'llah and the Master. However they
have a very strong opinion that the main thrust of the conference was
SEX and how the Baha'i Laws were simply being ignored. Apparently large
numbers of youth had rented hotel rooms to 'crash in ' regardless of
the mixing of the sexes.The large Gym that housed many was divided up
by a large corridor , male on one side and female on the other. Both of
them said that although the theme was blunt about what is the Baha'i
Standard , they felt with hindsight it needed to have been said because
the Baha'i Youth community was copying the outside world and not trying
to be an example.
Kindest Regards Derek Cockshut
From burlb@bmi.netFri Sep 29 15:45:03 1995
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 95 00:35 PDT
From: Burl Barer
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Gotta Crash Pad?
Dear Talispals:
After reading the latest press release on the ABS Conference in SF, I
declared my desire to be part of this historic and memorable event. My wife,
Britt, said: "Yeah, I know. You always want to go everywhere." Not true. I
didn't want to go to Vietnam, Phys Ed class (all PE teachers are Nazis*), or
to the Barry Manilow Concert. I went to two out of three of those and only
one of the two was a pleasant surprise -- Barely Maninuff was a polished and
clever entertainer.
Now, Britt has asked for *good reasons* for me to go to the ABS. I told her
that it would be a spiritualizing experience that would radiate positive
blessings upon our entire family. "You said that last time you went
somewhere -- it was a Bob Dylan concert, and you came home the same jerk as
when you left."
That was different. With Dylan, I knew all the words. I figure at the ABS
all those smarty pants scholars will use their big vocabularies.
"See," she says, "you have no business hanging out with people that smart."
"Oh, Snookums," I say in my most irritating conciliatory tone, "If you read
Talisman you would know that they are not *that* smart."
Well, she says I can go IF....IF I can find someone who will let me share a
room with them so I don't have to caugh up the cosmic bucks for a room of my
own. (yes, the long awaited advance check from the publisher has STILL not
arrived.) There must be someone going to this thing that could use a roomate
at the official ABS hotel...I make a good practice audience for your
dissertation. You can lock me in the room and give me your entire panorama
of possible presentations: "Turning Anarchist into Order Takers" . "Planning
and Creating a Model of Total Chaos," or "Educations Role in Keeping People
Stupid"
So...if you want a roomate at the ABS conference in SF --please E-Mail me
and let me know so I can get my conference reservation in.
Burl
PS: I was interviewed by the regional CBS affiliate today....I guess I'll be
a little feature on the news next thursday...anyway, I kept sticking
Stockman's book behind me in various shots in the hope that the words BAHA'I
FAITH would catch someone's attention.
* I do not have absolute, irrefutable evidence that all P.E. teachers are
Nazis. I do, however, have very strong feelings about it.
C'mon, put flowers in your hair and meet me in SF. I'll work on my table
manners.
From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comFri Sep 29 15:47:47 1995
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 95 10:04:01 -0400
From: Ahang Rabbani
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: quote in Dialogue Magazine
[This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII]
Friends,
Sorry to take up the bandwidth with this request, but been trying
to locate a previously unpublished quote from the beloved
Guardian which Geoffery Nash uses in his excellent article in one
of the Dialogue magazine issues -- the article appeared toward
the end of the magazine. As I recall the title of the article
was something like "The Baha'i Electoral Process", and in this
quote Shoghi Effendi encourages change in the membership of
Baha'i institutions.
I need it for a deepening class that I'm conducting.
I found a quote by Shoghi Effendi in Persian which he says the
membership on Baha'i institutions is like water. Initially, its
pure, the source of life and essential for existence. However,
if it does not flow, if its permitted to remain stagnant, then it
looses its purity, its fluidity, its texture will change and no
longer will be life giving, indeed becomes harmful. Much the
same way that water must flow, membership of the institutions
must remain dynamic, ever changing.
Anyway, since this is an unpublished Persian Text, I can't use
it, but would like to locate the one quoted by Nash. Appreciate
any help that you can give.
best wishes, ahang.
From LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduFri Sep 29 15:48:54 1995
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 95 10:43:24 EWT
From: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: institutions and peyote
I have only had a chance to scan the Talisman messages these days, but I was
struck by David's report on Franklin Kahn. To me it was such a glaring example
of what we had been discussing earlier about closed boundaries. Having lived
on the Navajo Reservation in my youth, I have great appreciation for the
ceremonials and healing rituals of these people and scoff at anyone - or any
institution (I'm sorry to offend so many Talismanians by these words) that
would deprecate such cultural practices. How extraordinarily hypocritical it
is of any of us to criticize such things. Look at us in our society! What on
earth do we have to offer the world. As a former psychologist, I can assure
you that much of what occurs in the offices of clinicians or in so-called group
therapy is positively laughable! Therapists listen to the latest trends in
pop-culture and psychobabble and feed it back to their patients. In the 1980s
I knew a Baha'i therapist who seemed to be encouraging everyone she dealt with
to get a divorce. Much better for the children, don't you know!
Rick, I wish that I could agree with you about not second guessing our
"wonderful" institutions. Many of us did not become Baha'is so that we could
turn off our minds and allow the Big Guys to take over for us. We thought that
we were all a part of the growth and development of this religion. But, alas,
all we see is a pattern of "Those in Charge" and "The Rank and File" who must
be good soldiers and abide by anything that is filtered down to us. Sorry.
This is a religion that brought in people who were fed up with religious
dogmatism. The confinement we found in our churches choked us. Some of us
still refuse to be choked to death by people who claim to know what is best for
us.
I make my own decisions for myself. I will listen to what my new friend from
Ishqabad has to say about psychic phenomena. My Lebanese Baha'i friends know
that there is at least one Shi'ite woman in Michigan who is extraordinary at reading cards,
predicting the future, and giving advice. I listen when I hear such things
now. I went through my "closed boundaries" period and it got me no where. It
just narrowed my horizens and deprived me of fellowship with many valuable
people.
A discussion of the "evils" of the use of peyote in curing rituals seems so
very ethnocentric to me. Think of what we do to sick people under the rubric
of "modern medicine?" Linda
From k-cuno@uiuc.eduFri Sep 29 15:49:31 1995
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 10:53:38 -0500
From: Kenneth Cuno
To: Juan R Cole
Subject: Re: favor
>
>
>Thanks, Ken. I appreciate it.
>
>I should think your knowledge and standing in the field more important
>than your rank; and if they don't, they're not the sort of people I want
>money from anyway.
>
>cheers Juan
>
>
Flattery will get you someplace, as Groucho used to say. I'll await the
proposal.
Ken
From s0a7254@tam2000.tamu.eduFri Sep 29 15:49:50 1995
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 12:04:19 -0500 (CDT)
From: Saman Ahmadi
To: talisman
Subject: Re: institutions and peyote
Dear Linda and All,
I think all Rick is asking is that we do not jump to conclusions.
The story is second hand as David mentioned originally - I don't
think it is right for us to assume that a Baha'i instituion has
done a wrong thing based on this kind of information. We would
certainly be troubled if an institution made a decision based on
information of similar quality. I for one do not think that
an NSA removes a person voting rights without serious thought.
Another issue about which I am confused is how open a discussion
can we have about individual pending cases - we certainly do not
want to go to the extreme of the Simpson case but I can see how
some cases can have a broader meaning to a community. I also think
that the individual involved should have a say - if I was ever in
a similar situation, I would not want people talking about it.
Maybe another way of discussing the issue is how a physician is
judged to be "competant". If a licensed medical doctor
perscribed Peyote for treatment, would it would be O.K.? - some
doctors perscribe Marajuana (illegal in the U.S.) to cancer
patients by special permission.
regards,
sAmAn
From Member1700@aol.comFri Sep 29 15:50:21 1995
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 13:08:37 -0400
From: Member1700@aol.com
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: more on simplified Writings
Ahang-jan, of course you are right. As always!
We desperately need more simplified versions of our basic texts, not only
for children--but for adults as well.
Naturally, I would love to publish an illustrated version of The
Dawn-Breakers for children. And I will probably even contact Michael Sours
about it. But, I can tell you that the economics of trying to publish Baha'i
children's books is virtually impossible. They really have to be subsidized
by the community, because there is absolutely no way to make money (or even
break even) on them. GR, Kalimat, and even the BPT in Wilmette have all
learned that the hard, hard way.
We did put out the children's stories about 'Abdu'l-Baha a few years
back. Well, now quite a few years back. Though I can't afford to keep them
in print any more. There are still some available, though. Do your kids
like those? Or are they sick to death of them by now? Mine certainly are.
Other than that, good illustrated books for Baha'i children are slim
pickin's, and Baha'i parents are reduced to reading their children Bible
stories at night. Sigh.
Tony
From Member1700@aol.comFri Sep 29 15:51:02 1995
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 13:39:29 -0400
From: Member1700@aol.com
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: An Open Judicial Process
Bravo, Linda! Or is it brava?
Anyway, I couldn't agree more. I do not think that secret trials are
anything that we should be endorsing or striving for in a future world.
Every democratic judicial system in the world operates in the full light of
day, and none of them seem to feel that their institutions are being
undermined by public scrutiny. Quite the contrary.
Now, there is another legacy of secret trials where the accused has no
rights (Sound familiar?), the proceedings are confidential, and so is the
outcome. Also, the public is supposed to accept the results of all trials as
just and wise, and not try to second guess the authorities--on pain of
sanctions. But that tradition of justice does have a rather ugly history,
now doesn't it?
Just which tradition of justice do Baha'is think they want to identify
themselves with?
Tony
From dan_orey@qmbridge.ccs.csus.eduFri Sep 29 15:51:49 1995
Date: 29 Sep 95 11:21:07 U
From: Dan Orey
To: burlb@bmi.net, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Gotta Crash Pad?
Reply to: RE>Gotta Crash Pad?
Burl Honey, As the resident member of the 10% club on our cyber campus, and
as a fellow admirer of "Priscilla Queen of the Desert", I had to make a comment
about Burl's latest.... "Barely Maninuff" slur! Tho I do not even have half
the nose for the position, nor access to his "taste" (ugh) in finery or music,
nor desire to accessorise, I do resemble this comment, and tho I did suggest
that we not use our name tags for the first get together, you will not
necessarily recognize me in that I do not wear fur, low cut dresses, and I have
always found heals to be very uncomnfortable (weak ankles) .....barely maninuf,
harumph - Daniel "we'll just see who can dress for
success" Orey, Sacramento - which is not even close to being the fashion
capital of the world, tho the republican ladies downtown try very hard with
their hair....
From richs@microsoft.comFri Sep 29 15:52:21 1995
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 95 10:51:22 PDT
From: Rick Schaut
To: netmail! , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: RE: institutions and peyote
Dear Linda and Friends,
>From:
>Rick, I wish that I could agree with you about not second guessing our
>"wonderful" institutions. Many of us did not become Baha'is so that we could
>turn off our minds and allow the Big Guys to take over for us. We
thought that
>we were all a part of the growth and development of this religion.
I believe the word I used was "beloved". That's more than just a simple
semantic translation. It implies a completely different attitude about
their decisions, growth and development--an attitude which is 180
degrees different from the attitudes of mistrust and self-guardedness
which prevail in present society.
Far from requiring us to shut our minds off, it requires us to spend time
thinking about the real validity of our gut-level reactions to what these
institutions do. To paraphrase Peter Kahn in his recent talk given in
Wilmette, any idiot can love an institution which is perceived to be
functioning well. The challenge, the real test, is to love an institution
which we believe is _not_ functioning well.
These are nascent institutions. They require nuturing as much as
any child would require. By loving them, and acting out of that
attitude of absolute, unconditional love, we can help them to grow.
If we criticize them, if we scoff at them, how are they to grow and
develop?
If we find ourselves wanting to rush out an picket the Hazirat'u'l Quds,
and I can, truly, identify with this feeling, we _know_ we have the wrong
attitude. At that point, it's time to stop and think.
Warmest Regards,
Rick Schaut
From richs@microsoft.comFri Sep 29 15:52:31 1995
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 95 11:16:17 PDT
From: Rick Schaut
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: An Open Judicial Process
Dear Friends,
>From:
> Just which tradition of justice do Baha'is think they want to identify
>themselves with?
How about a tradition of justice which follows the principles of
Baha'i Administration, the guidance of Shoghi Effendi and the
Covenant of Baha'u'llah?
Just a thought...
Warmest Regards,
Rick Schaut
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comFri Sep 29 15:52:53 1995
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 12:35:03 -0700
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu.I.noticed.sadly.the.remarks.by.'former'.Mystic.Langness.that.several
Subject: ABS and my Friend Burl's Tabble Manners
have indicated Burl had to mind his P's and Q's at ABS . Mountain folk
have a bit of a problem following you flatlanders ideas about
manners.As I previously posted Burl has his Diploma from Miss Mildred's
College of Young Mens Etiquitte and Manners , in fact modest chap he is
he never mentioned it was with honours . Few of us can claim to have
such a bit of paper. Now Burl is having problems with Britt over the
noblity of his intentions of coming to ABS.
I feel we should offer some suggestions over how to Burl can overcome
his situation.
1; He could take the Advanced short course at Miss Mildred's.that
covers things like shoe polishing in public , drinking tea out of a
saucer , how to deal with tummy rumbles , when to throw a bun and why ,
singing at Barry Manelow Concerts , cracking walnuts with your wisdom
teeth and wearing bright yellow and pink ties .
2; He could tell Britt that he will be staying with her on the Astral
plane but be with us physically.
3; Try the I am on a quest to find myself dear ploy.
4; Ask Rick to send him the Beth manual on public Manners , then he
could say this was the perfect chance to try it out.
5; Tell her he is actually a CIA agent and his country needs him
excuse.
6; Or he could promise to wash the Windows , do the Washing and Ironing
for a month if she lets him come.
7; Everybody on Talisman could E'mail Britt begging her to let Burl
come and play with us.
I think the last one is the Best myself.So Burl what do you think?
Kindest Regards Derek Cockshut
From S.N.Lambden@newcastle.ac.ukSat Sep 30 11:29:23 1995
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 20:52:34 +0100
From: Stephen Lambden
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Surah of Joseph
[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]
I was horrified and roused out of medically induced occultation
this evening when I received the rather garbled version of my earlier
posting (Thu, 27 Jul 1995) of the first sura of the Bab's *Qayyum al-asma*.
My Eudora 2.04 email package (commercial Mac version) includes a mail
transliteration feature but I must have done something wrong. Sorry that it
was'nt received in tact by everybody. I am posting it again devoid of full
transliteration. Soon I aill also post a very basic supplementary note on
the interpretation of the story of Joseph -- written for a UK Baha'i a
month or two ago.
Anyhow, I hope this does not go the way of my attempted posting on
the issue of the (so-called) `Imaginary Twelth Imam'. Just lately I have
again felt compelled to cut down on the volume of personal and other
emails. Erelong, I hope to post more of the suras of the *Qayyum al-asma*;
on the Divine Maiden, the Disconnected Letters; various provisional
translations and a complete translation of the *Khutba
al-Tutunjiya/Tatanjiya* ("Sermon of the Gulf") (spellings vary and are
uncertain) of Imam `Ali as requested by Moojan. Apologies also to those
friends whose correspondence has not been answered or been long delayed.
The situation with respect to BSB reprints and *Abha: A Journal of
Babi-Baha'i Studies* will also be clarified again.
Beloved Talismanians,
The 150th anniversary of the declaration of the Bab was celebrated
a short time ago.. It is sad that the initiatory divine revelation has
never been fully translated or made available -- until now! For some time
now I have been thinking of posting on Talisman my slightly revised 1986
completed provisional translation of the first sura (= Surat al-mulk, "The
Sura of the Dominion") of the Qayyum al-asma' ( = QA; mid 1844) of the Bab
-- those parts of this sura translated in SWB (authorized trans.) have been
worked in. It was believed to have been on the night of his declaration
that the Bab revealed this first sura before Mulla Husayn, the first
believer and `Letter of the Living'. This first sura contains 40 verses
which are indicated in square brackets.
In making this provisional translation I consulted various mss
including Browne F.11 (1891) and a mss dated 1323/1905-6 which seems to be
a copy of the very early mss dated 1261 (now Haifa IBA vi) in the hand of
Muhammad Mahdi ibn Karbala'i Shah Karam -- itself subsequently consulted.
If any of the learned Arabists on Talisman could point out errors I would
be very grateful.
Last time the declaration of the Bab was celebrated in Newcastle
(UK) I gave a talk about this first sura of the QA and had some of it read
in Arabic. Those present were fascinated to hear the words -- in Arabic and
English -- that the Bab first communicated to Mulla Husayn and which
inaugurated a new religious cycle.
* Provisional Translation *
I
The Sura of the Dominion (Surat al-Mulk)
In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate.
[1] "ALL praise be to God Who hath, through the power of truth, sent down
this Book unto His servant, [the Bab] that it may serve as a shining light
for all mankind [SWB:41]." [2] This, in truth, in the estimation of God, is
the Exalted Path. It verily, stretcheth upright according to the truth
established in the Mother Book. And He is, in the Mother Book which is
before Us, assuredly one Exalted; one according to the Most Great Truth,
reckoned wise on the part of the All-Merciful. [3] He is the True One from
God according to the pure religion inscribed in the Mother Book in the
vicinity of the Mount (al-tur [Sinai]). [4] Verily, this is none other than
the sovereign Truth. "It is the Path of God (sirat Allah) which God hath
laid out for all that are in heaven and on earth. Let him then who will,
take for himself the right path unto his Lord. [5] Verily this is the true
Faith of God. And sufficient witness are God and such as are endowed with
the knowledge of the Book. [6] This is indeed the eternal Truth which God,
the Ancient of Days, hath revealed unto His Omnipotent Word (al-kalimat
al-akbar, lit. `Greatest Word'] -- He Who hath been raised up from the
midst of the Burning Bush (al-nar; lit. [Sinaitic] fire). [7] This is the
Mystery (al-sirr) which hath been hidden from all that are in heaven and on
earth, and, in this wondrous Revelation [lit. `according to the wondrous
Command' (al-amr al-badi`) it hath, in very truth, been set forth in the
Mother Book by the hand of God, the Exalted [SWB:41]."
[8] God, verily, hath decreed that this Book be divulged in interpretation
(tafsir) of the "Best of Stories" (ahsan al-qasas, see Qur'án 12:3) on the
part of Muhammad [= the occulted 12th Imam] son of Hasan [al-`Askari, 11th
Imam, d. c. 260/874] son of `Ali [al-Hadi, 10th Imam, d. c. 254/868] son of
Muhammad [al-Taqi, 9th Imam, d.c. 220/835] son of `Ali [al-Rida', 8th Imam,
d.c. 203/818] son of Musa [al-Kazim, 7th Imam, d.c. 183/799] son of Ja`far
[al-Sadiq, 6th Imam, d.c. 148/765] son of Muhammad [al-Baqir, 5th Imam,
d.c. 120/738?] son of `Ali [Zayn al-`Abidin, 4th Imám, d.c. 95/713] son of
Husayn [3rd Imam, d.c. 61/680] son of `Ali ibn Abi Talib [1st Imam, d.c.
40/661] unto His servant [= the Bab, d. 1266/1850] to the end that it might
be an eloquent Proof of God (Hujjat Allah) from the Remembrance (al-dhikr)
unto all the worlds. [9] God beareth witness as if through the testimony of
His own Self. He, verily, is the True One; no God is there except Him. So
too the angels (al-mala'ika) and the possessors of knowledge (ulu al-`ilm)
standing, as accords with justice, upright about the Remembrance
(al-dhikr); no God is there except Him. And God knoweth all things.
[10] The pure religion of this Remembrance (al-dhikr) is faultless (salim).
Whomsoever desireth [to identify with the true] Islam let such an one be
submissive unto this Command; for such shall God accord the status of
Muslim in the Holy Book (kitab al-abrar) according to the pure religion
worthy of praise [see Qur'an 3:18-19]. [12] And whomsoever disbelieveth in
Islam shall not have his deeds accepted by God on the Day of Resurrection;
not the least thing, as befits the Truth shall, in any way be accepted.
[13] Fitting it is that God burn him in the wondrous fire of God according
to the decree of the Book, sealed by the decree of the Gate (al-bab). [13]
There is none other God except Him; and God is acutely aware of the
believers. [14] There is none other God except Him; and God beareth witness
unto the believers. [15] There is none other God except Him; and God is
knowledgeable about the believers. [16] God, there is none other God except
Him. And God ['s knowledge] encompasseth all the worlds. [17] God will not
accept from anyone any deed except that from one who arriveth at the Gate
through the Gate (al-bab bi'l-bab), prostrate before God, the Ancient,
praiseworthy in the vicinity of the Gate (al-bab). [18] God hath, in very
truth given thee permission [to accomplish this]. So be prostrate and draw
nigh! for the [Sinaitic] Fire (al-nár) in the Point of Water (nuqtat
al-ma') is prostrate upon the earth before God, the True One, in very truth
made manifest.
[19]"O concourse of kings and of the sons of kings! Lay aside, one and all
[in truth, as befits the Truth], your dominion which belongeth unto God
[SWB:41]."
[20] "O king of Islam [lit. `king of the Muslims]! Aid thou, with the
truth, after having aided the Book, Him Who is Our Most Great Remembrance
(dhikrina al-akbar), for God hath, in very truth, destined for thee, and
for such as circle round thee, on the Day of Resurrection, a responsible
position in His Path [SWB:41]."
[21] "I swear by God, O Sháh [lit. O thou king]! By God! If thou showest
enmity unto Him Who is His Remembrance (al-dhikr), God will, on the Day of
Resurrection, condemn thee, before the kings, unto hell-fire, and thou
shalt not, in very truth, find on that Day any helper except God, the
Exalted. [22] Purge thou, O Sháh, the Sacred Land (al-ard al-muqaddasa)
from such as have repudiated the Book, ere the day whereon the Remembrance
of God (al-dhikr) cometh, terribly and of a sudden, with His potent Cause,
by the leave of God, the Most High. [23] God, verily, hath prescribed to
thee to submit unto Him Who is His Remembrance (al-dhikr), and unto His
Cause, and to subdue, with the truth and by His leave, the countries, for
in this world thou hast been mercifully invested with sovereignty, and
wilt, in the next, dwell, nigh unto the Seat of Holiness, with the inmates
of the Paradise of His good pleasure (jannat al-ridwan lit. `Garden of
Ridwán') [SWB:41-2]."
[24] "Let not thy sovereignty deceive thee, O Shah, for `every soul shall
taste of death,' [Q.3:182] and this, in very truth, hath been written down
as a decree of God [SWB:41]." [25] "Be thou content with the commandment of
God, the True One, inasmuch as sovereignty, as recorded in the Mother Book
by the hand of God, is surely invested in Him Who is the Remembrance (al-
dhikr) [SWB:42]."
[26] And [O kings!] give aid towards victory before God through thine own
selves and thy swords in the shade of the Most Great Remembrance (al-dhikr
al-akbar), for the sake of this pure religion which is, in very truth,
mighty.
[27] "O Minister of the Shah [lit. King]! Fear thou God, besides Whom there
is none other God but Him, the Sovereign Truth, the Just, and lay aside thy
dominion, for We, by the leave of God, the All Wise, inherit the earth and
all who are upon it [cf. Q.19:41], and He shall rightfully be a witness
unto thee and unto the Shah [lit. king]. [28] Were ye to obey the
Remembrance of God (al-dhikr) with absolute sincerity, We guarantee, by the
leave of God, that on the Day of Resurrection, a vast dominion shall be
yours in the eternal Paradise (lit. `Garden of Eden' jannat al-`adn). [29]
Vain indeed is your dominion, [O kings!], for God hath set aside earthly
possessions for such as have denied Him; for unto Him Who is your Lord
(lit. `Master') shall be the most excellent abode (lit. `is the best
return' hasan al-ma'ab), He Who is, in truth, the Ancient of Days
[SWB:42-3]." [30] With Us is an elevated dominion in the Garden of
Eternity (jannat al-khuld) [31] which We bestow upon such as We desire
among Our servants; such, that is, as are [established] in this Gate
(al-bab) by God and, in very truth, an upholder of His verses.
[32] "O concourse of kings! Deliver with truth and in all haste the verses
sent down by Us to the peoples of Turkey and of India, [33] and beyond
them, with power and with truth, to lands in both the East and the West
[SWB:43]."
[34] O servants of the All Merciful! God did not create you or provide for
you except with respect to a Cause which, in very truth, is mighty before
God in the Mother Book. [35] So follow ye that which God hath revealed unto
Us of the decrees of the Gate (al-bab) in this Book, submissive before God
and, in very truth, content with His Cause. [36] "And know that if ye aid
God, He will, on the Day of Resurrection, graciously aid you upon the
Bridge, (al-sirat) through Him Who is His Most Great Remembrance (al-dhikr
al-akbar) [SWB:43]." [37] "By God! If ye do well, to your own behoof will
ye do well; and if ye deny God and His signs [or `verses'], We, in very
truth, can well dispense with all creatures and all earthly dominion
[SWB:42]."
[38] "O people of the earth! Whoso obeyeth the Remembrance of God (dhikr
Allah) and His Book hath in truth obeyed God and His chosen ones and he
will, in the life to come, be reckoned in the presence of God among the
inmates of the Paradise of His good-pleasure (lit. `Garden of Riwan' jannat
al-ridwan) [SWB:43]." [39] We, verily, have set the mountains on earth in
motion as well as the stars above the [heavenly] Throne in the vicinity of
the [Sinaitic] Fire (al-nar) in the Pivot of Water (qutb al-ma'), this by
virtue of the Remembrance (al-dhikr), through God, the True One. Not any
one among you shall be left out [at the time of assembling for judgement;
see Qur'an 18:47f].[40] He is One Wrathful towards His servants. And God is
He Who knoweth all things.
* * * * * * * * *
P.S.
In 1986 I went through a phase of trying to translate one sura of
the QA per day. I finished 14 suras but then had to concentrate on
University teaching, doctoral thesis and various other things. I may now
attempt to do this again. A sura a day keeps the doctor away! I hopr to
publish an essay about the QA along with a provisional translation of the
first 10 suras in a forthcoming issue of the BSB.
Stephen N. Lambden
44 Queens Road, Jesmond,
Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 2PQ
England. U.K.
Voice/Fax. +44 [0] 91. 2818597
Email S.N.Lambden@ncl.ac.uk
From rvh3@columbia.eduSat Sep 30 11:29:55 1995
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 15:59:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: Richard Vernon Hollinger
To: Rick Schaut
Cc: netmail! , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: RE: institutions and peyote
On Fri, 29 Sep 1995, Rick Schaut wrote:
> These are nascent institutions. They require nuturing as much as
> any child would require. By loving them, and acting out of that
> attitude of absolute, unconditional love, we can help them to grow.
> If we criticize them, if we scoff at them, how are they to grow and
> develop?
I think you have an important point, but there is also a significant
problem with this analogy. The institutions that may not be functioning
well are centers of power in the community. They are not analagous to
children, they are analagous to parents. That may not change the
appropraite response when they are not functioning properly, but it
certainly does change the description of the situation. Children can
hurt their parents with their criticisms, it is true, but parents are
capable of hurting their children far more.
Richard Hollinger
From margreet@margreet.seanet.comSat Sep 30 11:30:33 1995
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 13:08:02 -0700
From: "Marguerite K. Gipson"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: UHJ goal on simplified Writings
Howdy from wet, soggy Pacific Northwest... the other side of the mountains
from our infamous Burl.... Thank you God! J/K. I am a great fan of his,
knowing him from just after his declaration.... Burl, tell us how you
married your wonderful Britt.....
Now my point...
When I was on pilgrimmage in 1985, I asked the question to Dr. David Ruhe
regarding the messages from the Universal House of Justice, and the level of
education needed sometimes to fully understand the words. Sometimes I have
to sit with a dictionary to decipher all the words.... and I am college
educated...(and about to become very street wise). I was asking for a
simpler version of their messages since most of the world does not have the
education background necessary. His reply was something to the effect that
we the people have to bring up our level of understanding to their level,
not the other way around. I understand it to be bringing about a level of
spiritual maturity and knowledge in raising it to that level.
However, like in Burl's case, I see no problem with someone wanting to
simplify prayers and such for challenged individuals, just the body is
challenged, not the soul. I have met his child, and he is very precious.
And it was pointed out the even if the mind/brain does not understand, the
soul does.
And one more thing.... I wish I could be at the ABS conference in SF...
Sounds like a rip-snorting good time..... dang!
Margreet
At 06:32 PM 9/28/95 -0400, Ahang Rabbani wrote:
>On page 3, of "The Major Objectives" documents, the House gives the
>following goal:
>
> "Produce simplified versions of the Sacred Scriptures, the
> writings of the Guardian and the statements of the
> Universal House of Justice."
>
>Also, if memory serves, at the conclusion of the Seven Year Plan,
>we sent you from the World Centre a substantial booklet that
>detailed the achievements of the Seven Year Plan -- you will find
>references to production of simplified Writings in Africa in that
>booklet.
>
>As to your experience, which I'm sorry to learn, I can only say
>that perhaps the particular approach taken did not meet with the
>approval of the House. For example, I remember when Mary Hardy
>simplified the Peace Statement, it was received very
>enthusiastically where a number of previous efforts were
>discourage.
>
>So, let's not give up. Not everyone in the world is a college
>grad. We owe it to the masses.
>
>All the best, ahang.
>
From richs@microsoft.comSat Sep 30 11:30:57 1995
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 95 12:54:57 PDT
From: Rick Schaut
To: owner-talisman@indiana.edu, Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: An Open Judicial Process
I wrote:
>How about a tradition of justice which follows the principles of
>Baha'i Administration, the guidance of Shoghi Effendi and the
>Covenant of Baha'u'llah?
I should clarify this a bit. I don't intend to quash discussion of
the issues. My suggestion is that we base our understanding
of Justice in Baha'i Administration on the Covenant and the
guidance of the leading institutions of our Faith. If we think
that the handling of specific cases should be open to criticism,
then we should base this notion on a well-grounded
understanding of the Writings of the Faith, and on _nothing_
else.
Warmest Regards,
Rick Schaut
From richs@microsoft.comSat Sep 30 11:31:31 1995
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 95 13:30:25 PDT
From: Rick Schaut
To: rvh3@columbia.edu
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: RE: institutions and peyote
Dear Richard and Friends,
>From: Richard Vernon Hollinger
>I think you have an important point, but there is also a significant
>problem with this analogy. The institutions that may not be functioning
>well are centers of power in the community. They are not analagous to
>children, they are analagous to parents.
This may be an outcropping of my general "what can I do"
attitude vs. an attitude of "what should the institutions do" attitude.
There is, certainly, a co-nurturing relationship between
individuals and institutions. While it is appropriate to note that
institutions should adopt a nurturing attitude, I, personally, can't
do much about that unless I'm serving on an institution.
Regardless of what the institutions might do, I still am bound by
my half of that co-nurturing relationship. In a sense, I have to take
on a parent's role if an institution isn't functioning properly. I think
it would be inappropriate for me to assume the role of a rebelious
child in response to _anything_ an institution might say or do.
So, the parent-child relationship describes the nurturing
attitude that people in each position, be that as an individual or
as a member of an institution, should adopt in their dealings
with people in the other position.
Lastly, as we explore this notion of nurturing institutions to higher
levels of functionality, it's important to remember that individuals
are not alone. The institutions of the learned stand ready to advise,
inspire and guide all of us in our endeavors. It is their job, and we
should do everything in our power to help them do that job.
Warmest Regards,
Rick Schaut
From PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.eduSat Sep 30 11:33:43 1995
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 14:33:02 PST8PDT
From: "Eric D. Pierce"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: report from Arizona, was: RE: institutions and peyote
Hi,
Please see the appended private message from one of the friends
that is peripheral to, but somewhat familiar with the specific
situation. This friend has had a *lot* of social and work related
contact with both Baha'i and non-Baha'i Native Americans, and
is unusual: became a Baha'i after being taught by Native American
Baha'is.
The topic of "recreational" use vs. "medicinal use" is obviously
a very thorny one and I was reminded of some stories I have heard
that bear on the ~most challenging issue~ and the need for
administrative sensitivity about cultural issues.
Seem that a central issue is: whose cultural definition of
"medicinal use" dominates? Can the institutions insist that
indigenous Baha'is who follow tribal traditions accept the
non-native society's definition? If not, what sort of chaos can
we expect as various claims are put forward about why certain
groups should be exempt from rules?
If either side decides to draw a line in the sand and dare the
other side to cross it, this stuff is going to blow up in the
community's face (or has it already happened?).
I have a feeling that due to the broader problems between Native
American Baha'is and the general community/administration, this
peyote thing isn't going to be easy to deal with.
Boo Hoo,
EP
> Date sent: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 15:59:56 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Richard Vernon Hollinger
> To: Rick Schaut
> Copies to: netmail! , talisman@indiana.edu
> Subject: RE: institutions and peyote
...snip
> problem with this analogy. The institutions that may not be functioning
> well are centers of power in the community. They are not analagous to
> children, they are analagous to parents. That may not change the
> appropraite response when they are not functioning properly, but it
> certainly does change the description of the situation. Children can
> hurt their parents with their criticisms, it is true, but parents are
> capable of hurting their children far more.
>
> Richard Hollinger
>
>
*********** Appended Text ***********
:
: Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 12:53:25 -0700 (MST)
: From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
: Subject: Re: Franklin Kahn's Rights
: To: PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.edu
:
:
: Eric:
: Anything I can tell you is _purely_ hearsay. First of all I'd
: lie to say that if peyote is used medicinally per the F. Kahn
: email. That is, I'd like to say. That seems different than
: 'recreational' peyote use. Of course, someone doing sweats and
: administering peyote, or someone participating in a Native
: American Church healing will tell you that they are all healing
: and medicinal. There has been an ongoing debate regarding peyote
: use by Navajo and other Baha'is for years. All I ever heard was
: the Kahns lost their voting rights. Nobody knew any underlying
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: facts except it had to do with peyote and disagreement over
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: administrative issues.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:
: We've had literally nothihing to do with NABI and that part of
: the world since 1991. Its criminal too. We worked a lot with
: the Kahns, and had contact with wonderful people because
: of that friendship. This is all I know.
:
: --
: xxxxxxxxxxxxx
: xxxxxxxxxxxxx
: Phoenix, AZ xxxxx
: (xxx) xxx-xxxx
:
From TLCULHANE@aol.comSat Sep 30 11:35:28 1995
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 18:51:57 -0400
From: TLCULHANE@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Pluralism and Covenants
Dear Friends ,
I have a couple of non -rhetorical questions and speculations with
regard to Chris's recent post on pluralism and the Guardians comments in WOB
P. 57-58 and Rick's comments about judicial systems and what he referred to
as the "Covenant of Baha'u'lllah".
First pluralism .
Is the Guardian really describing a situation of puralism here ?
Perhaps my difficulty is in how I understand puralism . As I understand
pluralism there are a number of equally valid but non dominant systems ,
communities etc. So far so good . What is usually left out is an underlying
*system * which integrates the plurality of communities . It seems to me the
Guardian assumes that the Faith of Baha'u'llah is that underlying *system *
which validates and integrates the truths of plurality . When I consider the
statement from WOB p57-58 with WOB p114 in the *Dispensation* letter ." It
regards them in no other light except as different stages in the eternal
history and constant evolution of one religion , Divine and indivisible if
which itself forms but an integral part . " and then from the *Unfoldment*
letter p. 163 " The Revelation of Baha'u'llah . . .should be viewed not
merely as yet another revival in the ever -changing fortunes of mankind, not
only as a further stage in a chain of progressive revelations, nor even as
the culmination of one of a series of recurrent prophetic cycles, but marking
the last and highest stage of man's collective life on this planet ."
These two statements dont exhaust the possibilities but they seem
representative of a a pattern in the Guardians thought which seems different
to me than pluralism. Maybe I am answering my own question by noting I think
there is a difference between the Revelation of Baha'u llah and the Bahai
Community.
My second question is related to Rick Schaut's reference to judicial
systems and which kind we should want in response to a question posed by Tony
. This is another non-rhetorical question . What exactly do you mean when
you say the "Covenant of Baha'u'llah" with respect to a judicial process ? I
know we use this word a lot . I must confess it has come to have little
meaning for me because it is used in so many contexts and so many ways I no
longer know what is being referenced . Perhaps we could discuss this calmly
and in a spirit of search for truth to help me understand what Baha'is mean
when they say * Covenant*. I have some sense of this with respect to Judaic
meaning of that term ; I have a sense of what the Puritans meant by it with
their distinction between a "covenant of grace" and a " covenant of
redemption". I just dont know anymore what we mean as Baha'i's when we say it
From burlb@bmi.netSat Sep 30 11:38:14 1995
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 95 16:19 PDT
From: Burl Barer
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Cat Gives Life for ABS
My dear cat, Katmandu -- since the surgery he was more accurately described
as Katmankant -- was euthenized (killed by lethal injection) at 2:30 this
afternoon. I brought him home and buried his still warm body in the back
yard. I had that cat for 14 years and, despite his repugnant personality,
I had grown rather attatched to him. But he gave his life for a good cause
-- the ABS. You see, he had run up a vet bill of over $263.00 in just the
past 3 days and was not getting much better, poor thing. He was not a happy
cat. Were I to prolong his earthly life (the only one he had), he might have
lived a while longer, but the cost of keeping that old thing alive was
becoming prohibitive. So...we nuked him and ditched his furry remains,
wrapped in a mini-hefty bag, out behind the garage. I would have said a
prayer, but since he didn't have a soul, why bother?
Well, as you can tell, it touched my heart and squeezed my tear ducts to
shovel that dirt on his curled up little cat body. Britt, sensing my
sadness, changed the subject. "What about the ABS thing in S.F."
"Oh," said I, sniffing weepily, "Juan Ricardo Cole says I can crash in his
room and the airfare is dirt cheap if I drive to Seattle the night before.
In fact, it costs less to fly to SF than it does to KILL YOUR PET CAT!"
Guess what? I get to go to the ABS! YAY!
Britt thinks its good that I'm rooming with Juan because he can tell me to
behave myself in more than one language and is smart enough to know that I
don't really have any leather clad 16 year old twins as long lost cousins.
So, if your coming to San Francisco, you're sure to meet some gentle people
there. And one smarty-pants author hawking his book in the hallways. :-)
Burl
From momen@northill.demon.co.ukSat Sep 30 11:39:06 1995
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 22:28:44 GMT
From: Wendi and Moojan Momen
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: UHJ goal on simplified Writings
Ahang Rabbani writes:
> On page 3, of "The Major Objectives" documents, the House gives the
> following goal:
>
> "Produce simplified versions of the Sacred Scriptures, the
> writings of the Guardian and the statements of the
> Universal House of Justice."
>
> As to your experience, which I'm sorry to learn, I can only say
> that perhaps the particular approach taken did not meet with the
> approval of the House. For example, I remember when Mary Hardy
> simplified the Peace Statement, it was received very
> enthusiastically where a number of previous efforts were
> discourage.
I understand what you are saying and it was exactly such thoughts that
made me try to do this. But the distinct impression I got from the
response of the World Centre is that simplified versions of the
Scriptures in English was not what they had in made (the Peace
Statement is not scripture). Anyway, I do not want to make a big
production out of this. All I wanted to do is to alert anyone who is
thinking of doing anything along these lines that it may be as well
to seek clarification of is meant before dedicating too much time to
it.
Moojan
--
Wendi and Moojan Momen
momen@northill.demon.co.uk
Tel./Fax: (44) 1767 627626
From momen@northill.demon.co.ukSat Sep 30 11:39:34 1995
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 95 00:26:04
From: Wendi and Moojan Momen
To: talisman@ucs.indiana.edu
Subject: Conference on Baha'i Women's History
Last Sunday there was held in London the official launch of Rob
Weinberg's book on Ethel Rosenberg.
This took the form of a brief meeting at the grave of Ethel followed by
a conference on Baha'i Women's History.
Lil Abdo gave a presentation on the connections between the early
British Baha'i women and such social and religious movements as the
Suffragettes and Theosophy. (Someone was asking Paul Johnson a few
weeks ago about connections between the Theosophists and Baha'is in
England before Abdu'l-Baha's arrival. The answer is that A.P. Sinnett
was a close friend of Lady Blomfield)
Rob Weinberg gave a talk on Ethel herself based on his book
Hilary Freeman made a presentation on Dorothy Baker
Wendi Momen gave a preliminary analysis of women's participation on
Baha'i institutions.
Moojan
--
Wendi and Moojan Momen
momen@northill.demon.co.uk
Tel./Fax: (44) 1767 627626
From friberg@will.brl.ntt.jpSat Sep 30 11:40:49 1995
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 95 10:02:37 JST
From: "Stephen R. Friberg"
To: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: institutions and peyote
Dear Linda:
> Having lived
> on the Navajo Reservation in my youth, I have great appreciation for the
> ceremonials and healing rituals of these people and scoff at anyone - or any
> institution (I'm sorry to offend so many Talismanians by these words) that
> would deprecate such cultural practices. How extraordinarily hypocritical it
> is of any of us to criticize such things.
Scoff on if you enjoy it. But honestly, I don't have the slightest
idea what you are talking about.
Nobody has been depreciating the use of "peyote" in Native-American
medical healing ceremonies on Talisman as far as I can tell, although
there has been some discussion of various rulings from the institutions.
As far as I can tell, peoples main concerns are several: there is
great concern about the privacy of the people involved, and even
greater concern about the spread of rumors on the basis of incorrect
information.
We all must be careful, I believe, not to cause a stir about something
that is not happening.
Yours respectfully,
Stephen R. Friberg
From PXQ00435@niftyserve.or.jpSat Sep 30 11:42:04 1995
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 1995 10:36:00 +0900
From: "K. BABB"
To: TALISMAN@indiana.edu
Subject: ABS CONFERENCE ENVY
For those dear Talismanians who get the chance to pick
up Burl's book MAN OVERBOARD at the ABS conference, you
are in for a real treat. The old agage, "Fact can be stranger
than fiction," is proven beyond a doubt. Had it not been
printed unambiguously on the fly leaf of the jacket that
the book was non-fiction, I would right now be proclaiming
our friend Burl a second-rate novelist, for the twists and turns
are just too coincidental, too fantastic. But this man Phil
Champagne truly did live the life must of us baby-boomers
fantasize about than say with a shrug, "Naw, it only happens in
the movies."
Burl's creativity comes with the telling. The narrative
is guaranteed not to bore. Whereas a man's life is oftentimes
recounted in a straight chronological order, Burl keeps the reader
turning pages with his episodal style, first-hand dialogue from
many of the participants. Indeed, if you are looking for a
scholastic thesis, you are bound for disappointment, there is very
little of the author's voice or comment. The vast past of the
book is dialogue. This is definitely one of the things that makes
the book interesting---don't we all love to peek at other people's
diaries? Our Mr. Barer then connects all of this with brief but
unquestionably clever transitions, frequently through the use of
association.
"I'd heard the story about how a former waitress
named Barb had a wealthy boyfriend build her this
restaurant," explains Robertson. "My friend was
showing me around the bar while my wife, Bobbi,
waited for our table. I walked in, looked around,
and saw a man standing there who looked exactly
like my old friend and client, Phil Champagne. As
I went to approach him, he turned on his heels and
went into a back office. When I returned to Bobbi,
she said I looked as if I had seen a ghost. I told
her I believed I had."
The apparition may have been Mr. Moneybags
to the locals, but he was Mr. Useless around the
restaurant.
"I could see that he couldn't tend bar and
he couldn't cook or wait tables . . ." says Barb. . .
There are even pictures, reproductions of photographs and documents
for those skeptics amongst us.
But it is not a book that you can keep on the nightstand
and pick it up every now and then before dosing off to sleep. It is
a style that demands to be read straight through. And its 182 pages
of easy prose makes that possible; a perfect book to read on a flight,
say from San Franciso to New York . . . ?
Oh, by the way, get Bad Mannered Burl to show you his indirect usage
of a Baha'i prayer!
********************
Rob's paying for dinner? Wish I had known that LAST year! :-}
Well, I guess my heart (and tears) will have be with you all at
table. Derek, try to keep Sherman home, will you?
Love, Kathleen
From dann.may@s-box.misc.uoknor.eduSat Sep 30 11:43:15 1995
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 95 21:33:01 -0500 (CDT)
From: dann.may@s-box.misc.uoknor.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Living BUDDHISM
I would like to respond to the discussion of the so-called death of
Buddhism. First, as a Baha'i of some 20 years, I find of all the other
religions I have studied (and for that matter, taught in university
classes) that Buddhism most attracts my continued interest. I agree with
Bruce that it is a rich, vital and compelling approach to living on this
planet. For instance, whenever I take my students on field trips to the
local Buddhist temple, I also take my thirteen year old daughter, who
always comes away from the experience ready to convert to Buddhism. Her
reasons, the rich, beautiful and profound effect that the various Buddhism
images and sacred objects have upon her. She, as well as I, feel a sense of
the sacred, something that seems to be lacking at the various Baha'i
centers we have visited, and found within the Baha' Faith, only in the
shrines in Haifa.
It is my humble opinion that most Baha'is (myself included) approach other
religions and their development through history in a far too simplistic and
"Baha'i-centric" fashion. At the same time, I find that is always easier to
indentify another culture's use of myths, metaphors, propoganda,
exclusivism, etc., it is almost impossible to see one's own. The issue for
me is not whether Buddhism, or any other tradition, is dead or alive, but
how we interpret and understand its doctrines, terminology and conceptual
system -- especially when we recognized tremendous variation of thought
even within any particular tradition? As Wilfred Cantwell Smith has so
aptly put it, we need to speak not of Christianity, but of the
Christianities, not of Buddhism, but of the Buddhisms, hence his avoidance
of the use of the word "religion" and his use instead of the word
"tradition" in referring to the various ways of approaching the sacred, or
real, or whatever term is currently in vogue.
Warmest greetings, Dann.May@s-box.misc.uoknor.edu
---
* WR 1.31 # 669 * To admit ignorance is to exhibit wisdom. --A. Montagu
From burlb@bmi.netSat Sep 30 11:43:54 1995
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 95 20:10 PDT
From: Burl Barer
To: DEREK COCKSHUT
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Books for Bucks
Dereck said: "I need you to train Christopher Buck in how to sell his book.
poor lad thinks people buy a book on its merits , but you and I know different"
Burl says:
No kidding! If a book sold on the basis of merit, the Kitab-I-Iqan would
be at the top of the New York Times Bestsellers list. The trick to selling
books is charm, grace, affrontery, guile, manipulation, threats, promises,
flirting, begging, and shameless promotion -- in other words, the same way
flash in the pan religious movements gain revolving door adherants. No book
sells on the basis of merit for the simple reason that the merit is not
revealed until the book is read, and the book is not read until after it is
sold. So, the sale comes before any recognition of merit, just as
declaration comes before consecration. Agree to buy the book, read the book,
and if you don't like it....too bad for you; royalty for me. Of course, I
would not write a book unless I believed the act was meritorious. Hence,
anyone who purchases a book written by Burl Barer is assured that the author
believed that what he was doing was meritorious. Then again, the woman who
hit Baha'u'llah in the face with a brick thought what she was doing was
meritorious.
Even though Juan is allowing me to curl up on top of the TV in his room,
this is still a financial sacrifice and therefor I request prayers that the
big shots in Hollywood currently debating about buying movie rights to my
latest book come through with cosmic bucks for yours truely. With fire we
test the gold, and with gold we pay for Burl's credit cards. Hmmmm my
pocketbook is feeling a bit warm...
Burl
>
>
From S.N.Lambden@newcastle.ac.ukSat Sep 30 11:51:46 1995
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 1995 12:33:12 +0100
From: Stephen Lambden
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: JOSEPH IN THE QAYYUM AL-ASMA'
[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]
Hi Talsimanites,
This is a very basic note on the Joseph story in the QA originally written
for a UK Baha'i.
The Joseph story is a narrated in slightly differing forms in both the
Bible (Gen 37ff) and the Qur'án (sura 12). There are also ancient Jewish,
Christian and Islamic elaborations of parts or the whole of the story.The
Quranic version is influenced by extra-Biblical Jewish traditions
expository of the Biblical account.
Babi-Baha'i scripture interprets the Qur'anic version -- or this version as
partly rewritten by the Bab in his lengthy Arabic Qayyum al-asma' ((mid.
1844; loosely translated = "The Self-Subsisting Names" -- possibly alluding
to the promised one as the *Qayyum* or [for Baha'is] the Deity
Self-Subsisting = Baha'u'llah)...
The Qayyum al-asma' (= QA) is in 111 chapters-- each chapter expositoty of
a verse of the Qur'an -- each with 40 verses. Throughout these 111 chapters
only a few verses interpret the Qur'anic Joseph story. This largely by
means of exegetical rewrite. cf. the Jewish Targums. The interpretation is
complex and imamologically oriented- relates to the Twelver Imams -- as
well as having something of a qabbalistic dimension. The role of the the
3rd Imam, Husayn who was expected (like Jesus) to return is particually
important.
The Bab's initial remarks on the Qur'anic story of Joseph are to be found
in the 5th chapter of the QA where the vision of Jospeh is allegorically
interpreted (see Qur'an 12:4f). It is said that by "Joseph" God intended
the spiritual "Reality" or "Self" (nafs) of the Prophet Muhammad and the
"fruit of the womb of the Virgin" (Muhammad's daughter Fatimih), namely,
Imam Husayn. The "sun", the "moon" and the eleven "stars" seen by Joseph (
= Imam Husayn) are Muhammad ("sun"), Fatimih ("moon") and the 11 Imams
("stars").
The Bab's interpretation of the Joseph story in the QA operates on
several levels at once. The interpretation has meaning relative to Shi`i
Islam, the Bab's mission and the advent of the Babi messiah man
yuzhiruhu'llah ("Him Whom God will make manifest" = Baha'u'llah).
There is also a Baha'i interpretation of the story in which Joseph's
initially dire fate and rejection by his brothers relates to the life of
Baha'u'llah and his rejection by his half-brother Mirza Yahya.
A more complex set of notes culled from a forthcoming BSB volume
will follow. The QA is such a wonderful work. It is totally entrancing.
Much more than a `Joseph Commentary' sigbificant though thgis aspect
undoubtedly is.
Stephen N. Lambden
44 Queens Road, Jesmond,
Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 2PQ
England. U.K.
Voice/Fax. +44 [0] 91. 2818597
Email S.N.Lambden@ncl.ac.uk
From S.N.Lambden@newcastle.ac.ukSat Sep 30 11:59:22 1995
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 1995 12:33:58 +0100
From: Stephen Lambden
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: JOSEPH IN THE QA (FROM BSB)
Hi,
I hope my QA sura 1 trans. came across alright this time. There follows a
few notes re: the Bab's interpretation of the Joseph story. This is
complex and multi-faceted; exegetical and eisegetical, typological and
imamological, qabbalistic and quasi-messianic, etc. What follows is an
extract from a forthcoming BSB article.I realize that this material is a
bit complicated. Hope it does not confuse too much. A very basic summary
will follow.
much love, Steve
The Bab's Qayyum al-asma* (= QA) -- not a commentary in the classical
sense of *tafsir* -- contains a great deal which has no direct connection
with the story of Joseph as detailed in the 12th sura of the Qur'an. When,
usually briefly and towards the end of (but by no means all of) the 112
chapters of this work, the Bab turns his attention to the story of Joseph,
he most often rewrites a specific Qur'anic verse (contained in sura 12) in
an abstruse manner and by utilizing a typological and qabbalistic
hermeneutic gives it various levels of meaning. The esoteric significance
which the Bab writes into the Qur'anic story of Joseph partly has to do
with the rank and relationship between the Imams -- in particular Imam
Husayn as an antitype of Joseph --and the position of the Hidden Imam or
Dhikr. On another level, the Joseph story enshrines qabbaliatic mysteries.
The Bab furthermore, finds reference to his own rank and role in the
Qur'anic narrative.
Several levels or dimensions of meaning are thus read into (= eisegesis)
the story of Joseph such that it would seem impossible to extract from the
Bab's multi-dimensional often eisegetical, imamological and
quasi-messsianic "tafsir" a clear cut and single level of meaning.
The following few notes must suffice to give some idea of the Bab's
rewritten treatment of the twelfth sura of the Qur'an.
The Bab's initial remarks on the Qur'anic story of Joseph are found in
the Vth chapter of the QA where the vision of Joseph (see 12:4f) is
allegorically expounded. Among other things, it is asserted that God
intends by Joseph the "Self" (nafs) of the Messenger (= Muammad) and the
"fruit of the [womb of the] Virgin" (thamarat al-batul = Fatima, i.e. Imam
Husayn). The sun, moon and
eleven stars seen by Joseph (= Imam Husayn) in his vision, symbolize
Fatima, Muhammad and the eleven Imams (presumably `Ali --> Hasan al-Askari;
see Q.12:7) who, along with Joseph are also
representative of the 12
letters of the
*kalimat al-tawhid* (= the 12 letters of la ilaha ila Allah ) -- in
chapter VIII (on Q.12;7) the Bab has it that God chose Joseph (= Imam
Husayn) for the letter al-ha' and alludes to his (Imam Husayn's?)
eschatological advent.
Complicated qabbalistic speculations inform the Bab's exegetical
rewrites of Qur'an 12:8f. In the IXth chapter of the QA (on 12:10) the
favoured position of Joseph is related to the exaltedness of a letter
concealed and veiled in mystery (the letter *alif* ( the letter A ) or the
line below the dot of the letter B ?) and the reference to Joseph's
brothers as a " group" (`usbat, in 12:8b) leads the Bab to speak of the
prophet Muhammad (as the *nafs* of God or the letter alif?) being the "
grades" (shu`un) of Joseph (as the alphabetic primogenitor of the other
letters of the alphabet?). Qur'an 12:10 as rewritten by him in QA XI is
related to the fate of Imam Husayn. The spokesman of Joseph's brothers is
not Reuben but Imam Hasan the brother of Imam Husayn who cries out: ` Do
not slay Joseph. Cast him into the depths of the pit of the divine unicity
(jubb al-ahadiya) concealed about the [Siniatic] Fire." Having explained
this the Bab, alluding to Qur'an 12:9, states that God decreed a "caravan"
(siyarat) of travellers for Joseph who, according to a hidden wisdom,
"travel from gate to gate" (min bab ila bab; cf. Q. 12:67 ) in the region
of the Siniatic Fire. They are likened to pilgrims who visit the
(celestial) Husayn and who journey from "the gate (al-bab) unto God in the
abyss of the divine unicity" (lujjat al-ahadiya).
The Qur'anic narrative of the circumstances of Joseph's abandonment by
his jealous brothers is, in QA Xf (on Q.12:9f), related on one level to the
circumstances surrounding the martyrdom of Imam Husayn as detailed in Shi`i
literature. A cosmological and qabbalistic level of meaning is also present
as is a level of application to the rank and role of the Bab himself. In
chapter XI of his commentary the Bab writes:
"God created Joseph and his brothers (= certain letters of the
alphabet?) in sanctified worlds (al-`awalim al-quds) from a dewdrop (or
sprinkling rashh) above a name (ism),from a primordial drop (qatrat
al-ibda') of the (pre-) existent [heavenly] Water [= `cosmic semen'?].
Then, when We caught a fragrance of the Greatest Dhikr, We, with the
permission of God, clothed him in the robe of prophethood..".
In the same chapter of the QA, as well as in chapter XX, the Bab
clearly refers to himself as the one to whom the "caravan of love"
(siyyarat al-hubb) was sent (cf.Q 12: ); as the "Arabian Youth" (al-fati
al-`arabi) concealed in the depths of the pit (al-jubb) of the Siniatic
Fire.
A good example of the Bab's rewritten exegetical ("midrashic") style,
is his treatment of Qur'an 12:31 in QA
chapter XXXII (fol.52b-53a). Here
it is not that Zulaikha arranges a banquet at which the angelic beauty of
Joseph is disclosed to her lady friends, but a prefigurement of the courage
and love of Zaynab (the sister of Imam Husayn) who asks her brother to
disclose his celestial glory. On another level the same verse alludes to a
banquet on the "crimson heights" at which "green knives" are dispensed (for
the annihilation of the lower self?) and at which (?) God will bid the
hidden Imam disclose his beauty unto the creatures.
In such manner does the Bab allude to his imminent eschatological
disclosure of the hidden Imam and to his own role as his mouthpiece. In QA
XXXIII (on Q.12:32) it is the ladies of the "city of oneness" (madinat
al-ahadiya) who cut their hands (see Q. 12:31) as a result of the
spiritual
"beauty" of the Bab.
Commenting on Q. 12:33 in QA XXXIV (fol. 56a-b) the Bab puts the words
of Joseph into the mouth of Husayn who, he teaches, cried out on the night
of his martyrdom, "This prison is more beloved to me than that to which you
invite me". The two youths imprisioned with Joseph according to Q. 13:36f
(the king's cupbearer and baker) are, on one level, interpreted in QA
XXXVIIf. (fol. 69af)
as types of the believer (= the cupbearer) and the unbeliever (= the baker)
in the Dhikr (= the Bab or the Hidden Imam). The latter, among other
things, is also identified with the "full camel's load" of grain (Q.12:65;
QA. LXVI fol.115a) and symbolically associated with the king's goblet
(siqayat) hidden in the sack of Benjamin (see Q.12:70; QA LXXI.fol.125b).
In the light of the Bab's role as "gate" to the hidden Imam, it is of
interest that the Bab identifies himself with the "brother of Joseph" (=
Benjamin) mentioned in Qur'an 12:87 (in QA LXVIII.fol.152bf) and rewrites
Qur'an 12:67 in the following manner
(in QA. LXVIII.fol.119 ):
"O People of the earth! Do not enter the gates (al-abwab) by one [and
the same/or any] gate (bab ). But enter every gate (kull al-abwab) through
this gate (al-bab = the Bab himself)..".
Of similar import is the following version of Qur'an 12:90 (in
QA.XC.fol.158b) in which talismanic terminology is utilized with a view to
expressing the intimate relationship between the Bab and the hidden Imam:
" O Qurrat al-`Ayn! [= Imam Husayn or the hidden Imam?]. The people of
the realm of Unknowing (al-`ama') will say: `Art thou indeed the Joseph of
the divine onenes (yusuf al-ahadiya)?" Say:`Yea, By my Lord! I am the
fourfold form (shakl al-rub`) in the Joseph of origination (yusuf al-bad`)
and this is my brother, the threefold form (shakl al-thulth) in the shape
of finality (? surat al- khatm = the Bab?). God hath graciously bestowed
upon me [= the Bab?) the double mystery (al-sirrayn) in the two
[Siniatic] Mounts (al- turayn) and the dual names (al-ismayn) in the two
luminaries (al-nayyirayn). God will not suffer the reward of such righteous
ones as believe in the Bab and are steadfast in the Book to be lost, even,
in very truth, to the extent of a speck on a date stone."
In certain of his works and letters written after the QA the Bab gives
yet further dimensions of meaning to Qur'anic texts and traditions
(ahadith) in which Joseph is mentioned. When he claimed to be the Qa'im he
identified himself with the true Joseph.
In a qabbalistic-talismanic and SinaiticIn context in QA sura 91 the
Bab is addressed as follows,
O Qurrat al-`Ayn! Thou [= the Bab], verily, wast concealed in the
Jesus-like Word (al-kalimat al-`isawiyun) in the Injil ("Gospel") and the
Zabur ("Psalms") according to the form of the "Glorification" (`ala surat
al-tasbih = "Subhan Allah"). Say: `I am the triangular (`threefold',
muthallath) form [= `Ali?] which was written down quadrangular
(`fourfold', murabba` = Husayn?) in the sanctum of the Divine Cloud (fi'l
quds al-`ama'; cf. the hidden Imam Husayn = Joseph?). And I, verily, am the
inaccessible Name (al-ism al-mani`) which was made single in the Point of
Fire (nuqtat al-nar = the Point beneath the ba'?)...".
While Jesus is the "Word" of the Qur'an, the Bab is the "Jesus-like
Word" of the QA. The "Jesus-like Word" here probably has a deep qabbalistic
meaning relating to the Bab and his claims and to the mystery of the
"Greatest Name" (on one level = Allah; cf. the name `Ali and its
constituent letters?) which the expected Qa'im is to divulge.
In QA 90 the Bab claims Divinity and states "I, verily, created
Gardens for the people of love (ahl al-muabbat) from my Word (kalimati)
which, in very truth, is this `Alid, Arabian Youth..."
In certain writings of the Bab the word *qayyum* [loosely,
`self-subsisting'] synomyous with Qa'im (see for example, Letter of the Bab
to Hajji Mirza Sayyid `Ali, in INBAMC 58:176). The words Yusuf (Joseph) and
Qayyum (`Self-Subsisting') have the same numerical (abjad) value, i.e. 156.
As the return of Husayn (see for example Persian Bayan VII:1;IV:4,5, cf.
Dala'il-i sab`a (Per.), 49) the Bab is also the Divine/Self-Subsisting
Joseph.
*Joseph = Husayn= Qayyum = Man yuhiruhu Allah
The Bab equates Joseph with the Imam Husayn. This in the light of his
belief in his imminent eschatological "return" (raj`a) and his role as the
"gate" (bab) to the hidden Imam. Subsequent to his transference to
Adhirbayjan he claimed to be both the Mahdi-Qa'im and the Divine-Joseph
(qayyum-
yusuf). Towards the end of his ministry, he furthermore, came to see
Joseph as a type of the Babi messiah *man yuhiruhu'llah* ("He whom God
shall make manifest") whom he, in his *Kitab al-asma'* ("Book of Names")
(1849-50) refers to as "all-glorious Joseph" (yusuf al-baha'). The
reference is in that section of the*Kitab al-asma'* commenting upon the
name of God *al-Bashir* ("the Herald"). There mention is made to the robe
or garment of the Joseph of Baha'. This pasage has been interpreted by
Ishraq Khavari relative to
Baha'u'llah as the Babi messiah figure *man yuhiruhu'llah * (see Ishraq
Khavaria, QI 4:1870ff) -- note the use of the word bashiar ("bearer/herald
of good tidings") in Q.12:93 where the episodeof Joseph's garment being
placed on the face of the patriach Jacob/Israel restoring his vision --
"But when the bearer of good tidings [bashir] came to him, and laid it [the
qamis, "robe\garment") on his [Jacob's] face [wajhihi], forthwith he saw
once again..". It is this Qur'anic verse which lies behind the Bab's
exegetical rewrite of it in the K. al-asma';
"Hearken! Then take ye firm hold of the garment of the Joseph of Baha'
(qamis yusif al-baha') from the hand of His Exalted, Transcendent Herald of
Glad Tidings (mubashshirihi al-`ali al-a`la). And place it upon thy head in
order that thou might recover thy sight (or `be endowed with insight' ) and
discover thyself truly aware." (text as cited in QI 4:1875).
This later quasi-eschatological level of the Bab's interpretation of
the story of Joseph has, by Baha'ias, been read back into the QA.
At least three chronologically successive, typologically oriented
interpretations of the Joseph story can thus be found in the Bab's
writings;
1) An interpretation in which Joseph = Imam Husayn (and the Arabic
letter al-ha') and the Bab, the Dhikr, etc. This is dominant in the QA (see
for example QA chapters V.,XXXII., XXXIV and XC).
2) An interpretation in which Joseph is identified with the Bab
himself as the imprisoned Qa'im and,
3) An interpretation in which Joseph = man yuhiruhu'llah the Babi
messiah figure -- in one sense of returned Imam Husayn -- "Jacob" being
the Babis who long to attain his presence.
These chronologically sucessive levels of interpretation are
characteristic of the Bab's treatment of other Qur'anic texts and relate to
the gradual evolution of the his claims as well as to the unfolding of a
realized and futurist Babi eschatology.
From mfoster@tyrell.netSat Sep 30 11:59:46 1995
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 1995 06:29:09 -0500 (EDT)
From: "Mark A. Foster"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: An Open Judicial Process
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Rick Schaur wrote to the multiple recipients of talisman@indiana.edu:
R >How about a tradition of justice which follows the principles of
R >Baha'i Administration, the guidance of Shoghi Effendi and the
R >Covenant of Baha'u'llah?
Hi, Rick -
I agree with you. IMHO, Baha'i jurisprudence, like everything else
Baha'i (Baha'i sociology, Baha'i economics, Baha'i literarure, Baha'i
art, etc.) will gradually germinate over the course of this Dispensation
and reach its maturity in the appearance of Baha'i civilization.
While there may, ultimately, be certain parallels between Baha'i
jurisprudence and elements of some contemporary forms of that
discipline, we obviously have no way of knowing the precise technologies
of law-creating which will develop as we approach the Golden Age.
From my POV, the best course of action at this stage would be to
propose multiple models of jurisprudence, some combining Baha'i
principles with contemporary approaces, while not becoming attached to
any one of them.
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 haukness@tenet.eduSat Sep 30 12:00:57 1995
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 1995 09:02:19 -0500 (CDT)
From: John Haukness
To: dann.may@s-box.misc.uoknor.edu
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Living BUDDHISM
Allah-u-abha Friends: As the originator of posting the quote from Abdul
Baha that Christiandom is dead and then correlating Abdul Baha's quote
to include the other major religions I will throw this in to Dan's
comments. One thing I want to say is that I have thought about never
using this quote, but have decided it has it's place and purpose, it goes
along with similar touchy quotes, Baha'is being more distinctive, and in
the compilation on education even Bahais being more intelligent.
A problem I see with what Dan is saying is we fall into that the Baha'i
Faith is too often represented as just another religion, when Bahaullah
as well as reason, say that the last thing the world needs now is just
another religion. Bahaullah states even, that He would not have consented
to add another religion, and conversely the "old" is rolled up. I know my
views here are agitating people, so be it, taking the other side I see is
offering a false message. I love Buddhism, I used to call myself
Buddhist, it is just that now when I call my self Baha'i, I feel more
Buddhist because what I used to be is confirmed. Anyway not to take up
anymore bandwidth my question here is the following.
Bahaullah spent his life in prison for His declaration and promise that
He was among other things the fullfillment of Buddha and being Bahaullah
was banished for making such a claim, are we Bahais saying that the world
is going to welcome us with open arms, nay impossible. When are we going
to get over this expecting to be understood supposition?And can't we be a
bit frank on an occasion, well I find it advantageous actually. I love
this fire, I love people telling me to get lost, and I really love people
telling me I am expousing exclusivity and one upsmanship, I love you all.
When Bahaullah went to prison this is what I understood following Him
would mean, that I would be rejected, and my repetition of this is the
day of the Glory of God would be countered by, you got a big head fellow.
So on the other hand while we go through the pluralism dialogue and
apology dialogue, we also have the other side, we have what is for me the
salient phenomana of the day, we have people reading "No man shall attain
the shores of the ocean of true understanding except he be detached from
all that is in heaven and on earth. Sanctify your souls, O ye peoples of
the world, that haply ye may attain that station which God hath destined
for you and enter thus the tabernacle which, according to the
dispensations of Provid3ence, hath been raised in the firmanent of the
Bayan.", and proclaiming eclectiscism, I'm leaving you behind as a
religion and with all my soul embrace the Bayan. What a day! Fire, I love it.
haukness@tenet.edu
2015 Bay St. N.
Texas City, TX 77590
voice/fax 409-948-6074
One planet one people please!
From pjohnson@leo.vsla.eduSat Sep 30 12:32:16 1995
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 95 14:27:37 EDT
From: "K. Paul Johnson"
To: Bruce Burrill
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Dead Buddhism
According to Bruce Burrill:
>
> At one time some twenty plus years ago, I seriously considered Baha'i, but
> opted for the richer and deeper traditions of Buddhism.
It is a matter of faith for Baha'is that fundamental change in a religious
tradition must be negative. That is, revelation starts out
perfect and any modification can but introduce imperfection.
The richness and depth of Buddhism is clearly a cumulative
quality that increased over time. The very fact of such
progressive development must be rejected to fit the Baha'i
paradigm.
>
SF-> > "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?
To pursue a more direct parallel, belief in an afterlife with
no reincarnation has had awful consequences too. So has belief
in no afterlife at all. An argument that cuts this many ways
thus has no power to reject any particular view. BTW, as a
Theosophist I accepted Blavatsky's teaching that if people
believed in reincarnation they would behave more responsibly,
compassionately, etc.-- UNTIL I spent some time in India.
>
> > "Everywhere that Buddhism once shown brightly, and brightly indeed
> did it shine, it is dead, ignored by the populations it once educated,
> rejected.
Sri Lanka? Thailand? Mongolia? There are about 350 million
Buddhists in the world, so I suggest your report of its death
is greatly exaggerated.
Cheers
From jrcole@umich.eduSat Sep 30 13:14:11 1995
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 1995 12:31:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Baha'i justice
I do not think the demand for a solely Baha'i set of judicial mechanisms
is warranted by Baha'i texts, nor is it realistic.
First of all, the Baha'i texts themselves recognize extra-scriptural
sources of values, judgments, and procedures.
In His Tablet to the Grand Vizier, Lawh-i Ra'is (A:li Pasha), Baha'u'llah
says that exiling him to Akka was a great wrong, and that if the Grand
Vizier could not act according to Islamic justice, he could at least have
acted according to natural justice (or words to that effect). That is,
Baha'u'llah saw Islamic law and justice as a more strict and more
specific subset of natural law and natural justice, not as a sui generis
or even antithetical principle.
Abdu'l-Baha begins Secret of Divine Civilization with an encomium to
human reason, which is aimed at refuting 19th century Shi`ite
fundamentalists who rejected all aspects of modernity on the grounds that
it is not rooted in Islamic law. `Abdu'l-Baha is saying that human
reason is an adjunct to, and can legitimately go beyond, as long as it
does not contradict, the basics of Islamic prescriptions.
Much of Secret of Divine Civilization is taken up with complaining about
19th-century Iran's arbitrary judicial system. On the one hand,
Islamic-law courts had no codified legal system to work out
of--individual jurists came to idiosyncratic conclusions (which they
could reverse!) that formed no general precedent. These decisions had
reference to the Qur'an and hadith, but they were what Weber calls "qadi
justice," ad hoc and arbitrary. Most legal judgments were not rendered
by these Islamic courts at all, but by civil officials. `Abdu'l-Baha
strongly condemns arbitrary judicial fiats by these officials.
`Abdu'l-Baha clearly wanted 1) codified and specific legal codes that
were 2) administered by panels of trained judges and 3) built toward a
consistent and integral legal system with no arbitrary loopholes.
Read Secret of Divine Civilization. See if I am not right.
Aside from that, Baha'i writings provide very little guidance as to the
construction of a Baha'i canon law, which has not been done. There is no
published codification either of statutes or of major judicial
decisions. As a result, each decision is sui generis and some have been,
quite frankly, arbitrary. I think we need a standardized Baha'i canon
law to prevent such miscarriages of justice. Psychobabble about the
Institutions being children and we the forebearing parents, or us as
rebellious children, is misleading. When human institutions, staffed by
humans, commit injustices, there needs to be redress and reform. Period.
With regard to the hypothetical case of a Navajo Baha'i with a
distinguished record of service to the Faith, who had fallen deathly ill,
and who participated in a healing ceremony that employed peyote for
medicinal purposes, I think some principles of Baha'i jurisprudence can
be brought to bear.
First of all, it is clear that physicians can prescribe for the treatment
of illness substances (including medicines with alcohol in them) that
would ordinarily be forbidden to Baha'is. Even the prohibition of
peyote by the Universal House of Justice makes an exemption for medicinal
use.
So the real question is, "was this a medical treatment by a skilled
physician" (as mandated in the Aqdas)?
The answer to this question hangs on the meaning of "skilled physician."
We have anecdotal evidence that the Master and Shoghi Effendi did not
exclude homeopathic physicians from this definition.
Here, I would suggest that for a Navajo, this healing ceremony would
certainly have been conducted by someone he considered a "skilled physician."
Given that the Faith is not wedded to an American Medical Association
definition of "skilled physician," this is not an unreasonable assumption.
I therefore see no grounds, in this hypothetical situation, for the
removal of this Navajo believer's administrative rights according to
Baha'i law. Of course, a real-world situation may involve further
considerations of which I am unaware. I am responding only to the
bare-bones hypothetical one. That is the individual opinion and Cole
Fatwa on this issue.
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduSat Sep 30 13:15:05 1995
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 1995 10:44:28 -0600 (MDT)
From: "[G. Brent Poirier]"
To: Member1700@aol.com
Cc: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Kitab-i-Ahd
On Sun, 24 Sep 1995 Tony Lee Member1700@aol.com wrote:
> We might also remember--just by way of example--that according to the
> direct and explicit text of the Kitab-i 'Ahd, it was Mirza Muhammad-'Ali who
> was appointed as 'Abdu'l-Baha's successor as the head of the Cause. This was
> a provision made by Baha'u'llah in the most categorical way.
> Of course, we all know that 'Abdu'l-Baha set aside this provision in
> Baha'u'llah's Will and Testament--as he certainly should have, and which he
> had full authority to do. But, it seems to me silly to insist that this was
> not a change. And a most fundamental change. It was 'Abdu'l-Baha's
> interpretation that this provision of the Will no longer applied.
In His own Will, the Master refers to a Tablet by Baha'u'llah in which
Baha'u'llah placed a condition on Muhammad Ali's successorship after
'Abdu'l-Baha: That M.A. must not stray "the breadth of a hair" from under
the authority of 'Abdu'l-Baha. The Master refers to this Tablet in the
first part of His Will, and then goes on to elaborate the enormities of
M.A. Baha'u'llah's appointment of M.A. to succeed the Master was thus
conditional, and the Master elaborates that Muhammad-Ali didn't meet the
condition. Following this explanation, the Master appoints the twin
institutions to succeed Him. Whether this was interpretation, I'm not
sure; as I've said, the powers of the Master were not limited to
Interpretation of Holy Writ. I would personally place this more in the
area of the Master's infallible protection of the Cause.
My take on Baha'u'llah's appointment of Muhammad Ali is this: Baha'u'llah
knew that Muhammad Ali was unworthy. Even during the lifetime of
Baha'u'llah, M.A. had claimed Prophethood. Baha'u'llah was thus aware of
the propensity of M.A. for rebellion. By providing in His will for M.A.
to succeed 'Abdu'l-Baha, He offered a reward to M.A. to attempt to elicit
his obedience to 'Abdu'l-Baha during His ministry. He offered sovereignty
over the Cause of God. I do believe that Baha'u'llah was fully aware when
He wrote the Kitab-i-Ahd that M.A. would not meet the condition of loyalty
to the Master. But His justice offered this so that in the next world,
when Muhammad Ali faced his judgment, he would have no excuse for his
disobedience and his insurrection. I do not believe that Baha'u'llah was
taking a risk that such a man would actually lead His beloved Faith; that
He would entrust the reins of leadership to such an unworthy one. Ahang
and others may know more of the history of the Aghsan in the Holy Land,
and how unworthy this man's character was. Baha'u'llah knew that M.A.
would not fulfill the condition of obedience to the Master; but this
somewhat placed the cap on M.A.'s insurrection during the Master's
lifetime. It offered a reward to M.A. to which the Master could draw
M.A.'s attention.
In SAQ the Master interprets the provision in the 11th or 12th chapter of
the Revelation of John, that "The Ark of His Testament was seen in the
Temple of His Cause," refers to the reading of the Last Will and Testament
of Baha'u'llah at Bahji following His passing. The Apocalypse then goes
on to say that there were "lightnings and thunders and hail and an
earthquake," which the Master says was the insurrection of the Aghsan.
Muhammad Ali was at the center of the "thunder" of Covenant-breaking at
that time. It *was* foreseen from the beginning, two millenia beforehand.
I believe Baha'u'llah saw this clearly, and provided in a divinely
magnanimous and just way for the successorship.
From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comSun Oct 1 12:52:08 1995
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 95 14:14:01 -0400
From: Ahang Rabbani
To: tarjuman@umich.edu
Subject: RE: Date of death for Haj Muhammad Karim Khan-i Kirmani
[This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII]
Nima jan:
Tarikh-i Zuhuru'l-Haqq, 3:401, gives it as 22 Sh`aban 1288.
(sorry my conversion software is busted; leave it for you to
convert.)
Incidentally, 1288 H is correct, since both his followers and the
Babis have converted it to phrases based on the abjad system --
which reckons back to 1288.
ahang.
From lua@sover.netSun Oct 1 12:54:22 1995
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 1995 16:20:05 -0400
From: LuAnne Hightower
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Dead religions AND address for BSB?
Dear friends,
I believe a distinction is in order between the decline of a religion as an
institution and the implied loss of potency of a revelation. As far as I
can see, the revelation itself does not undergo some sort of decay. Its
social teachings may become outmoded with the passage of time - something
modern folks subscribing to any religious tradition prior to this
dispensation have had to struggle with. But the spiritual potency of the
essential truth contained in the revelation (if the actual revelation has
survived) must remain. After all it is the same essentail truth contained
in THIS revelation (Please correct me if I am mistaken.). I would imagine
that any sincere soul seeking after the Beloved could find the Word quite
potent and vital whether it was revealed last week or centuries ago. I
still thrill at the Psalms of David and find solace in the Quran.
I find that this idea that people who embrace another path are barking up
the wrong tree breeds an attitude of superiority that can only create
separation. I encounter daily people who are recently drawn to Islam, and
see in their struggles to follow the guidance of the Quran a deepening of
their faith in the One True God, a transformation in their very beings.
Should I be on a mission to convince them to do otherwise, or trust that
there is a wisdom in the attraction of their heart to Islam? Perhaps at
some later date they will become receptive to this Cause (No one knows what
his own end will be.). The message is eternal and far from dead, unless
practiced with lifeless hearts. "This is the changeless Faith of God..."
Alhamdulillah.
LuAnne Hightower
P.S. - How do I subscribe to the BSB. Anyone have the address out there?
Thanks!
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comSun Oct 1 13:08:35 1995
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 1995 16:48:55 -0700
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Institutions , Peyote , Baha'i Justice , Etc Etc.
Baha'i Justice
I find it rather disturbing we are
actually having proposed that the
process of a person's individual status
in the Faith should be subjected to an
open Forum . I suppose a type of US
Senate Hearing might be in the minds
of some . A person at any time in their
life might find their lifestyle or ideas
are both spiritually harmful to
themselves and others . The removal of
privileges by a National Spiritual
Assembly is not a course of action that
is lightly embarked upon , and is
normally as painful to the members on
that Body as the person on whom the
ruling is placed . To suggest that an
action has been taken against a person
without due consideration frankly
demonstrates a profound mistrust of the
very system we are all part. This was
the one of the points Peter Kahn made
in Chicago recently that you will not
have 'Entry by Troops ' until we stop
copying American society by
distrusting the motives and intentions
of our Institutions . The irony is that
most of us are members of the very
bodies some claim to mistrust which
does not say much for ourselves in that
case.
There are several points worthy of
reflection . Rumor has never been the
source of information upon which a
proper assessment can be made . One of
the requirements of the removal of
privileges is that at the soonest stage
possible the person should be able to
return to full activity in the Community.
This is not a sentence to an earthly
purgatory. The present system is not a
judicial process , the matters that are
considered are items of spiritual status .
Frequently the problem that a person
has got themselves into involves matters
of the utmost intimacy . I find it
repugnant to suggest on some notion the
public should know , that such things
should be in a public forum . Does this
mean we would have a screening of such
things as a tell it all Video at the 19 day
Feast . The obsession in the US with tell
it all so we get the truth results ; in the
Media rushing to judgment on all and
any matter ruining lives of innocents
.This is a disease which as I read the
Writings has no place in a Baha'i
Community.. The fact that you are
currently a Baha'i not in good standing
does not mean you are not a Baha'i , it
means you have to take the steps to
restore your status . A National Spiritual
Assembly is not allowed to discuss with
other individuals the reasons and the
background for the removal of a person
privileges , that is called confidentiality
. In the USA they do not even normally
announce who has had their privileges
removed in order to maintain
confidentiality . Only exceptional
situations result in the general USA
Baha'i Community being aware of the
fact , in other countries NSA's do make
the Community aware on a case by case
basis or an automatic notification occurs
but not in the United States .
As far as the situation under discussion is concerned to
be blunt , as I know the particular family concerned ,
they will be traumatized when they find out the fact that
intimate family matters are being banded about in this
typical American style . In my many years of knowing
Native Americans having dealings on many levels , the
first thing that comes to mind is privacy. This pseudo-
liberalistic freedom viewpoint from the USA
Constitution violates that privacy , how dare anyone
without that family's permission sit in judgment on
what has transpired , with or without the facts , dragging
their good name through the wringer. What has it
achieved , has it assisted in our knowledge , has it
helped that family . I think it has enabled certain of us to
express paranoia regarding the Administration . Using
others for ones own purposes is not in my view one of
the higher orders of human behavior . The response
David , I suggest , should have been to the person who
brought it to your attention , was to tell them to take the
matter up with the NSA. Putting out forwarded rumor
and innuendo on circumstances that neither you or your
informant had hard factual information on is truly
reprehensible because of the potential spiritual damage
that can happen to members of that family .
Confidentiality I would point out in an environment of
trust and love enables an individual once their status is
restored to resume without questions in their own minds
as to how they will be received. Your posting on this
matter has robbed that family member of that
opportunity . The sacrificial lamb I think should at least
be asked for permission to be used in this way .
Why would any NSA remove a persons privileges
because they had restored themselves to health by using
healing methods from their own cultural background , it
is too infantile to regard that as a justifiable cause and
action.
But I see that the old bogey of mistrust has flared up. No
I do not believe our NSA'S and our LSA'S are fully
matured and developed institutions , I do not excuse
immature actions from those bodies on the basis we must
grin and bare it until they do mature . Except I know
members of this NSA in question. They are not perfect
, they are the first to say it . But they are not villains as
some would have them portrayed . This summer as
always we had service projects at Bosch which the
guests were engaged in . One of them is cleaning the Book
shop/ Cafe . As I sat on the deck answering some posed
question , I noticed two of the guests cleaning very
devotedly , the lady was on her hands and knees washing
the Cafe floor , the gentleman was cleaning out the
Bathroom . They like so many who did that service this
past summer did so happily , like others when I thanked
them , said it was their privilege to be able to serve just
like everyone else. The lady on her hands and knees was
Dorothy Nelson , Federal Court Appeal Judge and a
member of the NSA , the gentleman was her husband
James Nelson , retired Municipal Court Judge and
member of the NSA . I could list many similar instances
as I am sure others can . People who serve on this NSA
are devoted servants of the Community . I do not want
to hear "well in 19.... this happened and this happened
" I am referring to now. So to suggest that a persons
privileges have been removed on a capricious whim or
thought or fancy displays a rank ignorance of how the
entire system functions or it is a malicious streak that
allows that nothing can ever be done for the right
reasons .
As far as the use of Peyote is concerned there is nothing
in the Baha'i Scripture to imply or suggest that the
recreational or ceremonial use of such a drug is
allowable under Baha'i Law . To argue that this falls
under a cultural preservation aspect does not hold up . I
could with ample evidence argue the use of alcohol is an
ingrained part of Navajo culture and life .I am well
aware that alcohol was brought in by whites it does not
invalidate the fact it is a sad feature of Navajo life today.
However I am sure if you spent one weekend in Gallup
New Mexico you would agree the Law regarding the
non-use of Alcohol is a wonderful teaching of the
Blessed Beauty for the benefit of Native Peoples . Seeing
Navajos blind drunk wandering around or collapsed on
every street corner and in doorways is a terrible sight .
The liquor licenses are sold in that town for 6 and 7
figure sums. Five years ago at Bosch I had a Navajo
youth in a course I was teaching . We discuss the
use of Peyote and its impact on people . He saw no harm
in it and had prior to becoming a Baha'i used the drug. I
asked him if any whites he knew had tried the drug , he
answered in the affirmative. I asked him what happened
to them , he said it drives them crazy they act stupid and
out of control . I then asked if he thought Baha'u'llah's
Teaching on Alcohol was good for the Navajo he said it
was , sort drives us crazy. Like the Peyote drives the
white folk I pondered , just the same he replied . I then
said we all have to give something up to create a new
type of world based upon Baha'u'llah's teachings . What
also was of interest was that the Native American
Church in his area used Peyote on the grounds that it
was culturally correct . Yet they required a man to
destroy the gifts from his Grandfather as part of
becoming part of that church . That meant the link with
the past so important in Navajo culture and family was
broken forever , that is cultural genocide .
We do not believe a World is going to be created in
which we all exist within our own cultural walls. That is
precisely what we have now , I don't think it is working
and it is not the Baha'i view of the future . The reason
for that is quite simple , although the best of what
humanity has developed over the ages will be blended
into the future world culture . A distinct cultural identity
that belongs to this dispensation will emerge , we are not
for the destruction of cultures and peoples identity , yet
cultural aspects that are contrary to Baha'i Scripture will
not survive . The Native peoples of America are
promised a great destiny in the future of the Planet never
mind the development of the Baha'i Community.
It seems to me that we all need to make a determined
effort to get out of this rut that has such a mistrust of the
very system that the Blessed Beauty has brought for us .
We could all well meditate on the Tarazat ,the 4th Taraz
:' ....Trustworthiness is the greatest portal leading unto
the tranquillity and security of the people . In truth the
stability of every affair hath depended and doth depend
on it . ' Just reading and meditating on that full passage
gives a glimmer of the road down which we should all
be traveling and I hope and pray we will
Kindest Regards Derek Cockshut
9/30/95
From dann.may@s-box.misc.uoknor.eduSun Oct 1 13:09:21 1995
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 95 14:04:38 -0500 (CDT)
From: dann.may@s-box.misc.uoknor.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: LIVING BUDDHISM
Please let me clarify. While I am a deeply committed Baha'i and one who
feels that Baha'i teachings have the potential of solving some of the
intractable problems facing the world, I find that we have much to learn
from the established religious traditions, and they, much from us. While I
feel that the Baha'i community is best equipped to deal with the problems
facing the world, we don't do ourselves any favors by alienating our
brothers and sisters in the other religious traditions. 'Abdu'l-Baha's use
of the "flowers of one garden" analogy applies equally well to the world's
religions -- all of which contribute to the progressive unfoldment of the
great mystery / emptiness / dharma / rhythms of life. Truth is truth no
matter from where it shines, no matter whether it is of varying hues,
shining brightly or obscured by the centuries.
In a world of complex problems and issues all voices must be heard and
respected, all teachings must be both comprehended within their historical
context and re-interpreted in light of modern circumstances in order to
face the challenges that will face the global community in the years ahead.
Warmest greetings, Dann.May@s-box.misc.uoknor.edu
---
* WR 1.31 # 669 * A confident manner is important: Computers can sense this
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzSun Oct 1 13:10:44 1995
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 1995 18:13:22 +1300
From: Robert Johnston
To: LuAnne Hightower , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Dead religions...
LuAnne wrote:
>I believe a distinction is in order between the decline of a religion as an
>institution and the implied loss of potency of a revelation. As far as I
>can see, the revelation itself does not undergo some sort of decay.
Somehow I think this thread sprang from a letter from my friend Stephen
Johnson. In the letter he said -- and I use lots of poetic license here
-- that Baha'is believe that religions descend rapidily from the glory days
of their beginnings. I don't think that this is correct. In fact, Baha'is
believe that religions pass from springtime to summertime -- and then
through to autumn (fall) and winter. I understand that the potency of the
present Revelation is increasing, and, in view of the fact that humanity is
now in an epoch of "fulfilment", the gradual evolutionary spiral of the
"prophetic" past (incorporating the highs and lows of the previous
religions) has become a turbo-charged evolutionary spiral, which, in this
Dispensation (1,000 year long, at least), will culminate in the
establisment of the Most Great Peace, and so on. Religious life generally
will reach unimaginably greater heights in the succeeding Dispensations
of the great Baha'i epoch. After 500,000 years a new epoch will begin
which will entail the unification of the universe.
Because of this perspective, I am not very warmly disposed to
uni-dimensional pictures of religious relativity.
Robert.
From 72110.2126@compuserve.comSun Oct 1 13:12:51 1995
Date: 01 Oct 95 01:45:22 EDT
From: David Langness <72110.2126@compuserve.com>
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Publicly Confronting Injustice
Dear Talismanians,
I extend a hearty thanks to Mary Kay and Linda, strong voices both, for
their equally frank and honest letters on the subject of Franklin Kahn's
rights. Their unfettered expression of deeply-felt beliefs strikes me
as precisely what we developed Talisman to foster.
But let me say this about privacy -- I want none of it. I agree with
Tony about what sort of judicial style we want to emulate. Do we
actually look toward the show trials of the Chinese, the kangaroo
courts of Stalinist Russia, or the secret proceedings of the current
regime in Iran for our models? Where in our jurisprudential canon
does the enshrinement of "privacy" come in? Yes, we have developed a
tradition of stripping people of their administrative rights in private,
without due process, but does that mean we should continue down that
path?
Any Baha'i who has ever been a victim of our "private" way of trying and
convicting believers who have offended the powers that be knows what I
am talking about. And those who have not -- precisely because of the
cloak of silence and secrecy that surrounds such proceedings -- have no
access to information about such abuses of power, naively assuming that
removal of rights must be a serious process, and that therefore no
administrative body would ever invoke such a sanction lightly or unjustly.
I really don't like dragging out my own example, but since I lived it, I
will. In 1988, on my way to pilgrimage in Haifa, I was informed by the
secretary of the NSA, in a phone conversation while I waited for a plane
in Portugal, that my pilgrimage rights had been taken away for writing
and "distributing" a Dialogue magazine article on reinvigorating the
American Baha'i Community. At the time, I was staying with a former
member of the US NSA. We both called other US NSA members, and none had
any knowledge of any removal of rights. We appealed to the Universal
House of Justice, I was granted a 3-day visit, and it took four years
to regain my right to pilgrimage.
Had this act of administrative fiat been conducted in the open light of
day, it would not have been able to stand on its own merits. In fact,
several UHJ members have since commented to many different people that
our rights to pilgrimage (there were four of us so sanctioned) had never
*really* been removed; that such an act was unprecedented; and that no
such administrative punishment even existed. One House member told me
privately that the US NSA had been, to use his words, "severely
reprimanded" for their action, which probably was taken without the
knowledge of the body en toto.
So the next time my administrative rights are threatened, or perhaps I
should say if and when they are taken away, I want the light of day to
shine on that action. I want access to a public, open, and honest
proceeding. I want due process, the right to confront allegations
directly, and most of all, I want others to feel free to discuss the
case. These are not, by the way, some "western liberal" notions of
the rights of the individual, they are basic human rights accorded by
the UN Charter and the Declaration of Human Rights. We need, in my
view, the equivalent of a Declaration of Rights to accompany the
Constitution of the Universal House of Justice, to ensure that each
and every Baha'i is guaranteed fair and equal treatment under
Baha'u'llah's laws.
As to the assertion that our institutions are at an embryonic stage
now and so need love instead of criticism -- the notion strikes me as
fundamentally wrong. Criticism *is* love, if done in the spirit of
consultation and helpfulness. When we take our institutions to task
for a lapse in judgement or for what we see as a wrong direction taken,
we exercise our sacred duty as Baha'is to help our nascent institutions
grow. Those who believe that love is silence; that love is an averted
gaze; that love ignores injustice -- well, for those folks, I would ask
that a hard look at the definition of love might be in order.
Forgive me for going on about this issue, but I know so many Baha'is who
have been on the receiving end of great injustices done to them by our
own administrative order, and the suggestion that we ought to be quiet
about such things so they can work themselves out in private sends me
screaming down the road. I can't help but recall the example of the
Master, who confronted injustice with an insistent and strident voice
that never gave up. We ought to emulate that quality, don't you think?
Love,
David
From mfoster@tyrell.netSun Oct 1 13:13:05 1995
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 1995 01:17:35 -0500 (EDT)
From: "Mark A. Foster"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Publicly Confronting Inj
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Talismanians -
I apologize for my bluntness. But irrespective of the merits of
discussing administrative cases involving individual believers in
principle, my concern is that we are not dealing only with abstract
principles. We are talking about a flesh-and-blood human being who may
very well want to see his privacy preserved in this situation. If the
individual involved in a case, or the administrative institution, wishes
to make a case public, that is one thing, but for those not connected
with a case to bring up the particulars of the subject for discussion on
an Internet list strikes me as profoundly irresponsible.
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 momen@northill.demon.co.ukSun Oct 1 13:17:18 1995
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 95 23:33:31
From: Wendi and Moojan Momen
To: tarjuman@umich.edu
Subject: Re: RE: The Absolute
Frank Lewis writes:
> But perhaps someone can show that Baha'u'llah has quoted or paraphrased Ibn
> `Arabi somewhere, in which case the specific meaning indicated by Ibn
> `Arabi would be called for
I don't know about Baha'u'llah but Abdu'l-Baha paraphrases and quotes Ibn
Arabi several times in Tafsir Kuntu Kanzan Makhfiyan (I point out these
instances in my translation of it) and this Lawh Basit al-Haqiqa can be
regarded as a further elaboration of that same theme.
Moojan
--
Wendi and Moojan Momen
momen@northill.demon.co.uk
Tel./Fax: (44) 1767 627626
From haukness@tenet.eduSun Oct 1 13:17:45 1995
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 1995 10:08:39 -0500 (CDT)
From: John Haukness
To: "Mark A. Foster"
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Publicly Confronting Inj
Allah-u-abha Friends: I hope we take Mark's advice to heart here. I also
want to acknowledge that when pain occurs, David's point about airing out
can be done, but some ethics need to guide the airing out. Foremost is
all the facts from both sides needs to be seen, then if the audience only
see's the facts coming from one side, I think the process has to stop.
Perhaps it could proceed a little bit with lots of 'our belief is, our
feeling is, our hypothesis is, what we heard was etc. etc. but certainly
one side can never present the fact. I guess I am collaborating what
Saman is saying, if one is dealing with second hand information, put it
in the heading, and all over the place in the text for the reader.
I was quick to write off on this topic that we should not draw
conclusions based on second hand information. But that didn't stop what I
with my feeble inspiration was trying to stop. So now I don't understand
why David is applauding people for jumping in and defending an injured
person. WE DON'T EVEN KNOW ANYONE WAS INJURED! It is still just heresay,
now David may believe it and may have prior information and may know more
to form an opinion, but the rest of us are just readers. And this has
happened here a couple times before and it will get all of us in trouble
some day unless we clean up our act. Let's state facts, ascertain if
posters from all aspects of the problem will enter the airing out, and
never, rush to judgement.
haukness@tenet.edu
2015 Bay St. N.
Texas City, TX 77590
voice/fax 409-948-6074
One planet one people please!
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comSun Oct 1 13:19:23 1995
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 1995 09:12:05 -0700
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Fwd: Re: Institutions , Peyote , Baha'i Justice , Etc Etc.
---- Begin Forwarded Message
Return-Path:
Received: from relay-3.mail.demon.net by ix5.ix.netcom.com
(8.6.12/SMI-4.1/Netcom)
id EAA23885; Sun, 1 Oct 1995 04:51:38 -0700
Received: from baha.demon.co.uk by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa02425;
1 Oct 95 9:56 +0100
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 1995 09:49:46 +0100
Message-ID: <1827@baha.demon.co.uk>
From: Chris Manvell
Organization: Home!
Reply-To: Chris@baha.demon.co.uk
To: derekmc@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: Institutions , Peyote , Baha'i Justice , Etc Etc.
X-Mailer: Newswin Alpha 0.9
Lines: 52
In article: <199509302348.QAA15160@ix3.ix.netcom.com>
derekmc@ix.netcom.com
writes:
>
>
>
> Baha'i Justice
>
> I find it rather disturbing we are actually having proposed that the
>process of a person's individual status in the Faith should be
subjected to an
>open Forum
Well done Derek, I agree with you wholeheartedly.
Last night I was clearing out a massive backlog of mail and was
attracted by the
two main titles under which this discussion has been under way. Even
without
reading the first message, I was disturbed the read a heading which
mentioned an
individuals name in association with their rights. Assuming that this
was a
long past case I read the first message and was appalled.
Independantly, as my
wife has some interest in Native American Indian traditions I looked at
some of
the other posts. I have now deleted the lot.
It is, as Derek so rightly points out, up to the institutions of the
Faith to
decide on a case like this. What we, in the Faith, should not want to
see is
the same kind of approach to judicial cases as has happended with the
OJ case.
It happens here in the UK as well -- trial by the media. And even
after the
individual concerned has been found innocent, the hounding by the press
can
still continue.
If the resulting descision seems to be unjust then an appeal can be
made, as I
understand is the case, to the Universal House of Justice. We as "the
public"
have every right to discuss the subject but it should not refer to
individuals,
even by implication, if pain can be caused to those who are in the know
as to
whom we are talking about. The fact that in this case "the public"
seem, on the
whole, to be sympathetic is not the point.
Finally, I remember a member of the NSA of the UK being asked at a
Winter School
what were the most unpleasant and the most pleasant aspects about being
on the
NSA. The answers were a) consulting on the removal of a person's
rights and b)
consulting on the return of a person's rights. And by the way, ask
yourself,
what the real meaning of backbiting? (Yes I do do it.)
All the above opinions are my own.
Best wishes to you all,
Chris.
--
===============================================================
Chris Manvell, Breacais Iosal, Skye, Scotland 158.152.175.238
Any spelling errors in this message are all my own work.
Ya Baha'u'l-Abha!
From jrcole@umich.eduSun Oct 1 13:33:55 1995
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 1995 13:17:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: Wendi and Moojan Momen
Cc: tarjuman@umich.edu
Subject: Re: RE: The Absolute
With regard to Baha'u'llah and Ibn `Arabi, Nabil tells us that
Baha'u'llah revealed a commentary on the Futuhat to the Naqshbandis in
Sulaymaniyyah, and that occasionally he raised eyebrows by transcending
(tafavvuq) ash-Shaykh al-Akbar's interpretations. I also see echoes of
some lines of Tarjuman al-Ashwaq in al-Qasidah al-Warqa'iyyah. And, of
course, the Writings use Ibn `Arabi vocabulary extensively. It think it
is uncontroversial that Baha'u'llah had an intimate knowledge of Ibn
`Arabi's major works.
cheers Juan
From cbuck@ccs.carleton.caSun Oct 1 13:34:40 1995
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 95 23:43:57 EDT
From: Christopher Buck
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Cc: Christopher Buck
Subject: *Tablet of the Hair*: Translation
In response to several private requests, I will post the full
translation of Baha'u'llah's *Tablet of the Hair*. I would still
appreciate receiving information about the Arabic text, although I
suspect it is unpublished.
This translation came about in the following way: In 1980 or
1981, I discovered a translation of this Tablet in the December 1938
issue of the U.S. *Baha'i News*, p. 11, in which the accompanying note
states: *This is the Tablet read by Mrs. Thomas Collins in presenting
at the Convention the Guardian's gift of locks of Baha'u'llah's Hair.
The Tablet is shared with the believers with the Guardian's permission.*
I then gave this tablet to a Baha'i calligrapher, James
Norquay. Unbeknownst to me, James sent the translation to Haifa for
authentication (even though it had been approved by the Guardian).
Norquay received this authorized translation in response to his request.
____________________
He is the Almighty!
My hair is My Messenger. It is calling aloud at all times upon the
branch of Fire within the hallowed and luminous Garden of Paradise,
that perchance the inmates of the realm of creation may detach
themselves from the world of dust and ascend unto the retreats of
nearness - the Spot where the Fire seeketh illumination from the light
of the countenance of God, the Glorious, the Powerful.
O ye that have consecrated yourselves to this Fire! Sing ye melodies,
pour out sweet tones, rejoice with exceeding gladness and make haste
to attain the presence of Him Who is the object of adoration, bearing
witness that no God is there besides God, the All-Knowing, the
All-Wise, the All-Compelling.
He is the God of Wisdom!
My hair is My Phoenix. Therefore hath it set itself upon the blazing
fire of My Face and receiveth sustenance from the garden of My
Countenance. This is the station wherein the Son of Imran [Moses]
removed from the feet of selfish desire the coverings of attachment to
all else but Him and was illumined by the splendours of the Light of
holiness in the undying Fire kindled by God, the Potent, the Gracious,
the Ever-Forgiving.
He is the Most Excellent, the Best Beloved!
A lock of My hair is My cord. He who layeth fast hold on it shall
never to all eternity go astray, for therein is his guidance to the
splendours of the Light of His Beauty.
He is God!
My hair is My Veil whereby I conceal My beauty, that haply the eyes of
the non-believers among My servants may not fall upon it. Thus do We
conceal from the sight of the ungodly the glorious and sublime beauty
of Our Countenance.
He is the Eternal!
My hair beareth witness for My Beauty that verily I am God and that
there is none other God but Me. In My ancient eternity I have ever
been God, the One, the Peerless, the Everlasting, the Ever-Living, the
Ever-Abiding, the Self-Subsistent.
O denizens of the everlasting Realm! Let your ears be attentive to the
stirrings of this restless and agitated hair, as it moveth upon the
Sinai of Fire, within the precincts of Light, this celestial Seat of
divine Revelation. Indeed there is no God besides Me. In My most
ancient preexistence I have ever been the King, the Sovereign, the
Incomparable, the Eternal, the Single, the Everlasting, the Most Exalted.
O peoples of the heavens and of the earth! Were ye to santify your
ears ye would hear my hair proclaim that there is none other God
except Him, and that He is One in His Essence and in everything that
beareth relationship unto Him. And yet how fiercely have you cavilled
at this Beauty, notwithstanding that the outpourings of His grace have
encompassed all that dwell in the billowing oceans of his Revelation
and Creation. Be ye fair therefore in your judgement concerning His
upright Religion, for the love of this Youth who is riding high upon
the snow-white She-Camel betwixt earth and heaven; and be ye firm and
steadfast in the path of Truth.
Baha'u'llah
__________________
I will be discussing this Tablet briefly in my forthcoming ABS
paper. Having sent a copy to Stephen Lambden, a passage from this
translation was published in Lambden's masterful paper, *The Sinaitic
Mysteries: Notes on Moses/Sinai Motifs in Babi and Baha'i Scripture,"
in _Studies in Honor of the Late Hasan M. Balyuzi_. Studies in the
Babi and Baha'i Religions, vol. 5. Edited by Moojan Momen (Los
Angeles: Kalimat Press, 1988): p. 129. This is a magnificent volume
that has received far too little attention by Baha'is. In my opinion,
this is the finest multi-author work in Baha'i studies to date.
Finally, a request: Can anyone provide me a copy of the
compilation of Baha'u'llah's Tablets called *Ishraqat* (Bombay;
1310/1892-93) or any reprint thereof (for my dissertation research)?
Christopher Buck
**********************************************************************
* * * * * *
* * * Christopher Buck Invenire ducere est.
From frlw@midway.uchicago.eduSun Oct 1 13:40:54 1995
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 1995 10:20:50 -0500 (CDT)
From: Frank Lewis
To: tarjuman@umich.edu
Subject: RE: The Absolute
I have no quibble with the rendering of *haqq* as "the Absolute Reality"
in Moojan's translation of Lawh-i Basit al-Haqiqa. However, the subsequent
discussion surrounding this word has treated it as though it has a fixed
meaning. As Juan, I think, pointed out, there is a range of meaning in
the word *haqq,* as is the case with most theologically or emotionally
charged words that have been used by a number of different authors over
a number of centuries in more than one language (*haqq* may mean something
slightly different to an Arab, to a Persian, to a Turkish and to an Urdu
speaker, because of the different works and usages they have encountered
the word in their own language, even though the word shares basically the
same semiotic range in all those languages). Keven has discussed the
variety of ways in which the Guardian translated the word *haqq*, a further
indication that SE did not understand the word always to mean the same
thing.
Although "The Absolute Reality" is basically a good default
definition for philosophical or Sufi texts (because, as some linguists
insist, there are no such things as true synonyms, so *haqq* must be
somehow distinguished from *Allah* or *khoda*), to understand every
instance of the word *haqq* in the same sense that Ibn `Arabi did
(according to Izutsu) would obviously be a mistake. Personally, I doubt
that even Ibn `Arabi used the word consistently with that meaning, to say
nothing of other authors. I have noticed that Baha'u'llah does not use it
with a consistent meaning in mind (and the Guardian apparently would back
me up in this, though one could, I think, argue that the Guardian was
sometimes more concerned about stylistic effect in English than with a
rendering of metaphysical nuances. If one wants to make a readable
translation, this has to be the case). Of course, in poetry *haqq*
might be chosen sometimes more for reasons of meter or rhyme than for the
technical meaning of the word. Furthermore, the word was in use with a
meaning something like "the Truth beyond the outward truth revealed in
this world in the form of religion" for at least a century or two prior
to Ibn `Arabi's use of it. Mowlavi frequently uses it in that sense, too,
though he apparently did not borrow this meaning from Ibn `Arabi. I believe
it may also have had an established and elaborated meaning in the homiletic
and qisas al-anbiya literature, as one of the ninety-nine names of God,
before the Sufis began to use it (and this meaning may have been colored by
Christian or Jewish theology).
The point is that a 19th century author could have several different
meanings for the word *haqq* in mind and several different classical sources
from which he internalized that meaning. *Haqq* is used as a synonym
for "Allah" and it sometimes appears to means something similar to the concept
of Tao or Dharma. As you all know, *haqq* of course has other denotations,
including "right," both in the sense of being correct (*haqq bA shomA-st*
and *al-haqq ma`aka* ) and in the sense of justice, duty or what is
deserved (*haqq-ash in bud*--it was what he earned or deserved). Some
semanticists believe that the meanings of homonyms leach into one another so
that these other meanings of *haqq* might contribute to the over and
under-tones of the word when referring to God or the Absolute.
One might want to look into the range of meaning in the writings of the
Bab or the Shaykhis before coming to a solid conclusion about what the word
meant to Baha'u'llah in this passage or in other passages where it seems to
inquire a technical meaning. A while back, someone brought up the word
*imtishAj* and I assumed that it would have been used for the purpose of
*saj`* (homoteleuton) with *imitizAj,* because *imtishAj* is not attested in
most dictionaries, though the meaning, as Shahrooz (I think) pointed out,
would be similar to *imtizAj*. Since then, however, I have seen two
instances of the word *imtishAj* used by Baha and AB on its own, without any
reference to *imtizAj*, leading me to question why *imtishAj* (a very rare
word), instead of *imtizAj*? Perhaps reference is being made to a certain
semi-technical usage for the word in a Shaykhi or Babi text?
The point, anyway, is that one should not necessarily maintain an a
priori equivalence between a given Arabic word and an English word, even
when that word has acquired a technical meaning in the works of some authors.
At the risk of stating the very obvious, words should always be determined
by context. I think Moojan's translation fits the context fairly well,
though I don't know if we can assume that Baha'u'llah is borrowing the
concept or definition from Ibn `Arabi. For one thing, I think it would be
more likely that Baha'u'llah encountered Ibn `Arabi via Semnani (who
popularized and gave systematic meaning to the phrase "wahdat al-wujud").
But perhaps someone can show that Baha'u'llah has quoted or paraphrased Ibn
`Arabi somewhere, in which case the specific meaning indicated by Ibn
`Arabi would be called for (as in the case where Juan has shown that
Baha'u'llah is quoting Shahrastani, appropriating his vocabulary and mode
of discourse.)
I know that the above contains no great revelation, but I felt that
our discussion of _the_ meaning of *haqq* was becoming somewhat static and
deterministic, and am trying to bring the focus back to the particular
instance of the word in Lawh-i Basit al-Haqiqa that is in question. Is
there any reason why, in this case, it should not be rendered "the Absolute
Reality?"
yours, Frank
From jrcole@umich.eduSun Oct 1 13:46:56 1995
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 1995 13:33:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Centre for the Study of the Sacred Text
Member of the Universal House of Justice Peter Khan spoke in Ann Arbor,
Michigan, yesterday evening (Saturday 9-30-95). I first heard Peter Khan
in Evanston in the early 1970s and was extremely impressed with his
clarity of thinking, his critical acumen, and his common sense. His talk
last night exhibited all these attributes and more.
The only one of his remarks that I will share here came in answer to a
question of mine. I asked him his views of how the Centre for the Study
of the Sacred Text will evolve.
*I want to stress that what follows is Cole's impression of Mr. Khan's
remarks, and that he specifically tagged these remarks as being his own
views rather than necessarily those of the House as a whole.*
He had said that the building and the interior should be completed around
mid-1988. He saw the Centre as a place that will in many ways continue
the work of the current Research Department--indexing and collating the
texts of the Faith, producing commentaries on them, and translating
them.
In addition, he said that it was his own view that the Centre would not
be a centralizing bureaucracy but rather a networking institution. He
thought it would network with and coordinate scholarship by Baha'i
scholars not resident in Haifa, in a variety of disciplines. He also
said that he felt that it would foster a diversity of views within the
broad confines of the Covenant, rather than attempting to elaborate a
strict "party line" (or words to that effect).
I was pleased by his answer, and since this particular matter may not
have come up elsewhere I thought it worthwhile posting my impressions of
what he said.
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From jrcole@umich.eduSun Oct 1 13:47:11 1995
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 1995 13:40:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: RE: The Absolute (fwd)
I thought some on Talisman would enjoy this posting by Professor Frank
Lewis of the University of Chicago on the meaning of "Haqq," a word used
to refer to God in Baha'u'llah's Tablets that has a range of meanings
around a core of something like "Absolute Truth."
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 1995 10:20:50 -0500 (CDT)
From: Frank Lewis
To: tarjuman@umich.edu
Subject: RE: The Absolute
I have no quibble with the rendering of *haqq* as "the Absolute Reality"
in Moojan's translation of Lawh-i Basit al-Haqiqa. However, the subsequent
discussion surrounding this word has treated it as though it has a fixed
meaning. As Juan, I think, pointed out, there is a range of meaning in
the word *haqq,* as is the case with most theologically or emotionally
charged words that have been used by a number of different authors over
a number of centuries in more than one language (*haqq* may mean something
slightly different to an Arab, to a Persian, to a Turkish and to an Urdu
speaker, because of the different works and usages they have encountered
the word in their own language, even though the word shares basically the
same semiotic range in all those languages). Keven has discussed the
variety of ways in which the Guardian translated the word *haqq*, a further
indication that SE did not understand the word always to mean the same
thing.
Although "The Absolute Reality" is basically a good default
definition for philosophical or Sufi texts (because, as some linguists
insist, there are no such things as true synonyms, so *haqq* must be
somehow distinguished from *Allah* or *khoda*), to understand every
instance of the word *haqq* in the same sense that Ibn `Arabi did
(according to Izutsu) would obviously be a mistake. Personally, I doubt
that even Ibn `Arabi used the word consistently with that meaning, to say
nothing of other authors. I have noticed that Baha'u'llah does not use it
with a consistent meaning in mind (and the Guardian apparently would back
me up in this, though one could, I think, argue that the Guardian was
sometimes more concerned about stylistic effect in English than with a
rendering of metaphysical nuances. If one wants to make a readable
translation, this has to be the case). Of course, in poetry *haqq*
might be chosen sometimes more for reasons of meter or rhyme than for the
technical meaning of the word. Furthermore, the word was in use with a
meaning something like "the Truth beyond the outward truth revealed in
this world in the form of religion" for at least a century or two prior
to Ibn `Arabi's use of it. Mowlavi frequently uses it in that sense, too,
though he apparently did not borrow this meaning from Ibn `Arabi. I believe
it may also have had an established and elaborated meaning in the homiletic
and qisas al-anbiya literature, as one of the ninety-nine names of God,
before the Sufis began to use it (and this meaning may have been colored by
Christian or Jewish theology).
The point is that a 19th century author could have several different
meanings for the word *haqq* in mind and several different classical sources
from which he internalized that meaning. *Haqq* is used as a synonym
for "Allah" and it sometimes appears to means something similar to the concept
of Tao or Dharma. As you all know, *haqq* of course has other denotations,
including "right," both in the sense of being correct (*haqq bA shomA-st*
and *al-haqq ma`aka* ) and in the sense of justice, duty or what is
deserved (*haqq-ash in bud*--it was what he earned or deserved). Some
semanticists believe that the meanings of homonyms leach into one another so
that these other meanings of *haqq* might contribute to the over and
under-tones of the word when referring to God or the Absolute.
One might want to look into the range of meaning in the writings of the
Bab or the Shaykhis before coming to a solid conclusion about what the word
meant to Baha'u'llah in this passage or in other passages where it seems to
inquire a technical meaning. A while back, someone brought up the word
*imtishAj* and I assumed that it would have been used for the purpose of
*saj`* (homoteleuton) with *imitizAj,* because *imtishAj* is not attested in
most dictionaries, though the meaning, as Shahrooz (I think) pointed out,
would be similar to *imtizAj*. Since then, however, I have seen two
instances of the word *imtishAj* used by Baha and AB on its own, without any
reference to *imtizAj*, leading me to question why *imtishAj* (a very rare
word), instead of *imtizAj*? Perhaps reference is being made to a certain
semi-technical usage for the word in a Shaykhi or Babi text?
The point, anyway, is that one should not necessarily maintain an a
priori equivalence between a given Arabic word and an English word, even
when that word has acquired a technical meaning in the works of some authors.
At the risk of stating the very obvious, words should always be determined
by context. I think Moojan's translation fits the context fairly well,
though I don't know if we can assume that Baha'u'llah is borrowing the
concept or definition from Ibn `Arabi. For one thing, I think it would be
more likely that Baha'u'llah encountered Ibn `Arabi via Semnani (who
popularized and gave systematic meaning to the phrase "wahdat al-wujud").
But perhaps someone can show that Baha'u'llah has quoted or paraphrased Ibn
`Arabi somewhere, in which case the specific meaning indicated by Ibn
`Arabi would be called for (as in the case where Juan has shown that
Baha'u'llah is quoting Shahrastani, appropriating his vocabulary and mode
of discourse.)
I know that the above contains no great revelation, but I felt that
our discussion of _the_ meaning of *haqq* was becoming somewhat static and
deterministic, and am trying to bring the focus back to the particular
instance of the word in Lawh-i Basit al-Haqiqa that is in question. Is
there any reason why, in this case, it should not be rendered "the Absolute
Reality?"
yours, Frank
From nima@unm.eduSun Oct 1 14:29:06 1995
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 1995 12:07:16 -0600 (MDT)
From: Sadra
Cc: tarjuman@umich.edu
Subject: Re: RE: The Absolute
Dear Juan and Moojan--
This commentary of Baha'u'llah's on the Futuhat al-Makkiyyah, is this
among the works Baha'u'llah later ordered destroyed? And what do we know
about the actual commentary itself? Are fragments of it around?
Nima
---
O God, cause us to see things as they really are - Hadith
Strive to lead back the divine within you to the Divine in
the All - Plotinus (d. 270 AD)
From jrcole@umich.eduSun Oct 1 17:37:24 1995
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 1995 14:28:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: Sadra
Cc: tarjuman@umich.edu
Subject: Re: RE: The Absolute
Nima: Aside from Nabil's remarks I know of no extant text for
Baha'u'llah's commentary on the Futuhat.
John Walbridge has cannily suggested that it is encapsulated in
`Abdu'l-Baha's Commentary on `I was a Hidden Treasure.'
cheers Juan
From Alethinos@aol.comSun Oct 1 17:37:50 1995
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 1995 15:57:40 -0400
From: Alethinos@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: jurisprudence
This question seems to have branched into two channels. The first is about
procedural analysis and the other is about justice.
The former can only develop in a healthy fashion after the latter is clearly
established. I was trying to suggest this back on the 28th with the last
post.
What David L. suffered from it would seem, was a miscarriage of justice. The
*procedure* was simply an outcome of a lack of justice.
One of the concerns I have here, with this investigation of these issues is
again. that we do not become so caught up in the issue of procedure that we
lose sight of the larger issues, upon which all else will be built.
jim harrison
Alethinos@aol.com
From Don_R._Calkins@commonlink.comSun Oct 1 17:38:12 1995
Date: 01 Oct 1995 13:24:02 GMT
From: "Don R. Calkins"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Cc: derekmc@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: Institutions , Peyote , Baha'i Justice , Etc E
Derek said-
> one of the points Peter Kahn made in Chicago recently that you will not
> have 'Entry by Troops ' until we stop copying American society by
> distrusting the motives and intentions of our Institutions .
And we need to remember that this is not an idea that is being promoted
solely by Peter Khan. The universal House of Justice already made this point
in the May 19, 1994 letter -
" . . .the Baha'i friends must be freed of suspicion toward their
institutions if the wheels of progress are to turn with uninterrupted speed."
But many American Baha'is seem to be ignoring this sentence and concentrating
on promoting the parts of this and other letters that support their
pre-concieved views.
"How strange! These people with one hand cling
to those verses of the Qur'an and those traditions
of the people of certitude which they have found
to accord with their inclinations and interests, and
with the other reject those which are contrary to
their selfish desires."
(Kitab-i-Iqan, p169)
Don C
- sent via an evaluation copy of BulkRate (unregistered).
From gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduSun Oct 1 17:41:36 1995
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 1995 15:03:58 -0600 (MDT)
From: "[G. Brent Poirier]"
To: Juan R Cole
Subject: surah of blood
Juan, did you post the text of your translation?
Brent
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzSun Oct 1 21:39:25 1995
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 1995 11:31:23 +1300
From: Robert Johnston
To: John Haukness , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Publicly Confronting Inj
My friend John wrote:
>I was quick to write off on this topic that we should not draw
>conclusions based on second hand information. But that didn't stop what I
>with my feeble inspiration was trying to stop. So now I don't understand
>why David is applauding people for jumping in and defending an injured
>person. WE DON'T EVEN KNOW ANYONE WAS INJURED!
Yes, John. Is seems that you were right. And -- IMV -- are still. Juan's
hypothetical case added nothing useful either.
Robert.
From momen@northill.demon.co.ukMon Oct 2 11:25:46 1995
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 95 23:44:03
From: Wendi and Moojan Momen
To: tarjuman@umich.edu
Subject: The Absolute
Some time ago, someone (I think it was Keven Brown) queried my
translation of al-Haqq (in the Lawh Basit al-Haqiqa) as the
Absolute or Absolute Reality. I meant to answer at the time but
pressure of other work forestalled me. My use of this translation
is in fact inspired by the great Japanese scholar, Toshiko Izutsu.
He wrote the following in relation to the usage of the term Haqq by Ibn
Arabi:
"In religious non-philosophical discourse the Absolute is normally
indicated by the word God or Allah. But in the technical terminology of
Ibn Arabi, te word Allah designates the Absolute not in its state of
Absoluteness but in a state of determination. The truly Absolute is
Something which cannot be called even God. Since, however, one cannot
talk about anything at all without linguistic designation, Ibn Arabi
uses the word haqq (which literally means Truth or Reality) in referring
to the Absolute." (Sufism and Taoism, p. 23)
--
Wendi and Moojan Momen
momen@northill.demon.co.uk
Tel./Fax: (44) 1767 627626
From mfoster@tyrell.netTue Oct 3 12:14:07 1995
Date: Sat, 2 Sep 1995 23:56:08 -0500 (EDT)
From: "Mark A. Foster"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Ahmad`s contribution...
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Hi, Robert -
Thank you for your kind words re: valuing my viewpoint. It seems as
though posting on Talisman over the the last couple of days has slowed
down to a trickle. For those Talismanians not in the U.S., it is a
three-day holiday weekend here, viz., Labor Day (in honor of American
labor) - or what some have jokingly referred to as Leisure Day.
You are correct in saying, "... Mark does give what might be termed
qualified support for what I take to be Ahmad's central point ...."
However, I would want to emphasize "qualified." I regard the reported
statement of the Master referring to "the male amd female principle in
all the phenomena of existence" as referring to something resembling the
yin-yang principle in Taoism/Confucianism, the Shakti-Shiva principle in
Kashmir Shaivism, or the thesis-antithesis principle in German
dialectical philosophy.
(OTOH, I would not consider the passage from Baha'u'llah's Writings,
referring to "the active force and that which is its recipient," as
pointing to the same phenomenon. Rather, as I tend to see it at this
point, the active force is the Holy Spirit, stepped down to various
degrees, i.e., the spirit of faith, the human spirit, the animal spirit,
the vegetable spirit, and the mineral spirit; while the recipient
becomes the existential emanations of spirit, i.e., the condition of
divine Manifestation, the _life_ of the soul, the mind, and the various
states of materiality.)
As yin and yang are resolved as the Tao, as Shakti and Shiva find
fulfillment in the sahasrara (a metaphor for enlightenment), and as
thesis and antithesis are completed in synthesis, so the dialogic
sociation between the masculine and feminine conditions are concluded in
existence. From my POV, masculinity is the condition of aggressiveness,
while femininity is the realm of receptivity to a particular level of
spirit. This gendered arrangement, IMO, exists in all things as the
appearance of the attributes of divinity. Before there can be aggression
(or will), an entity must first be receptive to the spirit.
Therefore, as I proposed the other day, the natural appearance of
these qualities in women and men (in the kingdom of names and
attributes, nature, or materiality) can be experienced in sociological
androgyny (a gendered unity in diversity). Subsequently, through this
sociological androgyny can appear a psychological androgyny - the
blending of will and receptivity in each person.
TTFN,
Mark
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*Mark A. Foster, Ph.D., Sociologist of Religion *
*President (1995), Kansas 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 (CompuServe Religion Forum & Religious Issues Forum Staff)*
* 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.nlTue Oct 3 12:14:07 1995
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 95 16:41:06 EZT
From: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Women on UHJ
Suzanne, I will be posting the letter from the UHJ dated 31 May 1988, in
response to 'The Service of Women'
with the subject line WOM-UHJ.G (or possibly G and H,
depending on how large the file is).
As for whether Shoghi Effendi knew that Baha'u'llah had
specifically said that women who have recognized Him are also
accounted as 'rijal', I cannot help much. Nothing has come to
light indicating that Shoghi Effendi did know about this, but you
can't make a strong argument from lack of evidence. `Abdu'l-
Baha at least did know of it, since he refers to it in one place
(cited in the Service of Women).
We do know that Shoghi Effendi considered the constitution of
the Universal House of Justice to outside his sphere of
competence - not just an area in which he was not infallible but
an area in which he could not act at all:
He is debarred from laying down independently the
constitution that must govern the organized activities of
his fellow-members, and from exercising his influence in
a manner that would encroach upon the liberty of those
whose sacred right is to elect the body of his
collaborators. (Dispensation of Baha'u'llah, chapter on
'The Administrative Order')
So it seems unlikely that anything from the Guardian himself
will be found on the topic. He does direct us to the tablets of
`Abdu'l-Baha (or rather, his secretaries do - see my previous
posting on that point), and it is there that the answers must
be sought. Jonathan, I hope this explains why the focus of interest
is the tablets of `Abdu'l-Baha.
As Rick said, the only way forward is if a way can be seen to
admit women to membership which is entirely in conformity
with the Covenant. The Universal House of Justice apparently
feel that `Abdu'l-Baha's tablet:
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
Construction Committee, the Teaching Committee, the
Spiritual Assembly, and the charitable and scientific
associations, women share equally in all rights with men.
(from a newly-translated Tablet)
refers to the world body rather than the local body in Chicago, in
itself or as a prototype of the National Spiritual Assembly. Since
the other bodies mentioned are all local affairs, that seems
improbable, but then it becomes a question of the terminology
which applied at the time this tablet was written. It could also be
that the Universal House of Justice has extra information which
justifies their interpretation at this point. They could also change
their interpretation in the light of new historical information or
divine guidance. And of course whatever they decided would be
in accordance with the Covenant, by definition. And could be
changed at a later date. So I don't think Rick's proviso, valid
though it is, is the real holdup.
In the first place, the historical research is still patchy on some
points (although absolute proof is not required - only sufficient
grounds for the Universal House of Justice to act), and it has not
been collated so far as I know, and certainly not disseminated. In
the second place - and this is I think the real sticking-point - I
think many of the friends would reject, or at least feel less
certain about, the authority of a Universal House of Justice which
contained men, even if this was done on the authority of the
Universal House of Justice itself (which it would have to be).
The House naturally has to be very cautious about any changes
which could undermine the acceptance of its authority. Imagine a
family which has had five or six Baha'i generations, with martyrs
in one or two generations perhaps. Each generation has made
great sacrifices, and suffered great losses - Baha'u'llah died, the
Master died, they were devoted to the Guardian and he died and
ended the line of living Guardians. The Universal House of
Justice is the last possible focus of their devotion - and this
house then does something which, as they understand the
functions of men and women and the meaning of the 'men of the
House of Justice' renders its subsequent decisions invalid. For
such people, it would be a disaster analogous to the death of the
11th Imam. Perhaps there would be an 'occulted House of Justice'
:-(. Now, if you were on the House, would you want to be
responsible for testing these souls' faith? Perhaps initiating a
small schism which could cut off some very devoted and sincere
souls?
As discussion on this list has shown, there are very deep-seated
cultural assumptions about what being male and being female
means, assumptions which continue for decades, perhaps many
generations, after their functional origin in a particular social
setting has ceased to be relevant. These assumptions will have to
be replaced with newer assumptions which derive from a society
of functional equality (which means making at least a working
model of the society), and knowledge of the specific
circumstances around the exclusion of women at the various
levels of administration and of the texts which make their
inclusion at least possible will have to be disseminated in the
Baha'i community. My guess is that the barometer which will
measure this progress is the numbers of the National Spiritual
Assembly members who feel moved to exercise their 'liberty' and
'sacred right' to vote for women at the International Convention.
Which spreads the same heavy moral dilemmas to them, and so
ultimately to all of us. I think there is already evidence enough
to permit a change but, for what it is worth, I don't myself think
the Baha'i community has made progress enough on the working
model for the deep assumptions to change, and certainly the
deepening on the topic is not adequate (it has been hampered
very much by publication restrictions, which have meant that
much of the discussion on the topic is very uninformed). So I
couldn't myself advocate the step at the moment. Next year in
Jerusalem maybe: a hope for the future not a programme for
today.
Frank - I agree that the texts are not everything, but 1) the case
against admitting women is, so far as I have seen, entirely a
question of texts, which rather determines the grounds of the
argument, and 2) the question is not whether `Abdu'l-Baha might
not have known about some details (I suppose he might not, but
in this case he himself cites one of the tablets of Baha'u'llah
which says that women can be rijal, so at least by the date this
citation was made he had read at least one of those texts). The
evidence is that `Abdu'l-Baha's opinions on this developed, or
that he wished the practice to develop. And the evidence about
just what `Abdu'l-Baha thought on the specific question of
women on what we now know as the Universal House of Justice
is clouded by terminological uncertainty.
Mary noted that it is easy to expound equality at the dinner table,
but who cooked the meal etc. (lots of etc's actually)? I have
heard a hadith that, when one of the early believers came to
Baghdad to see Baha'u'llah he had to wait, because Baha'u'llah
was busy in the kitchen. Could anyone give a source for this? If
it could be authenticated, it could be a valuable aid in changing
attitudes.
And to someone whose unsigned post began "Back from my 6
week intellectual vacation from Talisman" (fault of my mail
system actually - it strips the envelopes off long messages for my
convenience, so I don't know where they've come from). You
said that my "paper at the Aqdas Conference re: inheritance laws
semed to argue Baha'u'llah was not advocating equality/inequality
issues but recognizing distinct spheres of life belonging to
women and men. " A thousand times no! I was discussing
lineality NOT the 'different functions' argument. In fact I was
assuming the full integration of women in economic spheres, and
of men in the household, though did mention briefly how the
inheritance laws work in a society where this has not been
achieved. What I was saying was that the law regarding the
personal effects of the deceased recognizes the women's sense of
their own identity is more strongly shaped by their mother, and
men's sense of their identity by their father (thus creating two
distinct male and female genealogical lines), and that the law
regarding the family home, by providing for the daughters to
inherit their mother's share of the home and for the eldest son to
inherit his father's share, provides a way for the male and female
principles to continue to reign over the family hearth (yin and
yang). This is emphatically not a separate spheres argument. The
paper has been accepted for publication in the Baha'i Studies
Review (UK), and they are remarkably efficient in getting things
out (months rather than years) so it may see the light of day this
year. Incidentally, a plug for the BSR: in my opinion the best
Baha'i studies publication, and lamentably under-subscribed in
North America. I'm sure they would be glad to get papers from
North America & other parts of the world too.
Sen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sen McGlinn ph: 31-43-216854
Andre Severinweg 47 email: Sen.McGlinn@RL.RuLimburg.NL
6214 PL Maastricht, the Netherlands
***
When, however, thou dost contemplate the innermost essence of things,
and the individuality of each,
thou wilt behold the signs of thy Lord's mercy . . ."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From brburl@mailbag.comTue Oct 3 12:14:08 1995
Date: Sat, 2 Sep 1995 13:14:23 -0500
From: Bruce Burrill
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Baha'i/Buddism unity?
Steven Scholl:
> "The questions Bruce raises re: Bahai/Buddhist unity are important ones
that require an ongoing dialogue among Buddhists and Baha'is." <
Important and interesting, and, therefore, fun, though I do take this rather
seriously.
> "Bruce's portrayal of the basic Baha'i positions fits well with the received
wisdom of the community" <
In looking at the msgs I've seen on this list concerning this issue, I
appreciate
the level of inquiry and self reflection. Though I have read years ago a lot of
Baha'i texts, I try to work with what is presented to me, and that is reflected
in what I have had to say about the Baha'i position. As for the basic
Baha'i positions as I present them, I am certainly aware that they can be
expanded upon at great length, and would expect that would be so as the
exchanges develop.
> "I think one of the big problems we have, as clearly set out by Bruce, is
that the Bahai religion does not yet have a coherent and developed theological
tradition emerging from the academy." <
In talking with Baha'is on compuserve and elsewhere this became patently
obvious. There is not yet a strong tradition of Baha'i apologetics for Baha'is
to draw upon when entering in a discussion like this, which can result some
floundering and can also lead to the disasters such as Fozdar's two works on
Buddhism.
> "I follow him in most instances in seeing that there are connections
between fundamental insights in the mystical systems East and West yet also
underlying differences that remain, even at the level of pure mystical
experience." <
I think this is true as it stands. There is much that could be said about why
there are connexions and why there are differences. If we explore deeply
enough the connexions and differences, will we find ourselves in agreement
with the Baha'i claim of unity of religions, whatever that might mean? I have
heard Baha'is sing the praises of selflessness, to become empty like a hollow
reed, but is there a connexion with what Buddhism says about
selflessness? Are they the same experiences?
> "My reading of the Bahai texts is that religious truth is relative, that all
religions express religious truth, that there is truth and error in every human
enterprise, that we need to approach such matters with open minds and
hearts, and that dialogue and fellowship among adherents of different faiths
will lead to something beyond what each particular community currently
possesses." <
Religious truth is relative, but what exactly does that mean? Buddhism
teaches rebirth, which Baha'i rejects. Either rebirth is true or it isn't true.
Now the usual way I have seen Baha'is use this notion is to say that rebirth
was the Buddha's way of teaching moral truths in a way appropriate to the
time and place, but we have now evolved beyond need of teaching moral
responsibility by using the idea of rebirth. This approach I have found very
common in the Baha'is as they deal with other religions, and I find it less
than satisfactory way to deal with the differences.
> "the soul is an unknowable essence" <
Then how do you know that you have, or are, one?
> "But Baha'is should not expect the world to beat a path to our door
until we have more to offer than half baked notions of Baha'u'llah as
everybody's messiah." <
Which seems to be a real challenge for Baha'i, because the run of the mill
Baha'i is likely to approach other religions in terms that are dismissive of
what is unique to that religion on the basis of what they hold progressive
revelation to be.
> "In a nutshell, what I seek is not Bahai/Buddhist unity but Bahai-Buddhist
dialogue so that each tradition might grow into a new creation." <
I agree with you.
From s0a7254@tam2000.tamu.eduTue Oct 3 12:14:09 1995
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 1995 19:46:44 -0500 (CDT)
From: Saman Ahmadi
To: talisman
Subject: Membership of the House
Dear Friends,
This entire thread has been very interesting to say the least.
1. The letter from the House seems pretty clear; though I do wonder
if the response would have been any different if the arguments
made in the 'Service of Women" paper were made to the UHJ first
(I am assuming this was not done).
2. I don't think that it is as issue that will go away - even
though Baha'is may fully accept to wait until the wisdom is
clear, others will no doubt focus on it as it can be
sensationalized.
3. I don't think we will have to wait 850 years for a
resolution - Abdul Baha promises that we will recognize the
wisdom someday (and even though I have no reason, I think
it will be well before the advent of the next Manifestation).
4. I don't think that men are engaging in the discussion
*just* to demonstrate support for women - there do
seem to be competing writings on issues which have bearing
on the exclusion of women on the UHJ.
5. I don't think that the infallibility - by which I mean an
unimperical (is that a word?) property which must be
accepted on faith - of the UHJ is in any way dependent on
its individual makeup. That is, whether the UHJ is made
up of 9 Asian men in their 20's, or 9 African men in the
60's, or etc., given the same information, I feel, the
UHJ would reach the same decision. Of course this is not
a testable theory but I feel that it holds.
6. I have probably contradicted myself already so this
seems like a good place to stop.
regards,
sAmAn
From gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduTue Oct 3 12:14:09 1995
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 1995 20:33:22 -0600 (MDT)
From: gpoirier
To: "Eric D. Pierce"
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: subscribe (introducing some old friends)
On Wed, 30 Aug 1995, Eric D. Pierce wrote:
> Of the few meetings that I attended where
> farm workers mixed with middle class anglo and persian
> Baha'is, the Millers created a hospitable and spiritually
> fragrant atmosphere that encouraged feelings of unity in
> the midst of what I perceived to be a considerable cultural
> and class chasm.
Eric, thanks for bringing back good memories of the Santa Cruz County
communities. You are right about the spirit of the events at the Millers;
fortunately they were not the only ones to demonstrate it. You have made
an important observation -- the mingling of the friends, especially given
the attitudes in California about migrant workers. In other churches, the
patriotic prejudices overcome the bonds of religious unity as a regular
course. The Mexican Baha'is lived in labor camps in the artichoke fields
along the Santa Cruz coast. We used to visit and sing with them. In an
atmosphere where there was a minimum of pretense, you can get right down
to business quickly. Maggie Mclendan used to lead the way for us Bosch
staff on these journeys. She also used to have an outdoor shower in her
garden right at the Bosch entrance; quite a sight for the friends driving
into Bosch, to see this woman in her 70's if not 80's, singing in her
homemade outdoor shower stall.
Brent
From gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduTue Oct 3 12:14:09 1995
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 1995 21:21:09 -0600 (MDT)
From: gpoirier
To: Juan R Cole
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Evolution of authority
Juan wrote:
> Let me begin by pointing out that in the cultural context within which
> Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha operated, a distinction existed between
> Revelation (vahy) and inspiration (ilham). Revelation pertains solely to
> the Manifestation of God. Part of the task of Revelation is
> divinely-revealed Legislation (shari`ah, verb: shara`a). Revelation and
> divine Legislation are the sole prerogatives of the Manifestation.
> `Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi, despite their differing stations, both
> had the function of Interpretation (tabyin). Neither had the prerogative
> of divine Legislation (i.e. revealing shari`ah).
In the section of the Dispensation on 'Abdu'l-Baha, Shoghi Effendi states
that the Master was *not* only an Interpreter. But, that brings up the
question you are raising here: Since 'Abdu'l-Baha's powers went beyond
Interpreter, and since He was not a Revealer ('Abdu'l-Baha being the first
to state that He was not a Revealer within the meaning of the 1000-year
proscription), what category do some of His pronouncements fall within?
Clearly, there are no small number of examples of when His Tablets seem
not at all to be interpretive, but to address subjects on which the Texts
of Baha'u'llah are entirely silent; the Master augments the Sacred Text.
Here is how I reconcile the matter. First, the Guardian often refers to
the Master as having "revealed" Tablets, so "revelation" in some sense is
applicable to His Tablets. However, this "revelation" by 'Abdu'l-Baha is
not direct from God -- the condition on the verse from the Aqdas, that no
Revelation direct from God would come in less than 1000 years. There are
statements from the Master which indicate that He communed directly with
Baha'u'llah -- to me, that means that Baha'u'llah revealed to the Master.
It is not Revelation of the same category as that of a Manifestation; but
it is revelation in the sense that it is entirely new, that it is not
Interpretation of extant Text. Similarly, the Guardian stated that the
Will of the Master is intimately connected with the Aqdas because the
Master's life was so infused with the Teachings and Spirit of Baha'u'llah.
In fact, I think the Master's Will is a perfect example of this subject.
I think the Guardian addressed this issue in the Dispensation when he
wrote of the "mystic intercourse" between Baha'u'llah and the Master. He
was not here referring to simple [simple?] Interpretation. The Master's
Will goes far beyond the sketchy adumbration of the Institutions in
Baha'u'llah's Tablets.
> It will be said that neither `Abdu'l-Baha nor Shoghi Effendi would
> wilfully contradict Baha'u'llah. And this is true.
> However, there were limitations on their Interpretation. The main
> limitation is information. Baha'u'llah authored 15,000 documents; only
> 7,000 or so are even extant. These were not collected and indexed.
> There may be instances where `Abdu'l-Baha or Shoghi Effendi said
> something without full access to the Revealed Text.
Especially in the case of the Master, I believe that His ability to
interpret the Revelation was not dependent on His access to the Text, for
the reason I have stated above. His access to Baha'u'llah's will was not
dependent upon physical access to the Tablets of Baha'u'llah.
I know of at least one statement, I think in Baha'i Administration, where
the Guardian stated that not all of the Tablets were collected, much less
studied. My recollection from The Priceless Pearl is that Khanum stated
that the first act of the Guardian was to read all of the Revelation
available. But if we take this view that the unknown 8,000 Tablets to
any degree dilute the Interpretation of the Master or the Guardian, then
where are we?
> Now, one explicit text of Baha'u'llah says, "imruz ima'u'llah az rijal
> mahsub" (Payam-i Malakut): "Today, the handmaidens of God are accounted
> as men."
Well, if you want to take that literally, then the Baha'i law that
permissible sexual relations must be between "a man and the woman who is
his wife" become permissible "between a man and the man who is his
husband" and between "a woman and the woman who is her wife;" and the
scheme of intestate succession in which the eldest son inherits the
residence of the decedent also means that the eldest daughter inherits the
residence and personal clothing of her father; and that fathers are the
"first educators" of the children; and that combat is not worthy of men
because of their tender hearts; etc.
So, I have difficulty with the way you are applying this verse. It's one
thing to say that it means that the rank is the same, and I'm open to
expansion and development of that theme. But to say that it eradicates
all of the sex differentiation in the sacred texts is to apply it in a way
that brings it into conflict with other revealed Texts, which I understand
to be one of the "rules" of interpretation of the Writings.
Brent
From gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduTue Oct 3 12:14:09 1995
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 1995 21:21:09 -0600 (MDT)
From: gpoirier
To: Juan R Cole
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Evolution of authority
Juan wrote:
> Let me begin by pointing out that in the cultural context within which
> Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha operated, a distinction existed between
> Revelation (vahy) and inspiration (ilham). Revelation pertains solely to
> the Manifestation of God. Part of the task of Revelation is
> divinely-revealed Legislation (shari`ah, verb: shara`a). Revelation and
> divine Legislation are the sole prerogatives of the Manifestation.
> `Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi, despite their differing stations, both
> had the function of Interpretation (tabyin). Neither had the prerogative
> of divine Legislation (i.e. revealing shari`ah).
In the section of the Dispensation on 'Abdu'l-Baha, Shoghi Effendi states
that the Master was *not* only an Interpreter. But, that brings up the
question you are raising here: Since 'Abdu'l-Baha's powers went beyond
Interpreter, and since He was not a Revealer ('Abdu'l-Baha being the first
to state that He was not a Revealer within the meaning of the 1000-year
proscription), what category do some of His pronouncements fall within?
Clearly, there are no small number of examples of when His Tablets seem
not at all to be interpretive, but to address subjects on which the Texts
of Baha'u'llah are entirely silent; the Master augments the Sacred Text.
Here is how I reconcile the matter. First, the Guardian often refers to
the Master as having "revealed" Tablets, so "revelation" in some sense is
applicable to His Tablets. However, this "revelation" by 'Abdu'l-Baha is
not direct from God -- the condition on the verse from the Aqdas, that no
Revelation direct from God would come in less than 1000 years. There are
statements from the Master which indicate that He communed directly with
Baha'u'llah -- to me, that means that Baha'u'llah revealed to the Master.
It is not Revelation of the same category as that of a Manifestation; but
it is revelation in the sense that it is entirely new, that it is not
Interpretation of extant Text. Similarly, the Guardian stated that the
Will of the Master is intimately connected with the Aqdas because the
Master's life was so infused with the Teachings and Spirit of Baha'u'llah.
In fact, I think the Master's Will is a perfect example of this subject.
I think the Guardian addressed this issue in the Dispensation when he
wrote of the "mystic intercourse" between Baha'u'llah and the Master. He
was not here referring to simple [simple?] Interpretation. The Master's
Will goes far beyond the sketchy adumbration of the Institutions in
Baha'u'llah's Tablets.
> It will be said that neither `Abdu'l-Baha nor Shoghi Effendi would
> wilfully contradict Baha'u'llah. And this is true.
> However, there were limitations on their Interpretation. The main
> limitation is information. Baha'u'llah authored 15,000 documents; only
> 7,000 or so are even extant. These were not collected and indexed.
> There may be instances where `Abdu'l-Baha or Shoghi Effendi said
> something without full access to the Revealed Text.
Especially in the case of the Master, I believe that His ability to
interpret the Revelation was not dependent on His access to the Text, for
the reason I have stated above. His access to Baha'u'llah's will was not
dependent upon physical access to the Tablets of Baha'u'llah.
I know of at least one statement, I think in Baha'i Administration, where
the Guardian stated that not all of the Tablets were collected, much less
studied. My recollection from The Priceless Pearl is that Khanum stated
that the first act of the Guardian was to read all of the Revelation
available. But if we take this view that the unknown 8,000 Tablets to
any degree dilute the Interpretation of the Master or the Guardian, then
where are we?
> Now, one explicit text of Baha'u'llah says, "imruz ima'u'llah az rijal
> mahsub" (Payam-i Malakut): "Today, the handmaidens of God are accounted
> as men."
Well, if you want to take that literally, then the Baha'i law that
permissible sexual relations must be between "a man and the woman who is
his wife" become permissible "between a man and the man who is his
husband" and between "a woman and the woman who is her wife;" and the
scheme of intestate succession in which the eldest son inherits the
residence of the decedent also means that the eldest daughter inherits the
residence and personal clothing of her father; and that fathers are the
"first educators" of the children; and that combat is not worthy of men
because of their tender hearts; etc.
So, I have difficulty with the way you are applying this verse. It's one
thing to say that it means that the rank is the same, and I'm open to
expansion and development of that theme. But to say that it eradicates
all of the sex differentiation in the sacred texts is to apply it in a way
that brings it into conflict with other revealed Texts, which I understand
to be one of the "rules" of interpretation of the Writings.
Brent
From gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduTue Oct 3 12:14:10 1995
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 1995 10:49:59 -0600 (MDT)
From: gpoirier
To: Juan R Cole
Cc: Talisman
Subject: Re: Evolution of authority
On Mon, 4 Sep 1995, Juan R Cole wrote:
> Likewise, no Baha'i text bestows on `Abdu'l-Baha the right of divine
> Legislation (shari`ah), and the Master would have been horrified at the
> thought.
Juan, you posted this to me privately, but I didn't think you'd mind if I
shared it.
In the Aqdas, Baha'u'llah, in the words of the Guardian, "anticipates by
implication the Institution of the Guardianship." My understanding is
that the Aqdas verses implying a Guardian are three: The law of Huquq
with no provision for its recipient; The passage concerning the endowments
dedicated to charity passing to the Aghsan [implicitly, to the "chosen"
Aghsan]; and the verse stating that after the passing of the
Manifestation, to turn to "Him who hath branched from this Ancient Root."
One way of viewing this is to say that in establishing the Institution of
Guardianship, the Master was "interpreting" the implications of the above
verses. My own view is that the Guardian acknowledges that the Master
went beyond interpretation.
You have mentioned that in the original languages there is a stark
contrast between the concepts. Are you speaking here only of a matter of
language, or are you also implying the Muslim belief concerning
revelation? I want to be clear here: While only the Manifestation can
reveal, there is something more than interpretation going on with the
Master. Since the Muslim dispensation had no person who embodied the
station or capacities of 'Abdu'l-Baha, of course the distinction between
the capacities of humans and the capacities of a Manifestation is a stark
one -- and one I accept. We are talking here only about the Master.
One more point I'd like to add by analogy. In his book on mysticism,
Ruhi Afnan quotes from Baha'u'llah that the believers are free to differ
on His Station so long as they do so in unity. On the other hand, this
very part of the Dispensation is one of the few places where Shoghi
Effendi invokes the charge of blasphemy against those who misapprehend
the station of the Master. Not having the text in front of me, my
recollection is that he uses this to curb the friends' tendency to view
'Abdu'l-Baha as a Manifestation.
If folks would like, I can post that passage, as well as the "mystic
intercourse" passage; and the places where the term "reveal" is used by
the Guardian to refer to the Master's writings.
Brent
From seena@castle.ed.ac.ukTue Oct 3 12:14:10 1995
Date: 04 Sep 95 21:21:52 BST
From: S B Fazel
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: MacEoin's scholarship
Dear all,
As for MacEoins contribution to Bahai scholarship, one relatively objective
way to approach his contribution is by citation analysis which is widely used
as a quantitative tool to assess the influence, significance and impact of
research in a field.
In a citation analysis of all articles on the Babi and Bahai Faiths in
1988-1993 inclusive in Bahai periodicals (JBS, BSR, BSB, WO) and non-Bahai
academic journals (included in Arts and Humanities Citation Index, Religion
Index, Index Islamicus), MacEoin is the fifth highest cited writer. His
article on *From Babism to Bahaism: conflation etc* in Religion (1983) is the
joint fifth highest cited article. The latter is possibly artifically
inflated by the a number of critical citations it received.
Citation data does not replace the need for qualitative analysis by experts
in the field like Moojans. Rather, it supplements these judgements. If
interested, you can read this citation analysis in the next issue of *The
Bahai Studies Review*.
Seena Fazel
From Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nlTue Oct 3 12:14:10 1995
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 95 22:57:52 EZT
From: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: interpretation paper
Greetings all
Those with long memories will remember Tony's mention of a paper by
Ian Semple on Interpretation and the Guardianship, which was supposed
to lie somewhere in my archives. I found it! However,
the typescript is not good enough to scan, and I have no enthusiasm to
type it over at the moment. Would anyone volunteer to type it up so
it can be shared? The contents list is:
1. the distinction between the interpretation that we all do when
discussing any subject, and Authoritative Interpretation as exercised
by the Guardian
2. The distinction between authoritative interpretation, and divinely
guided legislation
3. Aspects of the function of Interpreter as exercised by Shoghi Effendi-
3.1 Defining the meaning of specific Texts
3.2 Explaining what is the thought conveyed by the Texts i.e. expounding
their meaning
3.3 Development of seminal statement in the Sacred Text
3.4 Examples of refusal to comment further on a Text or make statments
on matters not covered in the Text
3.5 Definition of the sphere of authoritative interpretation
The paper is 9 pages. Volunteers?
Sen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sen McGlinn ph: 31-43-216854
Andre Severinweg 47 email: Sen.McGlinn@RL.RuLimburg.NL
6214 PL Maastricht, the Netherlands
***
When, however, thou dost contemplate the innermost essence of things,
and the individuality of each,
thou wilt behold the signs of thy Lord's mercy . . ."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From jrcole@umich.eduTue Oct 3 12:14:10 1995
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 1995 10:33:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: Frank Lewis
Subject: Re: textual bias
Frank: Thank you for your insightful and useful message; I'm always glad
to see a posting that raises the discussion to a higher level.
1. The bias toward textual evidence in Baha'i law and practice is not
only characteristic of my approach as a historian; it is also a norm in
Baha'i jurisprudence, stemming from Baha'u'llah himself. Whatever he
told `Abdu'l-Baha can only be considered a hadith; it has no normative or
legal force except to the extent that it is reflected in written texts.
2. I gave the instance of imperfect information deriving from inadequate
collection and collation of the Tablets as a limiting condition
on later interpreters. Are you suggesting that such a limiting condition
does not exist? I can decisively demonstrate instances where Shoghi
Effendi gave rulings at variance with those of `Abdu'l-Baha, and which in
some cases can only have derived from his being unaware of,or having
forgotten, `Abdu'l-Baha's statements on the subject.
3. Let my argument not be misconstrued. I am not arguing for original
intent of the Bork variety. Otherwise we would all be doomed to the 19th
Century Middle East for the duration of the dispensation. I am, rather ,
suggesting that basic principles can be abstracted from Baha'u'llah's
writings that have relevance for subsequent generations of Baha'is; and
that this process should not be derailed by a contingent ruling of a head
of the Faith.
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From jrcole@umich.eduTue Oct 3 12:14:11 1995
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 1995 13:36:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: Bruce Burrill
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Baha'i/Buddhist unity?
The issue of the dialogue between Buddhism and the Baha'i Faith is so
profound a one that I have been a bit reluctant to address it off the
cuff, as it were, on e-mail.
But I guess I am sorry that my earlier suggestions do not seem to have
entered into the continuing discussion.
1. "Religion" as we now understand it is a discourse (in the Foucauldian
sense of a "representation that tends to get substituted for the
thing it is representing;" and as I use it here I mean the word also to
have overtones of Wittgenstein's Sprachspiel or language-game).
2. This religious discourse is culturally and historically conditioned.
3. The discourse can be broadly divided into two types of statement: 1)
statements about Transcendent Reality and 2) statements about ideal human
behavior.
4. The Transcendent Reality or Absolute Truth (al-Haqq) is in fact
beyond human comprehension and all statements about it are in some sense
false or inadequate. Religious Teachers make such statements, not in
order to characterize the Absolute Truth, but because such statements are
an aid in human spiritual and ethical progress. (All of this is clearly
stated by Baha'u'llah in the very first passage of *Gleanings*.) For
this reason, each religion has engaged in a different discourse about the
Absolute Truth, depending upon the culture it was addressing. It is
therefore *irrelevant* whether al-Haqq or the Absolute Truth is spoken of
as personal or impersonal. Both words are adjectives and therefore
attributes, and the Absolute Truth is beyond all humanly-comprehendable
attributes. It is up to the Manifestation to decide how best to
communicate this ineffable truth in each dispensation, i.e., what
language-game it would be best to play with regard to the needs of his or
her audience.
5. Social and ethical statements in the religions tend to be especially
mutable over time, because ethics is relative. In Jesus's time, the NT
taught that it was only "ethical" to return a runaway slave to his
owner! The Qur'an allowed slavery but saw manumission as a good deed.
In the Baha'i dispensation slavery is forbidden. I think anyone who
looks at the social teachings of the Buddha will find many elements that
would prove unsatisfactory to most contemporary thinkers; there is a
rather fierce misogyny running through the texts; women are temptresses,
bags of blood and bones, who are only reluctantly accepted as nuns. The
emphasis on celibacy does not strike me as very healthy. The
entire institution of the monkhood and monastery has in history been
parasitical in the same way that the nobility has often been parasitical,
imposing high taxes on the peasantry. I could go on, but do not want
apologetic to turn into polemic.
In any case, I think the project of "comparing" the phenomenal aspects of
Buddhism and the Baha'i Faith an interesting but ultimately not very
fruitful enterprise. If one attains *insight* into the noumenal
referents, then all that is obviated. And I think the unity of the
religions in the Baha'i scriptures is put forth as a matter of mystical
insight, not as a matter of levelling the phenomenal differences among
the concrete historical traditions.
cheers Juan Cole, History, Univ. of Michigan
From jrcole@umich.eduTue Oct 3 12:14:11 1995
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 1995 00:09:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Buddhism/Baha'i/AbsoluteTruth (fwd)
Dear Bruce:
I'm only trying to explain how I understand the Baha'i view of the unity
of religions. I am not trying to convince you of this view, nor am I in
any way calling for silence. I thought the point of the discussion was
to understand each other's position better. At some point we may come to
a parting of the ways and say we must agree to disagree; but isn't it
early for that yet?
One quick note on possible Buddhist influences on the Baha'i Faith. I
think these exist, though they are broad rather than specific and mainly
come in through Sufism.
1) Sufi convents and much important early Sufi thought developed in
Khurasan, which was the Buddhist area of Iran and Afghanistan before
Islam. Bukhara, for instance, is a corruption of the Buddhist Vihara.
Bertold Spuler showed that the institution of the Sufi convent (ribat)
spread west from Khurasan and argued persuasively that it was influenced
by Buddhist such institutions. The Sufi idea of "fana'" or the
extinction of the self, which is so important in the Baha'i Faith, seems
very possibly derived from Buddhism, and the similarity in sound between
"fana'" and Nirvana may not be an accident. All this is speculative,
since the early textual evidence is slight, but it is at least plausible.
Buddhism and Buddhist-influenced Hinduism in Sindh may have had an
influence on later Khurasani mystics such as Bayazid Bistami.
Iran was ruled for nearly a century and a half by the Mongols, from the
1250s, and some early Mongol rulers attempted to impose Buddhism as the
state religion. I myself suspect that Buddhist ideas affected popular
Sufism and had a continuing influence. Even at the level of the literate
tradition, the Sufi-Shi`i of the Kubraviyyih order, Shaykh `Ali Hamadani,
had a serious encounter with Central Asian Mahayana Buddhism, and this
survives in his manuscripts. His was precisely the kind of Sufism that
went on to influence Safavid thought, Shaykhism, and Babism.
Iranian merchants in the early modern period had extensive contact with
Buddhist southeast Asia, and Persian MS describing these existed and
circulated. Indeed, for a brief moment a Persian clique was brought in
by the king to rule Thailand.
Baha'u'llah clearly had encountered Sanskrit works translated into
Persian during the Mughal period (there were thousands of these, and some
demonstrably circulated in Iran). Among these was the Yoga-Vasistha,
which was probably written around the mid-1200s and in which scholars
have found heavy influence from Madhyamika Buddhism. This book was
edited for Iran by Mir Findiriski and was known as the Kitab-i Jug (or Juk).
Mirza Abu'l-Fadl Gulpaygani knew Buddhists in Tehran during his spiritual
search of the early 1870s.
`Abdu'l-Baha knew a large number of Buddhists, mainly Western converts.
So although the encounter of Baha'i scriptures with Buddhism is on the
surface limited, the position of Iran as a frontier between the Islamic
world on the one hand and the civilizations based on South Asian
religions on the other, ensured that some sort of continuing intellectual
dialogue between Iran and the Buddhist and Hindu traditions (admittedly
more the latter than the former) existed.
Bruce wrote:
>Interesting msg. Basically you are saying, Be quiet because we can't really
>talk about this, we must just somehow _grok_ it. Let me make a couple of
>comments in passing before I address your point.
As I said, I am not in any way saying, "Be quiet." I rather like
Buddhist religious thought, and enjoy your postings. But you are correct
that I perceive Baha'u'llah to say that one sees the unity of the
religions through mystical insight (`irfan), by reaching a particular
spiritual plane or maqam. I find it strange that a Buddhist would object
to this approach in principle. Does everyone start out a Buddha? Or do
some at some point gain insight into the nature of reality that others as
yet lack? Does so saying rule out a reasoned discussion of Buddhist thought?
>So in other words, the issue of unity religions is not really open to an
>independent investigation of the truth. I cannot look at what Buddhism
>has to
>say and at what Baha'i has to say to see if they are in fact "uttering
>the same
>speech, and proclaiming the same Faith." In other words you are saying that
>the claim of unity is not really open to a careful investigation as I am
>trying
>to do? If I experience the truth, whatever that might mean, I will _see_
>this truth of unity? Mystical insight. Hmmm, what could meaningfully count
>against such an insight? Buddhism actually questions mystical insight, being
>fully aware that such "insight" can easily be colored by one's beliefs.
Well, O.K., if you wish to dismiss Baha'i mystical experience as a biased
set of illusions, then fine. But then we have nothing more to talk about
(more especially since I do not dismiss the spiritual insights of
Buddhists as illusory, so we are not on equal ground).
But I will proceed on the theory that you do want to understand what
Baha'u'llah taught on this issue. What I am trying to say is that the
unity of the religions cannot be perceived by looking at doctrines. The
doctrines differ. Baha'u'llah did not think doctrinal hairsplitting was
at the center of religion, however. For him, religion is primarily about
the acquisition of perfections (kasb al-kamalat).
An Indian at one point asked Baha'u'llah which of four positions was
correct: 1) that the world is identical with the Absolute Truth; 2) that
the Absolute Truth differs from the contingent world and the divine
Manifestations are intermediaries between the two; 3) that the Absolute
Truth is identical with the heavenly Spheres, which in turn emanated
particulars; 4) that Nature has come into being by virtue of the Absolute
Truth, and that Nature has the effect that "everything from the atom to
the sun goes and comes, having neither a beginning nor an end, just as
the rain falls and nourishes the grass and vanishes) (Ma'idih-yi Asmani
vol. 7, 148-173).
Now, one would expect Baha'u'llah to say yes or no to each of these.
But he refuses to. He says that position 2) is "closer to piety," but
adds that "the other positions can also be argued, for in one station all
things were and are manifestations of the divine names and attributes."
That is, whether a doctrine is declared true or false depends upon the
spiritual station in which it is being asserted. Doctrines' truth or
falsity is relative, not absolute. In the same way, Baha'u'llah declared
true both the two competing views of biblical/quranic creationism and
Neoplatonic emanationism. That is, Baha'u'llah holds that the universe
has always existed, being a continual emanation of the Absolute Truth.
But since the Eternal Truth has ontological (not temporal) primacy, it is
also understandable why the Western scriptures would talk of God existing
"before" the "creation."
This sort of view comes out of a broad Sufi background, and is based upon
the idea that perceivers (mudrikun) have different spiritual stations or
grades (maqam, rutbah). It is differences of perception/idrak and
station or maqam that explain why differences in religious doctrine exist
at all (along with the socially and historically conditioned nature of
human knowledge). Baha'u'llah, having the highest station possible in
contingent existence, saw the unity of the religions and reported it to
us. I think it is clear in his writings that he believed the rest of us
could be taught to see it, if we were open-minded about it. I do not
rule out reasoned discourse as one path to seeing this unity, but it
depends on what we reason about and whether it is a useful thing to
reason about.
Incidentally, with regard to the idea of God, Baha'i theology
derives ultimately, via Shi`ism, from the Mu`tazilite school, which was
nominalist. That is, Mu`tazilites held that we do not say that God is
knowing because there is a real knowledge existing as a hypostatic thing
that is somehow attached to God; we simply say God has knowledge as a way
of denying an imperfection, i.e. ignorance, in the Absolute Truth (al-Haqq).
This is the same position held in Shaykhism, Babism and the Baha'i Faith.
>That is a Baha'i statement, but it is not necessarily a Buddhist statement,
>given that Buddhists do not see that human comprehension is so limited.
You were speaking of my statement that Baha'is believe the Eternal Truth,
the Absolute reality to be ineffable and inexpressible. I am at a loss
to understand why you would wish to deny that a similar idea of the
ineffability of some aspects of the Truth exists in Buddhism. I refer
you to the Buddha's statement regarding Nirvana in Sutta Nipata 1070 (and
the Buddhist canon is full of such statements, as I think you know):
"No measure measures him who enters rest. There is no word with which to
speak of him. All thought is here at an end and so therefore all paths
that words can take are also closed."
>But how do _you_ know that each manifestation is talking about the same
>thing, as you are saying here? How do you know?
1) I believed in the unity of the religions before I ever became a
Baha'i. I read the scriptures of the world religions with the eye of a
seeker after the truth, unattached to any one, and I found them fingers
pointing in the same direction, even though the fingerprints were different.
2) Baha'u'llah teaches this idea, and I believe that he attained this
insight. I have found his teachings about every aspect of reality so
perfect that his views have come to have great weight with me.
3) In 25 years of studying the world religions, both as seeker and
academically, I have found their unity more and more apparent, on the
level of spirituality and ethics. I have even begun to see how some
doctrines converge.
> [Juan had written:]
> "It is up to the Manifestation to decide how best to
>communicate this ineffable truth in each dispensation, i.e., what
>language-game it would be best to play with regard to the needs of his or
>her audience."
<
[Bruce:]
>That is not really very satisfactory, but it does allow Baha'i to side
>step the
>problematics of fact that it really does _not_ look like each
manifestation is
>talking about the same supposed "Absolute Truth." Buddhism teaches rebirth
>which Baha'i rejects, but, heck, both are simply wrong because they really
>do not reflect "Absolute Truth" because no word can reflect "Absolute
>Truth." But then what should it matter what I believe?
To say that there is more than one discourse that can express the
Absolute Truth is not to say that *any* discourse can. In fact, Baha'is
accept only a handful of such religious language-games as expressing the
truth as fully as was possible in a particular civilizational milieu. It
does matter what one believes. Moreover, I still cannot understand why
you should be upset that I as a Baha'i affirm that your religion's
discourse is perfectly valid, and is among the few great traditions of
which one can be sure this is the case. (I agree that not all Baha'is
have the same understanding of the implication of the unity of religions
for our approach to Buddhism; but I would say my approach is based on
an extensive reading in Baha'u'llah's Persian and Arabic Tablets and that
it seems to be shared by major Baha'i scholars such as Moojan Momen--so
it is not exactly a theological fringe).
>One throws one's hands up in the air, so what can we say? Buddhists and
>Baha'i cannot talk with other about their respective beliefs in hope of
>exploring a particular issue? Maybe the question of unity of religions is
>beyond words, but then how meaningful can it be?
Beliefs can be doctrinal, metaphysical, ethical, spiritual. I think
discussing the last two will be a more fruitful way of finding
common ground than discussing the first two. But by all means let
all be discussed. As for how meaningful an ineffable truth can be,
well: about as meaningful as Nirvana, according to the Sutta Nipata.
with respect and admiration - Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From jrcole@umich.eduTue Oct 3 12:14:12 1995
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 1995 12:17:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: gpoirier
Subject: Re: Evolution of authority
Brent: The distinction between Revelation (vahy) and inspiration (ilham)
is very strong in the original languages, but it is not so stark in
English. Thus, the beloved Guardian occasionally translates vahy as
inspiration, though mostly as revelation. And occasionally "ilham" or
inspiration is rendered as revelation.
This is what is going on when Shoghi Effendi speaks of `Abdu'l-Baha as
"revealing" a Tablet. It is a matter of loose translation into a
language with different resonances. I guarantee you that he does not
mean "vahy" by this language and that in Arabic or Persian the beloved
Guardian *never* associated "vahy" or divine Revelation with `Abdu'l-Baha
or indeed with anyone but a Manifestation of God.
Likewise, no Baha'i text bestows on `Abdu'l-Baha the right of divine
Legislation (shari`ah), and the Master would have been horrified at the
thought.
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From jrcole@umich.eduTue Oct 3 12:14:12 1995
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 1995 13:03:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: Bruce Burrill
Subject: Re: Buddhism/Baha'i/AbsoluteTruth
Bruce:
I agree that it is important to define words carefully in such a
discussion. But it is also necessary to understand that the words are
imbricated in an epistemological outlook. In my view the Baha'i faith,
having a genealogy in Nominalism, has an epistemological approach very
similar to that of Kant.
That is, there are things-in-themselves or noumena, and
things-as-perceived, or phenomena. Perception in turn is not a
positivist transcription of external reality. Rather, human perception
is conditioned by a priori categories such as time and space; perceiving
something imposes categories on it; it is not a neutral act. And, of
course, there are many types of perception--empirical, rational,
spiritual, mystical.
God in the Baha'i Faith is both knowable and unknowable. God is
referred to by many conceptions, among them very prominently "al-Haqq,"
an Arabic word meaning the Truth but with connotations here of the
Ultimate Truth, Absolute Reality, the Eternal Truth. The short
obligatory prayer acknowledges that humans came into existence in order
to know God (li `irfanika). But the word "know" here does not refer to
ordinary cognition. It is the word used in Islamic mysticism to refer to
mystical insight. Moreover, as I have said, "knowing" takes place at
different metaphysical levels.
On the level of ahadiyyah or unicity, which is that of the
Absolute Truth-in-itself, obviously human beings cannot know It. They
cannot perceive the ultimate Noumenon. But manifestations and signs of
this Absolute Truth are evident on the plane of malakut, which human
beings inhabit; by attaining mystical insight into these phenomenal
traces of the divine Noumenon, they come as close as they can to
"knowing" the Eternal Truth. Most prominently, it is the divine
perfections evident in the Manifestation of God that point the way to
this mystical insight.
You are very right that the religions' doctrines and practices
address similar existential problems in different ways. The way I think
of this is for instance in the sport of vaulting, everyone used to go
over the pole head first and chest down. Then someone thought of going
over on their back. Some techniques suit some athletes, some suit
others; both get you over the pole, which is what is important. I
therefore look upon specific religious doctrines and metaphysical
systems, not as end-alls and be-alls in themselves, but as spiritual
"techniques" rather as in vaulting. Christianity's divinization of
Christ, and Islam's determined humanization of Muhammad, are different
prophetologies. But the Christian who takes spiritual comfort from
Christ's divinity and the Muslim who glories in Muhammad's humanity may
both be getting in their own way a needed spiritual lift.
Gleanings, Selection I:
"Far, far from Thy glory be what mortal man can affirm of Thee, or
attribute unto Thee, or the praise with which he can glorify Thee!
Whatever duty Thou hast 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."
-Baha'u'llah.
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From momen@northill.demon.co.ukTue Oct 3 12:14:12 1995
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 95 22:46:13
From: Wendi and Moojan Momen
To: talisman@ucs.indiana.edu
Subject: Re Seed of Creation
Poor Ahmad has been attacked extensively on this list. I am not about
to leap to his defence but I would like to bring to peoples attention a
couple of points that do indicate that he is legitimate in what he is
trying to do.
1. First, the concept of a male/female principle and the offspring of a
mystic intercourse between the two is not alien to the Baha'i writings.
>
> The Will and Testament of
> Abdu'l-Baha, on the other hand, may be regarded as the offspring
> resulting from that mystic intercourse between Him Who had generated
> the forces of a God-given Faith and the One Who had been
> made its sole Interpreter and was recognized as its perfect Exemplar.
> The creative energies unleashed by the Originator of the Law of God
> in this age gave birth, through their impact upon the mind of Him
> Who had been chosen as its unerring Expounder, to that Instrument,
> the vast implications of which the present generation, even after the
> lapse of twenty-three years, is still incapable of fully apprehending.
> (God Passes By, page 325)
There is a similar passage in World Order of Baha'u'llah, p. 144
2. In several places Abdu'l-Baha has stated that the physical is a
mirror of the spiritual world (see for example, Promulgation of
Universal Peace, p. 270), and thus contemplating the world of nature is
one way of understanding the spiritual world.
It seems to me therefore that what Ahmad has done is perfectly
legitimate within the Baha'i framework, and is soundly based within the
Baha'i texts. I do not happen to agree with his line of argument
however.
--
Wendi and Moojan Momen
momen@northill.demon.co.uk
Tel./Fax: (44) 1767 627626
From momen@northill.demon.co.ukTue Oct 3 12:14:12 1995
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 95 00:03:52
From: Wendi and Moojan Momen
To: talisman@ucs.indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Buddhism/Baha'i/AbsoluteTruth
jc: > "Beliefs can be doctrinal, metaphysical, ethical, spiritual. I think
> discussing the last two will be a more fruitful way of finding
> common ground than discussing the first two." <
>
bb: > Okay, but how do you discuss the latter two without including first two?
>
Interestingly, I think that Juan's approach is much closer to that of the
Buddha than Bruce's. The fact is that the Buddha was not at all interested in
doctrinal and metaphysical elaborations. He even went as far as to forbid his
followers from engaging in such discourse. The story of the poison arrow is I
am sure well known to both Juan and Bruce, but I will recount it here for the
benefit of any on Talisman who are not familiar with it.
> On one occasion, Malunkyaputta asked the Buddha several
> questions: whether the world is eternal or not, whether the world
> is finite or infinite, whether the soul and the body are identical
> or not, and about the existence of the saint after death. He
> received no reply but instead the Buddha related a parable:
>> It is as if a man is hit by a poison arrow. His friends
>> hasten to the doctor. The latter is about to draw the
>> arrow out of the wound. The wounded man however cries:
>> `Stop, I will not have the arrow drawn out until I know
>> who shot it. Whether a warrior or a Brahmin, or belonging
>> to the agricultural or menial castes . . . his name and
>> to which family he belonged . . . whether he was tall or
>> short . . . of what species and description the arrow
>> was.'
> In seeking to obtain absolute knowledge of all of the circumstances
> of the shooting, the man had neglected the practical matter of
> removing the arrow and would certainly die. Similarly, the Buddha
> asserts that were he to try to elucidate the answers to the
> questions put to him by Malunkyaputta, `that person would die
> before the Tathagata [a title of the Buddha] had ever elucidated
> this to him'. (Majjhima Nikaya (1:426) 2:2:63, Culla Malunkya
> Sutta, v. 43; translated in Middle Length Sayings, vol. 2, p. 99
> and Warren, Buddhism in Translation, p. 120.)
Another example of the Buddha's attitude towards metaphysical and doctrinal
questions is the occasion when Vacchagata the wanderer asked the Buddha several
metaphysical questions. The Buddha refused to answer his questions. When asked
later why he had refused, he replied that to have entered into a discussion with
him would have been:
> the jungle of theorizing, the tangle of theorizing, the bondage
> and the shackles of theorizing; it is coupled with misery, ruin,
> despair and agony; it conduces not to detachment, passionlessness,
> tranquillity, peace, to knowledge and wisdom of Nibbana. This is
> the danger I perceive in these views which makes me discard them
> all.(Majjhima Nikaya 2:3:72, Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta; quoted in
> Murti, Central Philosophy of Buddhism, p. 44; see also translation
> in Warren, Buddhism in Translation, p. 124-5 and Middle Length
> Sayings, vol. 2, pp. 97-101.)
Therefore the Buddha concentrated in his message on the practical task of
saving humanity. In his basic teaching, the Four Noble Truths, he identifies
that life inescapably involves suffering; that the cause of suffering is our
attachment to the things and ideas of this world--our craving and grasping; that
the only way to escape suffering is to this attachment, craving and grasping;
and that the way to do this is the Noble Eightfold path. Nothing here about
doctrine or metaphysics -- only a simple practical path for all to follow.
It should be no surprise to anyone that the Baha'i teachings agree with all of the
Buddha's analysis and with his path. If Bruce would like, I will post the relevant
quotations.
If one wants to stick to the level of doctrine and metaphysics (seeking to pin down
the exact meaning of Ultimate Truth and Ultimate Reality) then I would agree
with Bruce that it is difficult (although I would not say impossible) to reconcile
Buddhism and the Baha'i Faith. But my question to Bruce would be: why attach
yourself to this level when the Buddha specifically discourages you from doing this?
Is not the whole thrust of the Buddha's message to get away from theorizing and
doctrines and get on with the urgent task of saving human beings from the fire that
is raging within them? The Buddha certainly seemed to think that this was the
central point of his mission and if we concetrate on this centre, it will not be
difficult to find many correspondences between the Baha'i Faith and Buddhism.
Moojan
--
Wendi and Moojan Momen
momen@northill.demon.co.uk
Tel./Fax: (44) 1767 627626
From 73613.2712@compuserve.comTue Oct 3 12:14:13 1995
Date: 05 Sep 95 02:25:30 EDT
From: Steven Scholl <73613.2712@compuserve.com>
To: Talisman
Subject: Re: MacEoin's scholarship
Re: Seena's note on citation analysis and MacEoin's scholarship. One thing that
struck me is that it seems clear that MacEoin's work has been ignored by most
Baha'is publishing in Baha'i periodicals such as JBS, WO, and others. Once
MacEoin was painted as the Bahai apostate from hell, some Baha'is and most
institutional publishers have felt free to ignore his work, or at least ignore
citing it in their papers. Christopher Buck noted awhile back how the attempt by
the US Bahai Dist. Service to veil MacEoin from Baha'i publishing has led not
only to blackballing Denis but to hiding anyone who appears in a book with
MacEoin content. The official Baha'i Distribution networks have made it clear
they will not carry materials with MacEoin contributions regardless of content,
which again is a strong incentive for Baha'is to simply ignore his work.
MacEoin's scholarship must stand or fall on its own merits. Several Baha'i
scholars have taken him on and responded ably to some of his more outlandish
theories on Babism and Bahaism. From what I can tell, Denis no longer finds this
field of inquiry particularly appealing nor as lucrative as the writing of
religious conspiracy thrillers. I suspect that we should be grateful that he is
now taking vengence on the Baha'is via his fiction rather than continuing his
earlier prolific academic publishing schedule. I assumed (g) that when he had
two Baha'i pioneers in Haiti tortured by some vodou cult in one of his novels
that he was using his fiction as a form of therapy to work through his anger and
resentment with Baha'is.
Steve Scholl
From GreyOlorin@aol.comTue Oct 3 12:14:13 1995
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 02:41:04 -0400
From: GreyOlorin@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: not-so-new member bio
My apologies for taking so long to do this; I haven't had time (and still
don't have time) for it, but I do acknowledge the importance of placing the
good of Talisman as a whole above my own individual preferences.
My name is Kevin Haines, and I have lived most of my life in the vicinity of
Portland, Oregon. (Golly, which would be the more arrogant thing to do here
-- to explain where Oregon is, or to assume that everyone reading knows where
Oregon is? Oh well. It's on the west coast of the U.S. -- the state just
north of California. My apologies to anyone offended by the geography
lesson. :)
I'm either first-generation or third-generation Baha'i, depending on how you
count, because my parents became Baha'is after I was born, but before my
grandparents (on my mother's side). But I grew up as a Baha'i from the age
of 6 or 7.
Although a U.S. citizen, my experience of the world is slightly broader.
Shortly after declaring, my parents pioneered to a small mountain town in
Portugal called Covilha, but things didn't work out and we returned to the
U.S. after only a few months. Much later, after I finally became active as a
Baha'i youth, I was fortunate enough to attend the dedication of the House of
Worship in New Delhi, with brief visits to Tokyo, Bangkok, and Lucknow before
and after.
In May of 1989 I commenced 18 months' service as a security guard at the
Baha'i World Centre, and was privileged to serve both in Haifa and at Bahji.
Upon leaving Haifa in November 1990, I visited Bucharest, Moscow, Kiev,
Odessa, and Frankfurt, traveling for about a month before returning home to
Oregon. I was trying to travel-teach, but I often think I ended up learning
far more than I was able to teach anyone. :)
I also met my future wife in Haifa. We married in Oshawa, Ontario, Canada,
and lived in Toronto for almost three months before attempting to homefront
pioneer in the Canadian Arctic town of Cambridge Bay, Northwest Territories
(now a part of the semiautonomous region of Nunavut). That effort also
lasted just a few months because neither of us had sufficient education to
land a job that came with housing, and there was just no other way to get
housing in the Arctic.
(A big hello to Stephen Bedingfield -- sorry I haven't written -- it's
nothing personal; I haven't written to anybody else, either! :)
By June of 1992 we made our way back to Oregon so we could live with my
parents and use the saved rent money to begin my college education. After
more than a year as a chemistry major, I switched to political science,
because a fantastic instructor had helped me to see that the most pressing
issues of our time are conceptual, not technical. I gained my two-year
community college transfer degree this June, and am now working to clear up
some debts before tackling the rest of my Bachelor's degree.
My educational goal is a doctorate focusing on political theory; that is, the
study of ideas of justice. My long-term academic goal is to help apply the
insights of the Baha'i Writings to the fundamental ideas of justice that
shape the lives and choices of individuals, communities, nations, and the
world as a whole. In this way I hope to give back some of what so many
others have invested in me.
Perhaps I have gone into more detail and greater length than was warranted.
Perhaps I should have edited down this bio more ruthlessly. But I'm already
up past my bedtime, so it's just too late for that. :)
Regards,
Kevin Haines
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzTue Oct 3 12:14:13 1995
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 14:25:26 +1200
From: Robert Johnston
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: peter khan
Ffolks,
I go a letter from Janine which we thought might be of interest to Talisman.
Robert.
>From: j.rooij@rechten.vu.nl
>Date: Tue, 5 Sep 95 12:40:43 -6000
>X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
>To:
>Subject: peter khan
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>
>Peter Khan was in Amsterdam on 30 August 1995. He talked about our emergence
>from obscurity and the mental tests it will bring. What I remember mostly is
>that there will be mental tests, because the society is becoming more and
>more materialistic, while we are heading spiritually and many things, like
>sex only between two persons of the opposite sex who are legally married,
>will be looked upon as out of date, obsolete.
>Also, some mental tests will come from within the community, from Bahais who
>either are not deepened enough in the Covenant or are just having too much
>ego (my own words.... not his! I am a very bad quoter).
>We can always turn to our local assembly when we feel that a certain Bahai is
>stirring up problems, having too much ego or in our eyes is not deepened
>enough. If we feel the assembly is not doing anything about it we can take
>the matter to the NSA and if we feel the same about the NSA we can go to the
>UHJ.
>
>A question arose, asking about the right of asking questions and
>investigating, with regard to this subject. Peter Khan then said that of
>course it is permissible to ask questions and investigate and that people
>should not treat each other with suspicion, but should keep up a loving and
>friendly attitude towards each other. Only, when we doubt somebody's
>sincerity, we can bring the matter to the assemblies and the UHJ, in the last
>resort.
>Also, the question of "active" arose. I asked what he meant by an active
>Bahai. Peter Khan said that it is not what a person does, whether she always
>attends 19-days feasts or is always busy in teaching committees (or other
>committees) rather it is her motivation which counts. People may for so many
>reasons not be able to attend feasts: because they are married to a non-bahai
>spouse who objects, because they need two jobs to support themselves, because
>of personal problems, but their love and motivation for the Bahai faith may
>be very big. That is something which cannot be judged by how many activities
>a Bahai may have within the community.
>
>He spoke of some other things, but I was very tired and could not pay much
>attention.
>>From what he said I conclude that it is the motivation of a person which
>counts, and that is sometimes not easy to see. I feel also, in the light of
>certain experiences (JKA and Talisman, Alma and Bahai Women) that we human
>beings in the West have the tendency to judge very soon, too soon, without
>even investigating a person's character. We judge on outer appearances. We do
>not take the time to get to know a person. For me, being a Bahai means being
>a lover of humanity and as such, you do not have to deal with everybody, but
>you try to serve humanity and at least give persons around you a chance.
>The love is the most important part in being a Bahai (or in being a spiritual
>being, as love is underlying the whole of creation, and in fact is holding
>the atoms together, so also the world of matter!). You can judge, but that
>does not mean you stop loving a person and stop giving him/her a second
>chance. I feel that if you are ever doubting another Bahai's motivation and
>want to report it, one should do that in the spirit of love for truth and
>with always keeping in mind: how would I like to be treated/reported if
>somebody was doubting *my* motivation?
>
>I was very happy that Peter Khan elucidated these points, as I feel we have a
>tendency to immediately know what is meant when we hear the words "ego",
>"active", "mental tests from within".
>
>Well, I hope you can do something with this. These are my personal
>observations, and I am a very bad quoter....
>
>From: j.rooij@rechten.vu.nl
>Date: Tue, 5 Sep 95 13:29:11 -6000
>X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
>To:
>Subject: peter khan 2
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>
>He also said that those who do not deepen themselves in the subject of the
>covenant and study the writings of Shoghi effendi about this subject may
>become more afflicted by mental tests than others.
From jrcole@umich.eduTue Oct 3 12:15:49 1995
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 11:41:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: tarjuman@umich.edu
Subject: Authenticating Baha'i Texts (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 95 1:05:45 EDT
From: Christopher Buck
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Cc: Christopher Buck
Subject: Authenticating Baha'i Texts
Timothy Nolan has raised an important question. One of our
fellow Talismanians, Shahrooz Tedjarati, while serving at Haifa, wrote
a several hundred page manual on the authentication of Baha'u'llah's
Tablets. If Shahrooz can spare a few moments from his busy schedule in
China, I am sure that all of us online would appreciate a brief
description of how such authentications are made.
Christopher Buck
**********************************************************************
* * * * * *
From jrcole@umich.eduTue Oct 3 12:15:49 1995
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 12:16:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: history and representation
Paul: The issues you raise in your reply are not what I would think of
as the "distortion" of history. I thought you were saying Baha'is had
twisted the facts.
I agree with you that the Baha'i religion as it is now practiced is more
closed with regard to the free availability of information than is common
in, say, the mainstream Protestant churches in the U.S. The practice of
Review is quite peculiar; and the unavailability of several biographies
of Baha'u'llah written by his close companions is downright weird
(though the information in them, I can attest, is largely and accurately
summarized in H.M. Balyuzi's *Baha'u'llah, King of Glory*.
I think this closed-information approach is not long for this world (you
are seeing it break down on e-mail before your eyes).
As for the Aqdas; well, it was, of course, published by the Baha'is in
Bombay and cyclostyled a number of times thereafter. Copies exist in all
the major manuscript repositories (British Library, NYPB, Cambridge,
etc.); there is also a Russian edition. So it is not as if the book was
somehow unavailable, at least to those who know the original languages.
As for English, a typescript translation by Anton Haddad circulated
widely in the American community.
But it is true that it took a long time to publish an English
translation. I think the main unstated reason for this is that in the
Middle East the Aqdas is a death warrant. It abrogates the Qur'an, which
constitutes apostasy, and in traditional Islamic jurisprudence the
punishment for that is death. (The fatwa against Rushdie has the same
basis). I think one can understand that the Middle Eastern Baha'is, who
were the vast majority until the 70s, might not want their death warrant
mass-produced. And information does travel at high speed from the U.S.
to the Middle East. In fact, many of the information practices
Westerners find peculiar in the Faith are rooted in its having had to
operate as a radically new religious movement in a Muslim Middle East
where the word for "heresy" literally means "innovation."
Anyway, it seems to me that if one understands the Middle Eastern context
of most of these decisions, they look less sinister or manipulative and
more prudent. Denis MacEoin notes somewhere that he originally thought
the security measures Tehrani Baha'is took about their archives extreme,
but after the Revolution he suddenly realized that they were simple
common sense in that context.
I think a comparable situation exists for Ismaili Muslims (there is a
fine book about them by Farhad Daftary that I recommend). The Ismailis
responded to persecution by simply closing almost all their texts to
outsiders. My friend Paul Walker, who studies Ismailism, complains of
how he cannot get the most basic sort of source from them. The Baha'is
have been *far* more open about their materials than have the Ismailis;
but the point is that to the degree either is secretive, the death-fatwas
of the mullas stand behind this policy.
I personally believe that the Baha'is would be better off opening their
manuscripts to publication and scrutiny, since the Khomeinists are going
to mistreat them anyway, and the world and the community would benefit
from more information about the Faith. But my sister is not in Mashhad
being shaken down every day by the Hizbullahis, and I understand the
other point of view.
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From jrcole@umich.eduTue Oct 3 12:15:52 1995
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 23:06:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: dysfunctionality
Paul:
>From my point of view, with regard to the issue of the Nuri family, I
think you are blaming the victims; and it would be easy to set up any
religion for this treatment. Look how unfair Christians are to Judas,
who after all probably sacrificed three years of income to hang around
with someone advertising himself as the Messiah, who cannot even prevent
himself being taken captive by the Romans and handily dispatched. Why
can't Christians come to terms with the entirety of the twelve disciples
and recognize that Judas had a valid point of view, too? And it is not
as if Peter was so much better, after all, since he denied Christ 3 times
before dawn. But Peter gets rehabilitated, whereas poor Judas is demonized.
:--)
As for Baha'u'llah and Azal, I suppose one can understand why Baha'u'llah
rather stopped wanting to have anything to do with a half-brother who
tried to have him rubbed out. Baha'u'llah quite clearly appointed
`Abdu'l-Baha his successor, the one to whom all should turn, the
Interpreter of the Book. When Muhammad `Ali refused to accept
`Abdu'l-Baha's authority and blatantly made a bid for power, what was
`Abdu'l-Baha supposed to do? Roll over and play dead? Let the Baha'i
faith splinter for the sake of his little brother's ego?
I think other lessons can be drawn from the problems the Holy Figures had
with their families than the one you drew. You lumped them all together,
as the Nuri dysfunctional family, as if all were equally blameworthy in
what happened. But it seems obvious to me that this is not the case.
Sociologically speaking, I would suggest the following: In Middle
Eastern society (and one could as well say the Mediterranean) clan
organization is common. One's cousins mean a lot to one. You do favors
for a brother or a cousin, especially on your father's side. If you are
a male you tend to marry your father's brother's daughter. The system
tends to be segmentary. This is usually explained as a shifting set of
intra- and inter-clan rivalries. A proverb is often given to explain the
system: "I against my brother; my brother and I against our cousin; I,
my brother and our cousin against the world." Brothers and cousins
expect patronage. (Greece has been given $10 billion in aid by the
European community, with no obvious multiplier effect on its economy.
Where did all the money go? The best guess is that it was distributed
into the pockets of the cousins, dispersing it and eating it up in
consumption and inflation. The same thing happened to a lot of the aid
given the Pakistani government supposedly for Afghan refugees.)
Now the system of succession set up by Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha
challenged these Mediterranean notions of segmentary alliances, patronage
and (frankly) corruption. And the greater Nuri family simply could not
stop playing by the old rules, ganging up on Baha'u'llah, `Abdu'l-Baha
and Shoghi Effendi in turn, challenging their charismatic authority,
seeing what they could wring out of the system in these segmentary
faction-fights. The Nuris thought they could get away with all this;
they were family, after all. But the Holy Figures said no to segmentary
politics, they said no to patronage for the brothers and cousins, they
said no to corruption. The price of this uprightness was severe, in
cutting off much of the family over time. But the alternative was to let
factionalism and sleaziness of the Sicilian sort take over the leadership
of the Baha'i Faith.
On another level, one you may appreciate, one could see the saga of the
failure of so many Nuris to live up to their own religion as a parable for
humankind. Just as Baha'u'llah's own brother tried to isolate him and
kill him, so the Ottoman and Iranian authorities sent him to the fortress
at Akka with the intent that it should be a sort of solitary confinement
and the end of him. Just as `Abdu'l-Baha's brothers attempted to have
undermine his authority and his standing with the government, so
conservatives in the Ottoman state seriously considered executing him or
exiling him to the Libyan desert. Just as Shoghi Effendi's relatives
defied him and jockeyed for position in case he should die, so the world
itself fell into the fratricidal conflicts of WW II, the Palestine war,
and the Cold War. All Baha'u'llah, `Abdu'l-Baha, and Shoghi Effendi
wanted was to bring the message of the unity of God, the unity of the
religions and the unity of humankind to the world. And neither in their
inner kinship circle nor in the wider world were they greeted with
anything but a clasped dagger.
So, no, I don't think I have anything at all to learn from
Miller, a warped and narrow-minded fundamentalist who would have gladly
consigned both you and me to hell.
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From jrcole@umich.eduTue Oct 3 12:15:52 1995
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 23:13:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: Ahang Rabbani
Cc: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Badasht and women emancipation
Ahang-jan:
`Abdu'l-Baha confirms the unveiling incident in Memorials of the
Faithful, almost certainly on Baha'u'llah's information.
Tahirih cannot be understood as a feminist in the modern sense. But
telling her husband to get lost, asserting Babi leadership in Karbala,
openly preaching to large crowds, and writing very obviously woman's
erotic poetry about God, all do have implications for gender roles.
(This was a society in which she was, after all, supposed to stay in the
house and do child care, veil when she went out, and defer to her male
superiors [ha!]).
That is, I think one can read "feminism" out of Tahirih's narrative; but I
don't think you can read "changing gender roles" out of it. ("Feminism"
as a word, by the way, comes into use only in about 1913-14 in the U.S.)
cheers Juan Cole, History, Univ. of Michigan
From jrcole@umich.eduTue Oct 3 12:15:57 1995
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 1995 14:32:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Baha'i Jurisprudence/Women on the UHJ
Richard Hollinger, with customary brilliance, wrote:
>But there is a tablet from `Abdu'l-Baha that gives them [houses of
>justice] authority in Baha'i jurisprudence (whether it gives them
>authority to "interpret" is perhaps another question):
> "In the religion of Islam...individual divines made conflicting
>deductions from the orignial revealed ordinances. Today this process of
>deduction is the right of the body of the House of Jsutice, and the
>deductions and conclusions of individual learned men have no authority,
>unless they are endorsed by the House of Justice."
> Rahiq-i Makhtum vol. I, pp. 302-304; cited in Wellsprings of
>Guidance
This is actually the entire basis of the argument that I have been making
about Baha'i jurisprudence.
The word translated as "deduction" above is *istinbat*, which in Arabic
means "derivation" (of the law). It is roughly equivalent to another
word, "ijtihad" which means to struggle (to derive the law). In the
tradition of Islamic jurisprudence from which these terms come, deriving
and implementing the law was thought to have two prerequisites. First,
we must identify the *sources* of the law. Then we must reason about
these sources (that is the istinbat). The entire field is called
"principles of jurisprudence."
In Islam, the sources of the law were: 1) the Qur'an; 2) the sayings
and doings of the Prophet and the Imams (hadith); 3) the consensus of
the great jurisprudents over time; and 4) ijtihad and istinbat, the
operation of juridical reasoning on the first three to come up with a
ruling in any particular case.
In the Baha'i Faith, we have not worked out the *sources* of
jurisprudence or any hierarchy among them. We also have not settled upon
the sorts of reasoning that would be fruitful in deriving the law. It
*is* clear from `Abdu'l-Baha's statement that a) individual Baha'i
jurists are expected to reason about the law and b) their reasoning has
no authority unless it is adopted by a house of justice. It seems clear
also that, since Shoghi Effendi was during the 10 year world crusade
preparing to appoint Bah'ai court judges in Muslim countries to hand
personal status cases, that juridical reasoning can be delegated by
houses of justice to judges.
I have proposed some basic elements of Baha'i jurisprudence:
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. However, as
Rick Schaut rightly says, it is necessary to distinguish between those of
their writings that embody permanent juridical principle and those issued
in their capacity as heads of the Faith, intended only to enunciate
temporary policy.
The third source of law is the legislation of the Universal House of
Justice, which can, however, be repealed by the House itself.
The fourth source of law is *istinbat* or juridical reasoning, which can
only achieve official status where it is adopted by or carried out by
houses of justice.
I have been able to find only a few juridical principles that might help
us with the fourth source. For instance, `Abdu'l-Baha says that whatever
is not explicitly forbidden in the Holy Writ is permitted; so we don't,
unlike the Saudis, have to scramble to find a justification for watching
television (which was not authorized by Muhammad or Baha'u'llah).
Also, there are two instances in which the general principle of
"fairness" (ins.a:f) was employed by holy figures to overrule specific
revealed statutes. First, `Abdu'l-Baha employed it to ban polygamy and
implement monogamy. Second, Shoghi Effendi employed it to require that
individual Baha'is provide for non-Baha'i spouses in their wills, even
though the latter are excluded in the Aqdas. The form of these arguments
is that of syllogistic reason.
I would argue that Baha'i istinbat or juridical reasoning should be
patterned on that of the Holy Figures, and that these two examples
implicitly permit houses of justice to shape implementation of revealed
statutes according to situational "fairness," and to employ logic to
achieve consistency or integrity, which is part of what "fairness" is
about. I also believe that logical consistency in the implementation of
law is implied by the Baha'i principle of the unity of science and religion.
I would also argue that the case for judicial activism by houses of
justice in employing such independent legal reasoning is stronger in
instances where the primary revealed and inspired texts appear contradictory
to one another.
This is why I believe that the Universal House of Justice may employ
*istinbat* to decide that women may serve on the House. Sources 1 & 2 on
this issue are contradictory over time and unclear; therefore primacy
must go to sources 3 & 4.
As for those who continue to say that Baha'u'llah excluded women from the
Universal House of Justice, I would appreciate seeing any quote to that
effect that did not also exclude them from local houses of justice. Yet
Shoghi Effendi is clear that women may serve on local and national
spiritual assemblies, which he says differ only in name from houses of
justice.
As for patriarchy, get over it guys. It's over. When power was vested
in swords and armor, you wanted a large male to fight for you. But now
power is vested in control panels and informational systems (the "mode of
information"); and guess which gender tends to do better at working
control panels?
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From jrcole@umich.eduTue Oct 3 12:15:57 1995
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 1995 14:41:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: Alethinos@aol.com
Subject: Re: Baha'i Jurisprudence/Women on the UHJ
Jim: This is from Rahiq-i Makhtum and is quoted in Wellspring of
Guidance; I think the citation is at the end of the quote from Richard
in my message.
cheers JRIC
From jrcole@umich.eduTue Oct 3 12:16:00 1995
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 1995 15:28:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: S&W Michael
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Human Rights
I enclose some passages from my notes toward a consideration of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the context of Baha'i texts.
The document, incidentally, appears to be endorsed by the Universal House
of Justice's Peace Statement.
Human rights are those that one possesses by virtue of being human. As I
have said before, the problem with the Lockean tradition is that rights
are possessed by virtue of one's status (white propertied adult male)
rather than one's humanity. Also, Lockean and Millsian liberalism exalt
property rights over all other kinds and make them absolute. One can
have human rights thought that recognizes human rights and property
rights but hierarchizes them differently. I think that is what Baha'i
texts do. - cheers, Juan Cole, History, Univ. of Michigan
It is not clear that the scriptures of most world religions
contain the conception of a civil or human "right." That human beings
have rights, however, is asserted by Baha'u'llah. Addressing the
monarchs of the world, he instructed them to "safeguard the
rights of the down-trodden, and punish the wrong-doers." (Gl. 247). He
felt that his own rights had been unjustly denied him by the despotic
governments of Iran and the Ottoman Empire (Gl. 129-130). Baha'u'llah
was falsely accused of sedition in Tehran in 1852 and
imprisoned in a horrific dungeon for four months before being acquitted
and exonerated. He nevertheless was forced into exile in Baghdad for
over a decade, was then brought to Istanbul and summarily banished to the
provincial European town of Edirne or Adrianople
for about five years, and then was sent to Akka on the coast of Ottoman
Syria by the Sultan in 1868, where he spent the rest of his life. During
all this time he was never convicted of a crime. He was a prisoner of
conscience, suffering for his insistence that a
new religion was required that would succeed Islam and reform the world.
In 1891, referring to the situation in contemporary Iran, Baha'u'llah
lamented that "they that perpetrate tyranny in the world have usurped the
rights of the peoples and kindreds of the
earth and are sedulously pursuing their selfish inclinations." (TOB p.
85). The idea of "rights" (Ar. huquq) in its modern sense had been
advocated in the Middle East by intellectuals and journalists from at
least the 1860s, often by Muslims with a European
education who were well aware of the French Declaration of the Rights of
Man, the U.S. Bill of Rights, and subsequent liberal thought.
Baha'u'llah, as has been seen, employed the
word especially in opposition to tyranny and arbitrary rule. Already by
1875 `Abdu'l-Baha was arguing to Iranian conservatives that "This liberty
(hurriyyat) in the universal rights of individuals (huquq-i `umumiyyih-'i
afrad) " is not "contrary to prosperity and success."1 (SDC 100, my trans.)
A right to privacy and freedom from attacks on honor and
reputation are guaranteed in Article 12, while Article 17 guarantees the
right to own property and protection from being arbitrarily deprived of
it. `Abdu'l-Baha in the Secret of Divine
Civilization advocates "the free exercise of the individual's rights, and
the security of his person and property, his dignity and good name."
(SDC 115). Shoghi Effendi lists among Baha'i principles that excited the
enmity toward the Baha'i Faith of Russian Communists in
the 1920s, "the institution of private property." (GPB 360-361).
In his chronicle of the Babi and Baha'i movements, `Abdu'l-Baha
deplored the
religious persecution practiced in nineteenth-century Iran, writing, "[To
ensure] freedom
of conscience (azadigi-yi vujdan) and tranquillity of heart and soul is
one of the duties and
functions of government, and is in all ages the cause of progress in
development and
ascendency over other lands." (TN) This passage emphasizes that to ensure
freedom of
conscience is a duty of the state.
The Declaration forbids torture and inhuman or degrading treatment
(Article 5) as well as
arbitrary detention, arrest or exile (Article 9) and insists that the
accused be brought
before a competent tribunal (Articles 8, 10) and be presumed innocent
until proven guilty
(Article 11); it also provides for the right of asylum from persecution
(Article 14). In his 1875 Secret of Divine Civilization, `Abdu'l-Baha
severely criticizes arbitrary
arrest and punishment. He says that in the 1840s "it was heard from many
sources that the
governor of Gulpaygan seized thirteen defenseless bailiffs of the region,
all of them of holy
lineage, all of them guiltless, and without a trial, and without
obtaining any higher
sanction, beheaded them in a single hour."1 He even blames what he saw
as Iran's decline
in population on "the lack of an adequate system of government and the
despotism and
unbridled authority of provincial and local governors."2 He complains
that "the governors
would select any victim they cared to, however, innocent, and vent threir
wrath on him
and destroy him." He declares such practices in conformity neither with
justice nor with
the laws of God. It is clear, then, that the Baha'i scriptures insist on
a rule of law, and
forbid the arbitrary detention or exile of any individual. They require
proof of
wrongdoing, and the considered judgment of a judicial panel that takes
into account all the
facts. The despotic fiat of a single unelected ruler or governor is
rejected as the basis for
jailing or sanctioning a citizen. As for asylum, `Abdu'l-Baha commands
Baha'is to
"become ye a shelter and asylum to the fearful ones" (Tablets of
`Abdu'l-Baha, p. 43).
In addition, Baha'i texts call for the right to universal education; to
representative government, to legal due process. Most of these are
mentioned explicitly in *Secret of Divine Civilization*. The Baha'i
world would be much better off if it spent more time with SDC and less
with third-tier compilations.
From jrcole@umich.eduTue Oct 3 12:16:00 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 jrcole@umich.eduTue Oct 3 12:16:01 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 jrcole@umich.eduTue Oct 3 12:16:01 1995
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 22:08:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: DEREK COCKSHUT
Subject: Re: Tablet of Wisdom question
Derek: I have, indeed; I think I cite it in my article on the subject.
Why? cheers Juan
From jrcole@umich.eduTue Oct 3 12:16:02 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 jrcole@umich.eduTue Oct 3 12:16:02 1995
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 00:20:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: hrg@nmsua.nmsu.edu
Subject: backbiting
From jrcole@umich.eduTue Oct 3 12:16:03 1995
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 12:41:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: Alma Engels
Subject: Re: Dr Cole and your post
Thanks a million, Alma. I had seen the postings about me on Trumpet, and
though I don't mind being criticized for something I've said in "print",
it did seem to me that rather a hatchet job was being done.
cheers Juan
From jrcole@umich.eduTue Oct 3 12:16:03 1995
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 12:46:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: sleep@crcsun1.med.virginia.edu
Subject: contact
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
From jrcole@umich.eduTue Oct 3 12:16:05 1995
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 00:59:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: Richard Gurinsky
Subject: Re: backbiting
Thanks, Richard. I wish someone had archived the message you refer to,
because I swear to God that I don't remember ever phrasing things in that
simplistic way, nor do I remember criticizing the Universal House of
Justice's use of the Guardian's translation. I'm afraid I was saying
something complex that has gotten transmitted in a garbled fashion.
The *point* is that the phrase in the Aqdas is "ghulam," which in 19th
century Persian meant a slave-boy. Contemporary Iranians do not have
slaves and the meaning of the word may have shifted during the past
hundred years. But that is what it meant a hundred years ago. I am a
historian of the period, and read material from it all the time. I
know. Now, I do not conclude that the beloved Guardian's translation was
wrong, only that the implications we draw from this verse might be
narrower than the English suggests.
I've always enjoyed our discussions, and am glad to know no harm was
intended.
cheers Juan
From jrcole@umich.eduTue Oct 3 12:16:05 1995
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 01:05:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: sleep_lab@crcvax.med.virginia.edu
Subject: Re: s.r.b and your name
Pete: I'm all in favor of letting things drop. I have tried to explain
things more clearly to the two of the three individuals involved whom I
knew from other newsgroups, and at least one has responded positively.
Part of the problem is that e-mail is so freewheeling, and complex
academic arguments are easily misunderstood and misrepresented.
I appreciate your evident sense of fair play, and the time you invested
to straighten things out.
warmest Baha'i regards Juan
From jrcole@umich.eduTue Oct 3 12:16:05 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.eduTue Oct 3 12:16:05 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 jrcole@umich.eduTue Oct 3 12:16:06 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 jrcole@umich.eduTue Oct 3 12:16:06 1995
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 19:23:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: ASSISTANT TO ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIEST BECOMES BAHA'I (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
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 jrcole@umich.eduTue Oct 3 12:16:07 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 jrcole@umich.eduTue Oct 3 12:16:08 1995
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 1995 12:31:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Baha'i justice
I do not think the demand for a solely Baha'i set of judicial mechanisms
is warranted by Baha'i texts, nor is it realistic.
First of all, the Baha'i texts themselves recognize extra-scriptural
sources of values, judgments, and procedures.
In His Tablet to the Grand Vizier, Lawh-i Ra'is (A:li Pasha), Baha'u'llah
says that exiling him to Akka was a great wrong, and that if the Grand
Vizier could not act according to Islamic justice, he could at least have
acted according to natural justice (or words to that effect). That is,
Baha'u'llah saw Islamic law and justice as a more strict and more
specific subset of natural law and natural justice, not as a sui generis
or even antithetical principle.
Abdu'l-Baha begins Secret of Divine Civilization with an encomium to
human reason, which is aimed at refuting 19th century Shi`ite
fundamentalists who rejected all aspects of modernity on the grounds that
it is not rooted in Islamic law. `Abdu'l-Baha is saying that human
reason is an adjunct to, and can legitimately go beyond, as long as it
does not contradict, the basics of Islamic prescriptions.
Much of Secret of Divine Civilization is taken up with complaining about
19th-century Iran's arbitrary judicial system. On the one hand,
Islamic-law courts had no codified legal system to work out
of--individual jurists came to idiosyncratic conclusions (which they
could reverse!) that formed no general precedent. These decisions had
reference to the Qur'an and hadith, but they were what Weber calls "qadi
justice," ad hoc and arbitrary. Most legal judgments were not rendered
by these Islamic courts at all, but by civil officials. `Abdu'l-Baha
strongly condemns arbitrary judicial fiats by these officials.
`Abdu'l-Baha clearly wanted 1) codified and specific legal codes that
were 2) administered by panels of trained judges and 3) built toward a
consistent and integral legal system with no arbitrary loopholes.
Read Secret of Divine Civilization. See if I am not right.
Aside from that, Baha'i writings provide very little guidance as to the
construction of a Baha'i canon law, which has not been done. There is no
published codification either of statutes or of major judicial
decisions. As a result, each decision is sui generis and some have been,
quite frankly, arbitrary. I think we need a standardized Baha'i canon
law to prevent such miscarriages of justice. Psychobabble about the
Institutions being children and we the forebearing parents, or us as
rebellious children, is misleading. When human institutions, staffed by
humans, commit injustices, there needs to be redress and reform. Period.
With regard to the hypothetical case of a Navajo Baha'i with a
distinguished record of service to the Faith, who had fallen deathly ill,
and who participated in a healing ceremony that employed peyote for
medicinal purposes, I think some principles of Baha'i jurisprudence can
be brought to bear.
First of all, it is clear that physicians can prescribe for the treatment
of illness substances (including medicines with alcohol in them) that
would ordinarily be forbidden to Baha'is. Even the prohibition of
peyote by the Universal House of Justice makes an exemption for medicinal
use.
So the real question is, "was this a medical treatment by a skilled
physician" (as mandated in the Aqdas)?
The answer to this question hangs on the meaning of "skilled physician."
We have anecdotal evidence that the Master and Shoghi Effendi did not
exclude homeopathic physicians from this definition.
Here, I would suggest that for a Navajo, this healing ceremony would
certainly have been conducted by someone he considered a "skilled physician."
Given that the Faith is not wedded to an American Medical Association
definition of "skilled physician," this is not an unreasonable assumption.
I therefore see no grounds, in this hypothetical situation, for the
removal of this Navajo believer's administrative rights according to
Baha'i law. Of course, a real-world situation may involve further
considerations of which I am unaware. I am responding only to the
bare-bones hypothetical one. That is the individual opinion and Cole
Fatwa on this issue.
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
Return to Talisman
Translation Page
Baha'i Studies Page
J. Cole Home Page
WebMaster: Juan R.I. Cole
jrcole@umich.edu