A warning and a call to Baha’is from Baha’u’llah’s Universal House of Justice

[Dawnofhope]

When the first photos of earth from space started being circulated, that solidified a growing vision of the earth as a common homeland for all the people of the world, and awareness of the deceptiveness in picturing it as being composed of segments divided from each other along the lines of political boundaries. There is now a growing awareness of the variations in human qualities and capacities as a continuum, and of the deceptiveness, for most purposes, of dividing people up along race lines. Now there needs to be the same kind of awareness of the deceptiveness, for most purposes, including most or all spiritual purposes, in dividing us up along religious lines.

That’s the very issue being addressed in one common faith. Our strong affinity for this vision is fundamental to being a Baha’i. But I’m here to learn far more than I am to teach. You are too.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

OK - lets say I can accept that - but which takes precedent - the "explorations of the human mind" facilitated and augmented by scientific discovery, or divine revelations of long ago? I agree we can learn from both - I wrote a short essay (none of my essays were ever published BTW - I put a few on a couple web sites I used to contribute to but those are now deceased) a few years ago about how "science and scripture" could be seen as the "two witnesses" leading us to "truth". That's a complete rehash of a biblical image - certainly not pretending to be what "John the Revelator" intended when he wrote about "two witnesses" - but what could he possibly have known of science? He probably meant law and prophecy (also symbolized in scripture by "Moses" and "Elijah" - perhaps but that's another story altogether). But there's a "progressive revelation" process for you...law-giver...prophet...scientist...But could I stand up and suggest that perhaps Einstein or Hawking...or (God-forbid) even the Archbishop of Atheism, Richard Dawkins...had superseded Baha'u'llah as a revealer of truth without falling foul of someone else's inviolable doctrine? I think not. So how can I sing from the same song sheet as a Baha'i or a Muslim or an evangelical Christian if I believe that science has superseded revelation?

That was interesting Siti. I see you have had an amazing journey of scripture exploration. Personally I see science has emerged in this day and is much more relevant for our progress in unity, than was needed in past ages. Science is a needed progression of knowledge, to do away with religious superstition. We have to learn how to balance Science and Religion.

You asked "So how can I sing from the same song sheet as a Baha'i or a Muslim or an evangelical Christian if I believe that science has superseded revelation?"

That is a question that time will make more apparent. In the "now", I see the bounty we have ,is we can consider what has been said by Baha'u'llah and weight it against science as it unfolds. If there is divine wisdom in the laws and advice, time will show that wisdom.

One we can consider and I like it that for many years the science on alcohol had been directed at finding the benefits. The main reason for that was to support an industry and our tenancy to partake of a mind altering substance. The latest science is now saying there is no safe level of drinking. There's "no safe level of alcohol," major new study concludes

Regards Tony

 

[Aupmanyav]

two weeks in two trips. Egypt and Dubai. No, I do not mind any question at all. Ask more, if you want to.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Of course this discussion will mostly attract people whose only interest is to discredit the Baha’i Faith, to preach at us, to vandalize the discussion, or some other adversarial interest; and of course Baha’is will want to try to defend themselves, or use it as an opportunity to teach the Faith. All of that can serve my purposes in this thread, but what will help me the most might be to try to understand what I’m trying to do in this thread and help me do it. Defending the Baha’i Faith against detractors, or trying to teach it to them against their will, is not part of what I’m trying to do in this thread. What I’m trying to do in this thread is to have a discussion about some of the issues discussed in “One Common Faith,” that might possibly help improve what Baha’is do on the Internet, to help reduce religious animosities and hostilities.

That is all true. I think we need to be clear why we're here and stay focused, and not get too distracted.

 

[Jim]

@adrian009 @Marcion @siti @Tony Bristow-Stagg
I see some possibilities in this discussion that I’ve been missing. You might see a change in my focus.

 

[Dawnofhope]

two weeks in two trips. Egypt and Dubai. No, I do not mind any question at all. Ask more, if you want to.

Thank you Aup. So you've lived in India essentially all your life.

You've actually clarified for me some important aspects of Hinduism that would not be clear from talking to any New Zealand Hindus in my home town. They are just my observations and you will have no hesitation about saying exactly what you think, which I like. Of course as I have never lived in India I have little direct experience.

1/ Hinduism has become very important for National Identity.

2/ Hinduism has become an important part of the political discourse in India.

3/ Hinduism is seen by many as the best religion for the people of India.

4/ Many Hindus view Abrahamic faiths with disdain and suspicion.

5/ The history of India has involved significant periods of colonisation and oppression from Islam and then Christianity.

6/ Ethnic and/or national identity appears more important than religious beliefs to many Hindus.

Your English is obviously very good. How widely is English spoken in India?

You can ask me a few questions too even though I'm a lowly Abrahamic adherent whose presence is like a plague and curse upon the earth.

 

[Aupmanyav]

1/ Hinduism has become very important for National Identity.: No. People of all religions occupy various positions in India including Armed Forces and they have given their lives for the nation. APJ Abdul Kalam before becoming the President of India headed the Defence Research and Development Organization as well as Space Research Organization. The current Chief of Air Force is a Sikh. Five years ago it was a Christian, nine years ago, it was a Zoroastrian.
2/ Hinduism has become an important part of the political discourse in India.: The Hindu party (even that has people from all faiths) has ruled India just for 10 years out of 70 years. Hindus, like in case of religion, have various views from extreme right to extreme left. Generalization does not work here.
3/ Hinduism is seen by many as the best religion for the people of India.: Well, some Hindus may see it that way but India is home to 180 million Muslims, 50 million Sikhs, 30-40 million Christians and members of other faiths too. India is not just for Hindus.
4/ Many Hindus view Abrahamic faiths with disdain and suspicion.:True. Evangelism is not appreciated.
5/ The history of India has involved significant periods of colonisation and oppression from Islam and then Christianity: Well, everyone knows about that.
6/ Ethnic and/or national identity appears more important than religious beliefs to many Hindus.: Regional identity is more important that religious identity. A Bengali or Tamil will come forward to help a person from his/her region irrespective of religion.

There is nothing particular that I would want to ask you. I have the general idea.

 

[Vinayaka]

Proselytizers/Evangelists weigh their chances of where they may succeed and where they may not. So, if you are a Proselytizer/Evangelist, you know that Vinayaka is a tough nut to crack, so you don't even try.

Friendship evangelism is sneakier than 'in your face' evangelism. As the saying goes ... you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

 

[wandering peacefully]

I agree totally. The problems arise when the two concepts get mixed up. They should be separate. One's personal religion is what gives them strength, satisfaction, love, and character. But then you have to recognise that that's the same for all other peoples' personal religion, and then just get along amiably on all the non-religions things. It's like two neighbours who get along amicably and can build a fence together, laugh together, because they never discuss religion. My Mormon neighbours were great that way, but the fundamentalist neighbour around the corner is just so irritating she no longer has any friendly neighbours. We all can't stand her. She's pushy, she's obnoxious, and she keeps inviting everyone to her church. People walk away when they see her coming.

It's when folks figure it's their duty to change everyone to their way, or to talk religion all day long, trying to convince themselves they're right. The fact of the matter is thee are many many POVs, and nobody should be declaring theirs is the one for all of humanity. You don't. I don't. Lots of us don't. I have no idea how we can get the rest to join us in this regard. Once you think yours is right, and everyone else is wrong, well, that's clearly not going to work.

This is the answer to peacefulness. Find strength in your own beliefs but realize they belong to you just as others have their own to give them strength and hope. Just Keep the Beliefs to yourself unless asked. Spirituality and religions have to move away from the competition and dogma and into compassion for all living things. I would have given you several stars if possible. If there is ever unity it will be by everyone keeping their personal religious /spiritual beliefs to themselves and only sharing their hearts and compassion.

 

[paarsurrey]

Thank you Aup. So you've lived in India essentially all your life.

You've actually clarified for me some important aspects of Hinduism that would not be clear from talking to any New Zealand Hindus in my home town. They are just my observations and you will have no hesitation about saying exactly what you think, which I like. Of course as I have never lived in India I have little direct experience.

1/ Hinduism has become very important for National Identity.

2/ Hinduism has become an important part of the political discourse in India.

3/ Hinduism is seen by many as the best religion for the people of India.

4/ Many Hindus view Abrahamic faiths with disdain and suspicion.

5/ The history of India has involved significant periods of colonisation and oppression from Islam and then Christianity.

6/ Ethnic and/or national identity appears more important than religious beliefs to many Hindus.

Your English is obviously very good. How widely is English spoken in India?

You can ask me a few questions too even though I'm a lowly Abrahamic adherent whose presence is like a plague and curse upon the earth.

"5/ The history of India has involved significant periods of colonisation and oppression from Islam and then Christianity." Unquote

It started even earlier.
Can when tell me , how much period of time is needed for a race to be considered indigenous in a land while they had earlier done the same act of "colonization and oppression" to a people earlier living in the same land? Any guess, please?

Regards

 

[Vinayaka]

This is the answer to peacefulness. Find strength in your own beliefs but realize they belong to you just as others have their own to give them strength and hope. Just Keep the Beliefs to yourself unless asked. Spirituality and religions have to move away from the competition and dogma and into compassion for all living things. I would have given you several stars if possible. If there is ever unity it will be by everyone keeping their personal religious /spiritual beliefs to themselves and only sharing their hearts and compassion.

Thank you. It's very much an uphill battle to get the 'stuck in dogma' crowd to shift one iota. It's frustrating to see actions that totally defeat the stated purpose, as in this particular case. There are some wonderful ideas about where to get mankind, but when you're focused on 'doing it my way' and not listening, then well, it goes nowhere. So until the shift in consciousness happens, nothing will change. Just as 'leave your ego at the door' is good advice for committee work, 'leave your religion at the door' is good advice for any interfaith work.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Thank you. It's very much an uphill battle to get the 'stuck in dogma' crowd to shift one iota. It's frustrating to see actions that totally defeat the stated purpose, as in this particular case. There are some wonderful ideas about where to get mankind, but when you're focused on 'doing it my way' and not listening, then well, it goes nowhere. So until the shift in consciousness happens, nothing will change. Just as 'leave your ego at the door' is good advice for committee work, 'leave your religion at the door' is good advice for any interfaith work.

The key here is, for the world to find unity there has to be a way adopted.

The current way and past ways have not worked, that is more than obvious.

There in lays the Challenge and the purpose of the document of One Common Faith.

At least a way is offered without sitting back and thinking staying comfortable in belief will change anything. Its not about ego, it is about the good for all humanity and a concrete way of acheiving it. As nothing significant is built without consultation, drawing up a plan, sorting out the details, engaging a contractor, getting good workers, laying the foundations and having good management of the process. If all wanted to build only there way, it all falls apart.

The immediate future will not see Baha'i playing this part, it will be the governments of the world that initiate the process of a lesser peace based on the need for unity.

Our part is to share a community building spirit, where virtues and service to each other are at the forefront. I know my community has lost its way and will suffer more being left to its own self.

Regards Tony

 

[Marcion]

The key here is, for the world to find unity there has to be a way adopted.

The current way and past ways have not worked, that is more than obvious.

There in lays the Challenge and the purpose of the document of One Common Faith.

At least a way is offered without sitting back and thinking staying comfortable in belief will change anything. Its not about ego, it is about the good for all humanity and a concrete way of acheiving it.

I think Vinayaka is saying that Bahai cannot properly perform that duty until they broaden their understanding of what the value of all spiritual paths is, no longer focussing too much on the monotheistic outlook which is too narrow-minded.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Friendship evangelism is sneakier than 'in your face' evangelism. As the saying goes ... you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

Interesting point of view.

Black and white philosophy promotes 'I'm right and you're wrong' and is just too narrow minded for me for me. Arguing with it is pointless. I did that once before, so this time I'll be out sooner. No wonder folks like Jim struggle wit other Baha'i. One cannot move people stuck in dogma.

I have always said we are here to share and discuss the views we have found in Faith and in the process learn more from others, as most people would be. Why else is one attracted to a 'Religious Forum'?

How is your above post not your Dogma with a concluded stated agenda?

Could I not say it is hard to move you from your Dogma and also by saying that, there was a hidden motive to try.

Peace be with you always. Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I think Vinayaka is saying that Bahai cannot properly perform that duty until they broaden their understanding of what the value of all spiritual paths is, no longer focussing too much on the monotheistic outlook which is too narrow-minded.

Thank you for that thought.

What makes you think we do not value all Spiritual Paths that are either from God, or are a personal path based on Values?

Regards Tony

 

[Jim]

@adrian009 @Marcion @paarsurrey @siti @Tony Bristow-Stagg

I’ll need to go back through the whole thread with the new possibilities that I’m seeing in mind. I’ll be looking for ideas that I might have missed, about what people can do on the Internet, to help change popular attitudes and behavior. I’ll also be reading both letters again.

One question I want to discuss is what changes to aim for in attitudes and behavior. Another is what people can do on the Internet, to help bring about those changes. If anyone has any stories to tell about what you’ve been trying to do, and hoping to do, to help bring about widespread changes in attitudes and behavior, I would like to see those. If anyone would like to see my stories, let me know.

For now I want to try to describe some changes in attitudes and behavior that I’m aiming for, and some thoughts about how to practice and promote them. One way of describing what I’m aiming for is moving away from adversarial attitudes and behavior across ideological dividing lines, and towards working side by side as friends and companions with people across those lines, to help improve the world for all people everywhere, ignoring those lines.

The possible impact of Internet discussions on that might be very small, but I don’t think it’s zero. Considering the urgency of it, I want everything I do on the Internet to serve that purpose, to help move people away from adversarial attitudes and behavior across ideological dividing lines, and towards working side by side as friends and companions to help improve the world for all people everywhere, ignoring those dividing lines.

I’ll describe some things I’ve been learning to do, and hoping to do, for that purpose. First, to work continually to move my own attitudes and behavior more in that direction. One way I’ve done that is by spending time in blogs and forums of some of people whose ideas and interests seemed most contrary to mine, trying to practice fellowship with them, to learn from them, to see things their way, and to see the good in them and what they’re doing. Another thing I’ve been trying and hoping to learn is to be better friends with more people. Now I’m trying to learn to bring these issues up for discussion, in ways that might lead to fruitful and beneficial conversations. I’d also like to learn to help provide the kind of encouragement and support that really helps, to each person on their path of progress. I’ve been able to do that on a few rare occasions, but I’d like to learn to do it more.

Another thing that I’m hoping to see is some kind of online parallel to a kind of community development that I’ve seen offline, where people in a neighborhood or village are working together to help make their community life healthier, happier, and more loving for everyone in it.

 

[siti]

Although there is just one truth or ultimate reality, none of us can truly see the whole truth.

One "ultimate reality" perhaps, but that doesn't necessarily mean "one truth" - does it? I am beginning to suspect that this confusion/conflation might very well be the crux of the problem - we mistake "truth" for "reality". I'm not sure...I have a long way to go and much to learn yet...but I suspect that one can experience the "unity of reality" but never really understand any kind of "unity of truth" - certainly not individually at any rate because the effort to understand necessitates the "breaking of unity" - we even use the Greek-derived word 'analysis' as a description of what we do when we try to understand things. Understanding is to break down the unity of reality into bits that are amenable to our senses and our conceptions. But if we do that with the "ultimate reality" it can no longer be the "unity" that it really is that we are looking at. With our mental faculties, we understand "in part" or "through a glass darkly" but with our "spirit" we experience "face to face" and intimately "as I am known" - as it were. (1Corinthians 13:12)

So I can fully accept that some (prophets, messiahs, messengers)...many (religiously/spiritually-inclined people)...even most (perhaps)...may experience (or have experienced) that "unity" more completely than I have. But the problem (for all of them...for all of us) is that the mental faculties necessarily "give the lie" to the spiritual experience when they process that unity into the analyzable "parts" that make it amenable to thought and expression. The best we can do individually is an artistic, poetic, symbolic representation. But collectively, we might better approach "the truth" of that "ultimate unified reality" by accepting as "true" all the disparate and divergent representations of it we can find. And the problem with that is that exclusive divine "revelations" often seem to forbid or at least severely restrict that by insistence on consistency with this or that particular revelation. But the revelation as expressed can never match the reality as experienced. Can it?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

One "ultimate reality" perhaps, but that doesn't necessarily mean "one truth" - does it? I am beginning to suspect that this confusion/conflation might very well be the crux of the problem - we mistake "truth" for "reality". I'm not sure...I have a long way to go and much to learn yet...but I suspect that one can experience the "unity of reality" but never really understand any kind of "unity of truth" - certainly not individually at any rate because the effort to understand necessitates the "breaking of unity" - we even use the Greek-derived word 'analysis' as a description of what we do when we try to understand things. Understanding is to break down the unity of reality into bits that are amenable to our senses and our conceptions. But if we do that with the "ultimate reality" it can no longer be the "unity" that it really is that we are looking at. With our mental faculties, we understand "in part" or "through a glass darkly" but with our "spirit" we experience "face to face" and "as I am known" - as it were.

So I can fully accept that some...many...most (perhaps)...may experience (or have experienced) that "unity" more completely than I have. But the problem is the mental faculties necessarily "give the lie" to the spiritual experience when they process that unity into the analyzable "parts" that make it amenable to thought and expression. The best we can do individually is an artistic, poetic, symbolic representation. But collectively, we might better approach "the truth" of that "ultimate unified reality" by accepting as "true" all the disparate and divergent representations of it we can find. And the problem with that is that exclusive divine "revelations" often seem to forbid or at least severely restrict that by insistence on consistency with this or that particular revelation. But the revelation as expressed can never match the reality as experienced. Can it?

Have you not just stated a lot of core thoughts as to what the studies of both 'Frame of Reference' and 'Inattentional blindness' are about?

Personally I have learned not to trust my material senses, when times get tough one must appeal to ones own heart and find the answers with a sense that is not of this world, but is the origin of them all.

Regards Tony

 

[siti]

Have you not just stated a lot of core thoughts as to what the studies of both 'Frame of Reference' and 'Inattentional blindness' are about?

Personally I have learned not to trust my material senses, when times get tough one must appeal to ones own heart and find the answers with a sense that is not of this world, but is the origin of them all.

I don't think so. And I am certainly not recommending that we "switch off" our "material senses" and trust something that is "not of this world" - there isn't anything that is "not of this world" as far as I can tell. That idea in itself is a denial of the unity of the ultimate reality. And part of the reason that science has enjoyed more success in 400 years than religion has in 4000 in elucidating aspects of reality is that it is a more genuinely collective effort that by definition encourages as many as possible to look independently and report their own findings. It does maintain a healthy skepticism of outlying 'results' whereas religion seems often to push them to the fore, but once satisfied that an observation is a genuine one, it is readily assimilated into the growing body of knowledge. In general, I don't see that happening in religion - especially of the revealed kind.

What science is not especially good at is actually seeing the "big picture". I remember a discussion I had about this with an Oxford theology don a few years back - incidentally this was on the Templeton Foundations Big Questions Online site which some may find interesting - anyway this is what I wrote:

Rather than attempting to approach theology more “scientifically” – by which term we normally imply an analytical empirical process – as you put it “taking bits of the world and doing experiments on them” – we need to make science more circumspect and philosophical, dare I suggest, even theological, in its approach to explaining the world.
​

Surprisingly, to me at least, I find I still agree with something that I wrote almost 4 years ago! But the key point is (and perhaps this is related to your comments about "inattentional blindness" etc.) that rather then switching off our physical senses, maybe what we need to do is purposefully engage our "peripheral vision" in a focused way that enables to observe intently a more ecological vista of what others are seeing rather than confining ourselves to a narrowly focused faith-based view?

 

[Jim]

@siti I think of our different views as being like the different kinds of flat-map projections of the earth’s surface: projections of the world in and around us onto our minds. As Korzybski said “The map is not the territory.”

Each view is better than others, for some purposes. No view is the best view for all purposes. One of the most useful views for navigation has no place on it for the North Pole, no matter how far it is extended to the North.