Meditations on Baha'u'llah

Introduction to Tablet of Manifestation (Lawh-i zuhur)

2012-01-01T11:32:00.002+13:00

(Please note: In this introduction, for ease of reading, I have referred to the manifestation as ‘he’. I usually try to avoid this when the reference is to a generic manifestation and not a specific one. But in this case, making the text gender neutral became awkward.)

The translation of Tablet of Manifestation was published in Horris Holley (ed), Baha'i Scriptures, 2nd ed, New York: Bahá'í Publishing Committee, 1923. It is reproduced at the Baha'i Library Online. The translator is not known, but appears to have had English as a second language. To make the translation easier to read, I have changed the paragraphing, spelling and punctuation and edited some sentences with the aid of Stephen Lambden's partial translation of the tablet, which appears on his website Hurqalya. My version appears on Baha'u'llah Explore.

The theme of the tablet is the transcendent nature of the manifestation. The tablet’s purpose is to outline the way in which the transcendent is able to operate in creation, and to draw a distinction between it and the elemental body that the manifestation takes on when he appears in one of the worlds of God. One obvious problem Baha’u’llah faced when people were confronted with his claim to be a manifestation of God was that he looked for all the world like any other human being. People naturally questioned how someone who has a physical body like them, and is subject to all the earthly limitations they are, can have access to a divine realm that they cannot see. The tablet addresses this issue.

Baha’u’llah begins by explaining that the manifestation is “the Mystery of Oneness, the Ancient Identity, the Eternal Essence and the Unknowable Reality” (para 1). By this, he is saying that the spiritual reality of the manifestation is a mysterious, eternal and hidden essence that humans can never know. It is therefore a mistake to think that the manifestation is composed of the elements of the earth – that is, earth, fire, water and air – or that the manifestation’s being originates from conditions in nature such as heat, cold, dryness or wetness. Instead, these natural elements and processes are created by the spiritual reality of the manifestation; they do not create the manifestation.

Because the reality of the manifestation creates everything in creation, there is no way to learn anything about the reality of the manifestation except from the manifestations, for nothing in creation is in position to provide independent knowledge about them. To illustrate this, Baha’u’llah asks rhetorical questions such as: “Is there anything endowed with utterance in the world that may be able to speak with Him?” (para 2) If the manifestation could be known by something other than him, he would lack the divine attributes of uniqueness and singleness. When people seek to know the manifestation through something other than him, the conclusions they arrive at are inevitably fanciful.

Paragraph 5 begins Baha’u’llah’s discussion on the nature of the manifestation’s body. The body of the manifestation is a temple for his person – presumably, this means, in one sense, something like a vehicle by which he can operate while living in this, or some other, world. In each world, the manifestation takes up a body that is made of the elements of that world; for example, in spiritual worlds, he appears as signs of the spirit and in this physical world, he appears in a physical body. In paragraph 8, Baha’u’llah likens the phenomenon of God appearing in his own creation to that of a goldsmith who makes a ring and then wears it on his own finger.

Although each manifestation’s body is made up of worldly elements, it is in reality sanctified from those elements. For example, a diamond is made of stone but at the same time is very different to an ordinary stone. Paragraph 7 seems to contain more explanation on this point, but the translation is not clear. Baha’u’llah asks his reader to consider his own identity – by which I think is meant his self - and how it animates his body through the ‘expansion and ordering’ of the senses; for example, he sees through his eyes and hears through his ears and moves through his limbs. But although the reader uses these functions, he is the ruler of his whole being. I think the implication is that a person cannot be reduced to any one bodily function just because she operates through them – at all times, she stays sovereign over the whole body. Similarly, God uses the elemental body to operate through, but nevertheless always remains the Sovereign of Creation and sanctified from those elemental functions.

An enigmatic sentence in paragraph 4 is perhaps related to this idea that the manifestation is sanctified from elemental reality. The translation has Baha’u’llah say: “He is not a manifestation in Himself, but rather He is a manifestation in His Identity.” I think the idea here is that the transcendent reality of the manifestation is never manifested (hence, “he is not a manifestation in Himself”); what is manifested is just one ‘face’ or ‘given identity’ of the manifestation. An analogy might be, for example, a woman - when she is with her child, her identity is a mother. But she has many other identities, such as writer and farmer, none of which captures the whole of her. Her self transcends the identities she manifests. Similarly, the manifestation appears in an infinite variety of identities and bodies but none of these captures the manifestation’s essential reality.

The divine purpose in the manifestation taking on the same form as the creatures is to enable the manifestation to get close to the creatures, guide them and teach them. If God was to appear ‘as God’, or in a way that was unmistakably God-like, the creatures would run away. Therefore, God adopts the identity of the creatures so that they will come into God’s presence, listen to what God has to say and benefit from it.

In paragraphs 9 and 10, Baha’u’llah gives an example of the transformative effect God’s use of an elemental object has on that thing. This helps to clarify how the body of the manifestation, while originally an elemental object, is elevated into the sanctified temple of God when it is made use of by God. He asks the reader to consider three objects that humans sit on – the throne, the seat and the chair – and says that no one takes much notice of them because they are simple objects made by human hands. But when God makes use of them, their everyday relationship with worldly things is severed and they become the Throne of God and the heavenly realities circle about them. At that point, only people with genuine spiritual insight can recognise their worth. The reality of the manifestation is pre-existent (that is, created before creation), and its use of the throne (body) is pre-existent too. There can, therefore, be no relationship or similarity between the throne (body) and anything in creation. On the contrary, all elements, such as fire, water, air and earth, have come from them; for example, fire originates from the Fire of Manifestation, which appeared to Moses on Sinai.

More discussion on the different aspects of the manifestation's make-up can be found in Abdu'l-Baha: Some Answered Questions, chapters 38 and 39.

Introduction to Tablet of Joseph (Lawh-i Yusuf)

2011-12-07T12:59:00.004+13:00

The translation to the Tablet of Joseph is by Anton Haddad and appears in a collection titled "Long tablets of the Manifestation", published in 1904 by the New York Baha'i Board of Counsel. A close facsimile of the original is found at the Baha'i Library Online. Because the original contains odd grammatical, spelling and usage choices, I edited it a little to make it easier for a modern reader to engage with the text. I am aware that this is a questionable thing to do, but I believe those oddities make the text difficult to follow. I therefore want to emphasise that the version on my site, Baha'u'llah Explore, does differ from the original.

Due to the difficulties of the translation, I have not written an introduction that focuses closely on the wording of the text. Instead, I have focused on what I see as two principal themes of the tablet, which are common in Baha'u'llah's writings:

Theme 1:: Detaching from all save God is the key to recognising a new manifestation. This is discussed in paragraphs 2-5 of the tablet.
Theme 2:: All concepts about resurrection relate to recognising a new manifestation. This is discussed in paragraphs 6-12 of the tablet.

Theme 1: Detaching from all save God is the key to recognising a new manifestation

The theme of detaching from all save God is central to Baha'u'llah's writings; for example, it is the theme Baha'u'llah sets up at the beginning of the Kitab-i Iqan:

"... they that tread the path of faith, they that thirst for the wine of certitude, must cleanse themselves of all that is earthly - their ears from idle talk, their minds from vain imaginings, their hearts from worldly affections, their eyes from that which perisheth. ... man can never hope to attain unto the knowledge of the All-Glorious ... unless and until he ceases to regard the words and deeds of mortal men as a standard for the true understanding and recognition of God and His Prophets." (para 2)

The two ideas here are that those who want to attain to God must detach from everything that is earthly, including earthly affections, and they must not adopt any other person's standard for assessing and understanding the Word of God. In Tablet of Joseph, Baha'u'llah restates these ideas and covers other, related, facets of them. I will identify each idea in turn.

Idea 1: As in the Iqan, Baha'u'llah begins by asking why people in history have missed recognising the manifestations when they appeared. The text tells us that this was because of the veils of "words", "imaginations", "invented proofs" and "superstitions". The people should not cling to "anything between created between earth and heaven" when fulfilling their duty to recognise the manifestation.

Here is a restating of the idea that, in order to recognise the manifestation, a person must detach from all that is earthly. Otherwise, those earthly things act as veils that obscure the person's insight.

Idea 2: The people should cling, instead, to the "root of the Cause" and what is "manifested through Him".

I assume that what is meant by the "root of the Cause" is the manifestation.

Idea 3: The people erred because they believed that the way to recognise the manifestation was to listen to others - "believing or disbelieving the people".

Here is a restating of the idea that, in order to recognise the manifestation, a person must detach from other people's opinions about the manifestation. These also act as veils.

Idea 4: The only way to know God is through God, not through anything in God's creation. It is impossible to know God through anything in creation because the only way anything in creation is known is through the Word of God. The Word cannot be known through anything that the Word creates.

As is often the case, Baha'u'llah is pointing to the difference between two separate levels of reality. For example, a character in a work of fiction cannot find out from another character in the same work about the reality of the author of the book. The author of the book and the two characters in the book exist on separate levels of reality. In comparison to the author, the two fictional characters do not exist. The only way to know about the two characters is through the author's words. The same is true of us in relation to God. It is pointless asking another person about the truth of Baha'u'llah's Reality, for everyone is created by the Word and is known only because of the Word. No one exists outside of the Word and therefore no one has privileged knowledge of the Word.

Idea 5: In this new revelation, God sees everyone "as being in one region". This idea is expanded on a little further on where Baha'u'llah says that God has no special relationship with any one creature. All people were created in exactly the same way: "by the breath of His order".

Idea 6: After this initial creation, the differences in the spiritual station of people emerge: "loftiness, exaltation and abasement appeared among the people after they had been created". That is, after we have been created, it is over to us to decide whether we believe.

Idea 7: Any soul that detaches from all save God in the way that Baha'u'llah describes above is considered faithful to God. All others are not. Any soul that accepts Baha'u'llah attains heaven, and those who reject attain hell. (More on this in theme 2.)

Idea 8: This judgement applies irrespective of whether a person is famous among the people.

I think this comment harks back to the idea that we should not allow ourselves to be swayed by the opinions of others. People often ask famous or popular people, or experts, for their opinions and are guided by them. Partly, people do this because they imagine that a person who is famous or 'knowledgeable' is favoured by God. Baha'u'llah is pointing out that this is not the case: famous people, or even those held up as experts, can be misguided and not favoured at all.

Again, in paragraphs 4 and 5, Baha'u'llah goes through the same theme, as if to emphasise what he has already said and to sum it up. I paraphrase it below; the central ideas itemised above are clearly restated.

If a person wants to be in relationship with God, she must withdraw from all on earth and heaven and advance to God with a pure heart and soul. If she tries to reach God by other means, she will never succeed because all save God are limited and created by God's power. God cannot be known by what is created and limited. She must look to the manifestations and not listen to what people say, so that she can hear what God says. She must purify herself from ideas of the past so that she can recognise the Word of God and be successful in her quest.

Theme 2: All concepts about resurrection relate to recognising a new manifestation

This theme consists of Baha'u'llah's explanation of terms that are associated with the Day of Resurrection. The terms that he mentions are "the beginning of creation", the end of creation, "resurrection", "path", "paradise", "fire", "assembling", but the text suggests that this is a short list of what is potentially a large number of terms found in scripture on this topic. Baha'u'llah lumps them all together because he sees them all as relating to one recurring event - the appearance of the manifestation.

Baha'u'llah says that those who have sharp insight are able to see these spiritual events in all things at all times. However, these events are associated particularly with the time of the appearance of a new manifestation. The scenario goes like this: when a new manifestation appears, that person speaks the Word of God. Every person who follows Baha'u'llah's counsel to detach from all save God, as outlined in theme 1, attains the benevolent promises of the terms listed above. For example, that person will find the path, be delivered from the fire, enter paradise and be assembled with the chosen ones. Conversely, a person who does not follow Baha'u'llah's counsel to detach from all save God will enter the fire and be assembled with the idolaters.

In this world, the term 'paradise' means to please God by accepting the latest manifestation. In the next world, people experience the fruits of their deeds in this life, as promised in the scriptures. These consequences are not all seen in this life because this world is not able to bear out those consequences fully. God has a fixed decree for each soul in the many worlds of God. There are infinite numbers of paradises that are much more idyllic that anything we can imagine in this world. Also, there are worlds of torment beyond this life that are more horrible than anything we witness here.

Paragraph 12 contains a long description of the Day of Resurrection using terms associated with the Day of Resurrection and showing how they play out when a manifestation comes. It acts as a summary of Baha'u'llah's analysis of this theme. I'll quote it here, as a conclusion to this introduction.

"Hereby, We bear witness that the path is lifted up in truth, the balance is laid in justice, the Manifestations assembled, the hidden issues disclosed, the clarion pealed, the trumpet sounded, the fire burst forth, the paradise brought nearer, the proclaimer announced, the heavens rolled together as a scroll, the ground leveled, the breeze of God wafted, the spirit of God sent, the beauteous damsels adorned, the youths beautified, the mansions assured, the securities of the upper apartments (of paradise) inlaid with precious stones, the waters spilt over, the fruits hung low (so as to be easily gathered), the fruits plucked, the texts revealed, the deeds of the deniers effaced, the deeds of the advancers confirmed, the tablet that was kept in heaven manifested in truth, the written tablet pronounced with authority, and the Desired One of all existence, the Beloved of all creatures, the Worshipped of those on earth and in heaven, hath been manifested in the Temple of a Youth, while the tongue of everything declares, 'Verily, blessed is God, the Creator of the creators.'"

An extended discussion of theme 2 can be found in paragraphs 121-130 of Baha'u'llah's Kitab-i Iqan.

A richer nation

2011-11-17T12:18:00.004+13:00

In a couple of weeks, New Zealand will have a general election. One of the political parties here is the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand, and I have been impressed by their billboards. The slogan on the boards says "For a richer New Zealand" and the picture is of a young boy with his hands on his hips and a big bright smile, standing in a rural setting in front of trees and a small stream in which a family is fishing. The graphic is lovely and sunny and colourful. (See the graphic here. Note, it's one of three that comes up in rotation.)

Steve and I have commented to each other about how wonderfully subversive the billboard is. It plays on the concept of what it means to be rich. Nothing in the graphic suggests rich in a material sense. It is suggesting that the family, and ourselves by extension for they are in a public place, are rich for they and we have access to an established and healthy natural environment. The graphic tells us that it is this that makes us rich, not money.

This truth is backed up by my experience, especially since I moved to two hectares of land. Steve and I have a small income, but we live like royalty. We know very well that it's the land that makes us rich. We eat fruits and vegetables that come from the property, heat the house and our water with the wood from the trees, and drink the water that is captured on the roofs (rooves) of the buildings on the property. Our chickens are fed partially by the insects, berries and grasses that grow wild. Their manure is used to grow our food. And so on. Any money that can be made from these systems is made as a direct result of what nature has provided. Money is not wealth, nature is wealth.

I am pleased to see anything that challenges people's concept of wealth. Baha'u'llah certainly has challenged mine. He speaks of God as the All-possessing - by which I understand him to be saying that wealth comes from the given reality in which we are all submerged. I think he is reminding us that we do not actually own or control that reality. For that reason, we have to develop a relationship with it; that is, fit in with it, understand its processes and balances, find our part within these and trust that it will provide.

An analogous process of change in attitude can be seen in the way we see marriage now. It used to be that the man saw the woman as a possession and would have a fit if she acted independently of him. Now we see that as old-fashioned. We know a woman is not a man's possession, and that he doesn't have to control her to have a relationship with her and to benefit from what she brings to the union. He trusts that she'll stick around and enrich his life. He is better off because of his connection with her, not because he owns and controls her. In fact, he gets much more out of the relationship if she is free to act independently and realise her potential. The same is true of our relationship with nature. We don't have to own and control it and use it up. We can connect and unite with it, and develop a sensitivity to its ways and learn to benefit from them in an ongoing way.

Which brings me to mining, I shake my head in despair at the thinking that the answer to the country's debt problems is in mining the ground. Every time I hear someone going on about how we'll all be wealthy if we mine the earth, I hear Baha'u'llah's words: "Regard man as a mine rich in gems of inestimable value" (Tablet of Maqsud). That's it: we should be 'mining' our human resources instead of letting people languish in poverty, without hope of realising their potential. How many genius minds are being wasted? How many bright, novel and marketable ideas will never be found because they were lost to poverty? Perhaps we could mine our people's creativity and find out if that makes us rich.

God does suffice

2011-11-06T14:05:00.000+13:00

I discovered recently something new about the 'God sufficeth' prayer revealed by the Bab. The full version of the prayer appears on page 123 of Selections from the Writings of the Bab.

"Say: God sufficeth all things above all things, and nothing in the heavens or in the earth or in whatever lieth between them but God, thy Lord, sufficeth. Verily, He is in Himself the Knower, the Sustainer, the Omnipotent."

What I didn't know is that, in Persian Bayan 9:6, the Bab says that if a person recites this prayer 314 times, any question that person may have will be answered. Well, that is a very succinct comment on what the Bab actually says, but I don't have a translation of it, sorry.

I decided to give it a go. I haven't done a marathon session in ages. Baha'u'llah put me off doing it because he recommends not praying so much that you get fatigued. But since the Bab suggested it, I thought it would be OK.

I paced myself. I found that I was able, just, to do roughly 100 at a time. I took an hour or more off between each session. Effectively, it took all day, and the praying was my principal occupation for that day. My concentration went in and out, but overall, wasn't too bad. Certainly, it was all spent by the time I could see the finishing line. I used a book with over 314 pages to count, turning a page each time I recited two prayers.

As for the issue I was ostensibly praying about (a solution to a friend's difficulty), that is already sorting itself out like it never really was a problem at all.

What I didn't anticipate was the brand new view of the Kingdom I gained from my effort. The sessions took me deep into a zone that is hidden in the words of the prayer and I saw the heaven of unlimited abundance that Baha'u'llah speaks of in his writings. I can relate now to the image of the bread coming down from heaven. Bread is our sustenance. In everyday life, we tend to look 'laterally' for it; in other words, we look for it in things and people around us. But that isn't where the baker's shop is. The baker's shop is the invisible realm of the Kingdom. That's where all gifts and bounties originate. If you need anything, that's the place to source it. The difficult bit is to see that the shop is located close to you and that it is open, so you can walk into it anytime to obtain what you need, for free.

"Now look, what a sun in the sky there is;
night has retreated from the hills.
The wholesale bazaar of lovers
has been scattered by your perfumed locks
And because of your lips -- sugar rubies --
everything smells like a confectioner's shop."
-- Baha'u'llah: O Nightingales

There really is a confectioner's shop, just two bow length's away. And the amazing thing is this: it is an unending bounty. It never goes away. It is eternal. So once you find it, that's it, you have it for good. On and on, for a very, very long time after physical death. I love it now when Baha'u'llah uses images like "the ocean of Thy generosity", "the ocean of Thy knowledge", "the heaven of Thy gifts", "the living waters of Thy loving-kindness", "the endlessness of Thy purpose".

To everyone out there searching, I say: stop focusing solely on your difficulties, the details of your life and what's going on in this world. Give them to God to sort out, for God can do anything - absolutely anything. Baha'u'llah wants to be with you, and that means he wants to be with a person who is present to him, not one who is concerned with the comings and goings of the world of limitations. Leave that world to those who think they can win in it. Choose to win, instead, where you can win everything you've ever wanted and much, much more, and where there's enough for everyone else to do the same.

You know what? I'm beginning to wonder if I will run out of prose. I can see why some mystics wrote poetry, because there really does come a time when you can only allude to what you want to say. No words will point directly.

Introduction to Surah of the Almighty (Surat al-Qadir)

2011-10-22T14:15:00.000+13:00

Historical background

Little is known about the background to Surah of the Almighty (also, All-Powerful, Omnipotent). Stephen Lambden suggests that the surah was probably written for a Babi with the title 'al-Qadir'.[1]

In volume 1 of "Revelation of Baha'u'llah",[2] Adib Taherzadeh treats the surah as a Baghdad text. However, both Juan Cole and Stephen Lambden say it was written in Edirne, somewhere around 1866. Juan Cole argues that the surah contains three characteristics that do not appear in Baghdad texts: it contains explicit claims for Baha'u'llah, it openly refers to Azal's rebellion [para 5] and it asks the recipient to share Baha'u'llah's message.[3] Juan Cole also comments that tablets of the Edirne period often focused on one of the divine names; for example, God (Allah), the Omnipotent, the Just, the Sorrowful and the Sacrifice.[4]

As regards the reference to Baha'u'llah's half-brother, Azal, Stephen Lambden says that the surah "contains what seems one of the earliest expressions of Baha'-Allah's dissatisfaction with the inadequate leadership role of his half-brother Mirza Yahya Nuri, Subh-i Azal".[5] Juan Cole also comments:

"There is also an interesting mention of Azal. Tens of thousands of Babis must have switched over to the Baha'i faith between early 1866 and a decade later, and it was letters such as this, translated orally into Persian, that persuaded them … Remember that when [Baha'u'llah] wrote it he was in exile in eastern Europe and under surveillance by the Ottomans, and most Babis probably still looked to Azal, so that there was still a question of whether Baha'u'llah's message would succeed. The Babis themselves had to remain underground and were hated by the Qajar government of Iran."[6]

Discussion on the text

The principal purpose of this tablet is to inform readers that God has brought about a change in Reality with regard to the name, the Almighty. God has caused its sun to shine brightly on all created things so that they might be illumined with its light. If believers open themselves up to this grace, they will manifest the power of God and be aided to overcome all manner of difficulties in their endeavours to promote Baha'u'llah's message.

After the introductory passages, Baha'u'llah starts (para 1) by outlining the astonishing spiritual capacity that God has created in all human beings. If they turn their attention away from this world and free themselves from its ensnaring dramas ("purify themselves from the dust of imaginings and selfish passions"), and look instead to the spiritual realms, they would reach "the farthest stations". The Arabic for this phrase is "maqa'id al-quwa", or the "Supernal Realm". When believers reach this place, they will speak the words that the Holy Spirit speaks from the location of the 'Tree beyond which there is no passing'. The Arabic for this phrase is "sidrat al-muntaha", also translated as "Lote-Tree of the Extremity". This phrase comes from Qur'an 53:14, a verse that forms part of the narrative about Muhammad's night journey into heaven. Verses 53:13-16 read:

"Indeed, he saw him [Gabriel] another time by the Lote-Tree of the Boundary nigh which is the Garden of the Refuge, when there covered the Lote-Tree that which covered..." trans Arberry (1956)

The Arabic word "muntaha" literally means "termination, limit, extremity, boundary or the like".[7] The narrative of Muhammad's night journey is notoriously obscure, but it is fair to conclude, at least, that the Lote-Tree of the Extremity marks a limit in creation, beyond which is the realm of the unknowable God.

In the Cole translation, the words that the Holy Spirit speaks at this boundary are: "There is no God but him and that the possessor of the two Words among these two Names is the everlasting Name of Names in the realm of immortality." The passage is obscure and has several possible interpretations. One suggested to me, which is less complex than others but conveys the general idea, draws on the phrasing of the Arabic original.[8] Here, the "two Words" are "huwa" (meaning, He; ie, God) and the phrase "la ilaha illa Allah" (meaning, 'there is no god but God'). This phrase is called the 'kalimat al-tawhid' or 'Word of the Divine Unity'. The "two Names" are Baha'u'llah's own names of Husayn and Ali. The "everlasting Name of Names" translates "al-qayyum al-asma", also meaning the Self-subsisting of the names of God. Putting all this together, then, Baha'u'llah is saying that the possessor (or, more literally, essence (dhat)) of the two Words - God, no god is there but God - is himself (Husayn Ali) and that he is the Self-subsisting One of all the names of God. At the same time, with a play on words, Baha'u'llah also indicating that he is the One promised in the Bab's key work, the Qayyumu'l-Asma.[9]

In the middle of the next paragraph (para 2), Baha'u'llah speaks directly to the Sun of the name of God, the Almighty, and says: "Rise from the East upon all beings with the wonders of the power of your Lord, so that all things may witness in themselves the Might of God, the Omnipotent, the All-Glorious." There are other examples in the writings where Baha'u'llah speaks to a name of God; for example, in Garden of Justice, he directs a long passage to the name of God, the Just.[10] This suggests that the names of God are existent things, or realities, that Baha'u'llah is able to command as he pleases. He seems to use the names of God to rearrange realities in the World of Command, anticipating that these changes will bear on affairs in this world.

What sort of 'thing' is a name of God that Baha'u'llah might instruct it as he pleases? The only scholarship I have found that provides a tangible answer to this question is Keven Brown's "Creation" essay.[11] In section 3, "The Act of Creation", Keven discusses the names and attributes of God and their role in the process of creation. He refers to the names and attributes as intelligible realities; that is, intangible energies, which cannot be apprehended by the senses, but nevertheless have an influence on things, like the power of love, or the powers of thought and imagination. He explains that the names and attributes are "creative energies", which produce life and all the possible variations in reality. He cites Abdu'l-Baha:

"Because they convey life, they are called Life-giving; because they provide, they are called Bountiful, the Provider; because they create, they are called Creator; because they educate and govern, the name Lord God is applied."[12]

How do these creative energies work? Keven quotes a passage from Baha'u'llah that sheds light on this by explaining the relationship between the names and the attributes:

"... the names are garments for the attributes, since an attribute is an act being manifested by an actor, such as giving something or causing one thing to prevail over another. Thus whatever is manifested by the actor appeareth through the stages of his will and his power. This act is made manifest as an effect of the action produced by the actor."[13]

Baha'u'llah says the names are "garments" for the attributes. I think, in a simple sense, he is saying the names are titles we give to attributes that appear in the actions of actors. For example, you make a donation to a charity. That action comes about through your will and power and is freely chosen by you, so it is a genuine expression of who you are. Through this action, you manifest the attribute of generosity. The name given to this attribute is the name of God, the Generous or the Giving. God's 'actions' can be understood along these lines. God acts, which produces particular effects on reality, and the attributes manifest in those actions come under the shelter of related names of God. Baha'u'llah says that, if actions are not clothed in the garment of names, they could not be known. Everything must be named; that is the structure of reality.

"When God purposed to make His action manifest in His realm, reveal it upon His earth, establish it in His land, and make it a perpetual word and a clear sign, He clothed it in the garment of names. This is the same as when ye say [of certain acts]: 'this is munificent,' 'this is discerning,' 'this is informed,' and so forth with similar names... If these actions were not named by these names, they would not become known and made manifest... Nothing in the heavens or on the earth can exist unless it is under the shadow of certain names among His names. For example, if thou seest the knowledge of a learned person, be assured that this knowledge hath appeared as a result of the effulgence of the name of God the Knowing. If thou observest the power of a powerful individual, know that this power oweth its existence to its reflection of the name the Powerful." [14]

And so, when Baha'u'llah commands the name of God, the Almighty, to shine on "all beings with the wonders of the power of your Lord", we are able to understand that Baha'u'llah is 'acting' through the intelligible reality of the name, the Almighty, in the realm of the World of Command. We can take from this that the effect of this acting is some kind of empowerment, for that would be the manifested attribute associated with that name. This action affects the realities in the World of Command, and spreads out to influence created things in all the worlds, including ours. To illustrate this process, Baha'u'llah uses the analogy of a spring feeding rivers: "The metaphor for this Name in this Tablet is a spring of water that feeds various rivers. In a like manner, from this Name flow the waters of Might into the streams of all being." (para 3)

After commanding the Sun of the Almighty to shine on all beings with God's power, Baha'u'llah addresses some uncompromising statements to those wanting to serve his Cause. He says that a person who does not take advantage of the grace that is shining upon them by the Almighty Sun will never be able to "establish the power" of God. It is not sufficient for a person to acknowledge in a confession of powerlessness to God that they are unable to establish God's power. Such a confession is insufficient because the person making it remains unaware of the reality of God's power that is available to them. Only a positive experience and expression of the power of God will result in gains in service to the Cause. Using the analogy of the mirror, as Baha'u'llah does at the beginning of paragraph 3, we must turn the mirrors of our hearts to the light of the Almighty Sun so that we can reflect its characteristics within ourselves and in what we do.

Paragraph 3 expresses the challenging idea that a person who reflects the light of the Almighty Sun will be empowered to do apparently supernatural things, like wield power over everything, tell things to turn upside down, and "conquer all beings" through an act of will. If taken literally, they suggest that a person could move through life like Superman, conquering all who get in the way and always prevailing. However, it is contrary to God's method to have believers be like Superman, for then everyone would believe. The surah has moderating phrases such as "All take therefrom according to their preordained portion" and "Thus may you ensure the victory of your Lord in every affair insofar as you are able". These suggest that a person is empowered to do only what is destined for them and only what can realistically be accomplished in a lifetime.

One way to look at what Baha'u'llah is suggesting here is to compare it to a similar idea expressed in the fourth valley of the Four Valleys. Towards the end of that valley, Baha'u'llah cites a tradition that he says illustrates the state of being of a person who has reached that valley. It says:

"O My Servant! Obey Me and I shall make thee like unto Myself. I say `Be,' and it is, and thou shalt say `Be,' and it shall be."[15]

I take from this that a person reflecting the power of the name the Almighty is permitted to ask for, and may anticipate receiving, whatever aid they need to achieve their goals. This process takes place secretly within the heart and life of the believer, who may obtain all manner of assistance without others knowing or noticing.

In paragraphs 4 and 5, Baha'u'llah changes his theme and focuses on the dangers a person faces when they find themselves empowered and exalted as described above. He speaks of the danger of becoming "beguiled" by something - in effect, by the exalted station the person finds themselves enjoying. This leads to the person becoming proud before God. Baha'u'llah warns against the impulse to stop mentioning God and forget God when one is riding high. A person is given the gift of empowerment for the whole of eternity so that they might forever remember God, thank God and be grateful. He calls on everyone who manifests the power of the Almighty Sun to listen attentively to God and ignore everything else, and prostrate before God and let nothing stop them obeying God.

Towards the end of paragraph 5, Baha'u'llah cites the example of his half-brother, Azal, as someone who was exalted by God but allowed that empowerment to go to his head. His given name was Mirza Yahya Nuri, but the Bab referred to him as "Azal" (Eternity) in the first verse of his Will and Testament, and gave him titles using that name (and others); for example, "Thamaratu'l-Azaliyya" (Fruit of Eternity) and "'Ismu'l-Azal" (Name of Eternity).[16] What went wrong in his case is alluded to by Baha'u'llah in a phrase that comes earlier in the paragraph: "beware lest mere names entice you away from the mention of your Creator". Effectively, the titles given to Azal overwhelmed his ego and lead him to believe that the realities behind the high station he had attained originated from within himself and not God. We have seen earlier on in this essay how the realities of the names of God originate with God in the World of Command and permeate from there to the physical world. They do not originate from within our own selves. But once that subtle shift in perception takes place within a person, they see no need to mention God any more. This leads to pride, arrogance and haughtiness.

The final three paragraphs of the surah contain general statements about the future of the Cause as Baha'u'llah expects it to unfold in time. He expresses the conviction that his message will prevail, even if the Babis do not support it, because God will render it victorious. It will invert the names and bring them down - for example, bring down powerful people, such as tyrants - and this process will bring great confusion to the world. Baha'u'llah tells his reader to confidently share the message with those who are open to it and leave alone those who are not interested.

References

[1] Stephen Lambden, THE SŪRAT AL-QADĪR (THE SURAH OF THE OMNIPOTENT) OF MĪRZĀ ḤUSAYN `ALĪ NŪRĪ BAHĀ'-ALLĀH

[2] Adib Taherzadeh: Revelation of Baha'u'llah: Baghdad 1853-63 (Oxford: George Ronald, 1974) p. 119

[3] Juan Cole to irfan@umich.edu 25.8.96

[4] Juan Cole to talisman@umich.edu 24.8.96

[5] Stephen Lambden, THE SŪRAT AL-QADĪR (THE SURAH OF THE OMNIPOTENT) OF MĪRZĀ ḤUSAYN `ALĪ NŪRĪ BAHĀ'-ALLĀH. Further background on the split between Baha'u'llah and Azal can be found in my Introduction to Garden of Justice.

[6] Juan Cole to talisman@umich.edu 24.8.96

[7] Stephen Lambden: "The Sidrah (Lote-Tree) and the Sidrat al-Muntaha (Lote-Tree of the Extremity) Some Aspects of their Islamic and Babi-Baha'i Interpretations"

[8] I am grateful to Stephen Lambden for suggesting this interpretation to me.

[9] Another interpretation draws on the fact of the manifestation appearing in this dispensation in two persons, the Bab and Baha'u'llah, hence the 'two names' Muhammad and Ali. Refer, for example, to the following passage from the Qayyumu'l-Asma:

"He [the Bāb] was indeed made manifest in the form of the two Primal Ones (al-awwalayn) [= Muhammad and `Ali?] and hath outstretched His Divine Mercy (raḥmat) such that it was diffused within the earthly dominion (al-mulk) even as the Mercy of the two [Imam] Ḥasans [No.2 son of `Ali and no. 11 al-Askari 2+11= 13]. It was such that its like is never seen [even] at the [very] Pivot of Heaven (qutb al-ama') such was the [expression of Divine] Justice (al-`adl), being tantamount to a Double [outpouring of] Justice (`al-`adlayn). And in [the outpouring of] Divine Bounty (fadl) he is even as the twin shining Lights (al-nayyirayn) conjoined in the two Names pertinent to the supremely elevated twin Depths [Bosoms] (al-jaybayn) as well as the Barzakh (Isthmus) of the two Causes (al-amrayn) pertinent to the secret of the two Gulfs (sirr al-tutunjayn)..." (trans Stephen Lambden)

[10] Garden of Justice, paragraphs 2-7

[11] Keven Brown, "Creation"

[12] Abdu'l-Baha, Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 219

[13] From the Tafsír-i-Hu, International Bahá’í Archives, unpublished manuscript, no. BC003/070/00084 C. Cited in Keven Brown, "Creation".

[14] Ibid

[15] Baha'u'llah, Seven Valleys and Four Valleys, p. 63

[16] Wikipedia, Subh-i-Azal. The origins of the title "Subh-i Azal", usually attributed to Mirza Yahya Nuri, are unknown.

Powerlessness and God's power

2011-10-14T10:53:00.010+13:00

I've been thinking a great deal recently about my powerlessness and God's power. The issue came to a head when I was writing an introduction to Surah of the Almighty, in which Baha'u'llah says:

"God will render anyone who reflects the effulgence of this Name powerful over all things, to the extent that if he were to instruct all things to turn upside down, they would do so. If he should wish to conquer all beings by the power of his will, he would be enabled to accomplish it by the might of his Lord. This is, verily, a grace for all to see."

I didn't know what to make of it because I had never experienced anything like what is described here. I also thought that it couldn't be taken literally for I've never seen any Baha'i with such power - even Baha'u'llah opted to appear to the world as powerless, even though he wasn't. He argued that if he showed the world the real power he had, no one would disbelieve. So what to make of this passage?

Not long after I was wondering about this, I embarked on a prayer campaign to improve my financial situation. It had become a bit dire and I felt I needed divine assistance. Over a week or more, I said the Tablet of Ahamd, the Long Healing Prayer and some other favourites. Gradually, in that time, assistance arrived and my circumstances improved dramatically.

At that point, I believed I'd had a glimmer of what the passage meant. Yes, I am powerless, but in turning to God, truly amazing things are achievable. I realised that I'd been selling God short and, to a huge extent, not relying on God and using the power that Baha'u'llah promises in the surah he will send if we call on it.

This has opened up huge possibilities for me. My horizons have been too low. I'm far too focused on the world and what it might supply or not supply and not enough focused on God and God's unlimited power to bring about any outcome. What I see as a fix between a rock and hard place is no such thing at all to God. God can open up doors out of rock and hard places. All things are possible to God.

My thinking has been shockingly narrow. I'm overwhelmed now by a new view of unlimited, infinite and eternal majesty standing just in front of me, on tap whenever I put in the effort to access it. I now see that there is nothing I can't do, so long as it is willed and so much has been willed that I can't fathom its depths. I need to pray much, much more and skip over the terrain of my future like the humans who leap over trees in that movie "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon". Yes, the only limits are mine.

Relationship between the names and the attributes

2011-09-08T09:58:00.005+12:00

I'm writing an introduction to Surah of the Almighty and I've just written a paragraph discussing in general terms the relationship between the names and the attributes. My source is a paragraph from Baha'u'llah's "Tafsír-i-Hu", translated by Keven Brown and quoted in his "Creation" essay, Section 3. I wish someone would translate the whole tafsir!

I thought I'd post here what I've written, because I have not found this information in any other place. Baha'is talk about the names and attributes of God, but the only place I've ever found information about what they are as a reality is in Keven's essay. What I've explained here is just a simple version of what is an endlessly complex topic.

Here is the paragraph from "Tafsír-i-Hu":

'In another station, the names are garments for the attributes, since an attribute is an act being manifested by an actor, such as giving something or causing one thing to prevail over another. Thus whatever is manifested by the actor appeareth through the stages of his will and his power. This act is made manifest as an effect of the action produced by the actor. When God purposed to make His action manifest in His realm, reveal it upon His earth, establish it in His land, and make it a perpetual word and a clear sign, He clothed it in the garment of names. This is the same as when ye say [of certain acts]: “this is munificent,” “this is discerning,” “this is informed,” and so forth with similar names…. If these actions were not named by these names, they would not become known and made manifest…. Nothing in the heavens or on the earth can exist unless it is under the shadow of certain names among His names. For example, if thou seest the knowledge of a learned person, be assured that this knowledge hath appeared as a result of the effulgence of the name of God the Knowing. If thou observest the power of a powerful individual, know that this power oweth its existence to its reflection of the name the Powerful. In like manner, the loftiness of the sky is a consequence of His name the Exalted, the radiance of the sun is a consequence of His name the Luminous, the stability of the earth is a consequence of His name the Imperturbable, the flowing of water is a consequence of His name the Fluid, and the blowing of wind is a consequence of His name the Sender.' (from the Tafsír-i-Hu, International Bahá’í Archives, unpublished manuscript, no. BC003/070/00084 C)

Here's my short discussion:

"Baha'u'llah says the names are 'garments' for the attributes. I think, in a simple sense, he is saying the names are titles we give to attributes that appear in the actions of actors. For example, you make a donation to a charity. That action comes about through your will and power and is freely chosen by you, so it is a genuine expression of who you are. The effect of this action is to transfer wealth from you to others in need of it. Through this action, you manifest the attribute of generosity. The name given to this attribute is the name of God, the Generous or the Giving. God's 'actions' can be understood along these lines. God acts, which produces particular effects on the intelligible realities in the World of Command, and the attributes manifest in those actions come under the shadow of related names of God. Baha'u'llah says that, if actions are not clothed in the garment of the names, they could not be known. Everything must be named; that is the structure of reality."

Memorising a hidden word

2011-08-20T11:18:00.013+12:00

Life out here in the country is much quieter than it was in the city. Days go by where Steve and I don't see anyone except each other. It has meant that I now have the space to learn some of the writings. I haven't set myself huge goals, like learning long passages. I have contented myself with a hidden word at a time and found that to be more than enough.

The hidden word I've been most recently working on is Persian Hidden Word number 70:

"O son of worldliness! Pleasant is the realm of being, wert thou to attain thereto; glorious is the domain of eternity, shouldst thou pass beyond the world of mortality; sweet is the holy ecstasy if thou drinkest of the mystic chalice from the hands of the celestial Youth. Shouldst thou attain this station, thou wouldst be freed from destruction and death, from toil and sin."

I've developed a strategy for learning a hidden word. It takes weeks to work through. I don't start with a finish line in mind; I start with the determination to see the process through however long it takes (sometimes months). I've adopted this attitude because I have to be realistic about my abilities. There is a good chance I will experience difficulties in my life and find it impossible to concentrate. If I don't allow for this, I will give up, and then all is lost.

The one task I set myself is to slowly read the hidden word through twice a day, during either my morning or evening prayers. That's all. I do not try to memorise the hidden word as such, although that is the intended goal. I just read it through slowly, focusing on what it says. I find that, after about a week, I am starting to remember bits of it - most likely, the first line by then.

At this stage, I wonder what the hidden word could mean, but I am focused mainly on articulating the words themselves. Although I may have read the hidden word many times during my 30 years as a Baha'i, it seems like I'm seeing it for the first time. I begin to wake up to words that I never noticed before; for example, in the hidden word above, the "realm of being", the "domain of eternity" and the "world of mortality". The words "realm", "domain" and "world" are all possible synonyms, and when I read the hidden word quickly, I miss the subtleties behind why one word has been used instead of another in different phrases.

After a while, a couple of weeks perhaps, I become familiar with phrases in the hidden word and begin to focus on the meaning, instead of struggling with the issue of what word comes next. I start to see the structure of the whole and the positioning of phrases and ideas in relation to each other. For example, I start to see the close line up of the three phrases "realm of being", "domain of eternity" and "world of mortality". You see that Baha'u'llah is referring to each of these as an identifiable chunk of reality, and that he is particularly emphasising the contrast between the domain of eternity and the world of mortality.

This got me wondering: well, what is the domain of eternity as compared to the world of mortality? I am being asked to pass beyond the world of mortality and enter the domain of eternity. He is asking me to do this right now, and not when I die. So how do I do that? What is the world of mortality I should... What should I do? I should "pass beyond" it. What does it mean to "pass beyond"?

And so I keep reading. Each day, I think about my life and what about it could constitute "the world of mortality" and "the domain of eternity". Eventually, I came to the conclusion that the world of mortality was pretty much everything in my daily life, and that the domain of eternity was the spiritual realm I can't see. And that's the rub; I can't see it, but Baha'u'llah is asking me to 'enter' it by passing beyond my daily reality. He tells me that the domain of eternity is "glorious". Gee, who wouldn't want to be there? There's very good reason, apparently, to make the effort to pass beyond my immediate experience and be in this invisible realm.

In the end, I decided that I was almost a complete failure at doing what Baha'u'llah is asking of me. I believe he wants me to focus on him all the time, throughout my daily activities. At best right now, he comes and goes. I've got a long way to go. But that's all right. I've spent 50 years practicing being submerged in the world of mortality; it might take another, say, 20 years to lift me out of it in any significant way.

The main thing is that I'm memorising hidden words and finding the transforming element in them, and not simply memorising words.

Introduction to Surah of Sacrifice (Surat'udh-Dhibh)

2011-07-09T13:16:00.015+12:00

Historical background

Surat'udh-Dhibh, which translates as Surah of Sacrifice, is a letter Baha'u'llah wrote in Edirne to Muhammad Isma'il Kashani, who had been given the title 'Dhabih' (the Sacrifice) by the Bab. The surah is not to be confused with a letter Baha'u'llah wrote in Akka to the same person, which is titled Surat'udh-Dhabih, Surah of the Sacrificed. This second surah was translated by Shoghi Effendi and appears as section CXV in Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah.

Dhabih was one of three Babi brothers from Kashan, the other two being Haji Mirza Jani, who was martyred in Tehran in 1852,[1] and Haji Mirza Ahmad, who went on to become a Baha'i and then an Azali (a follower of Azal).[2] Dhabih was a follower of Shaykh Ahmad Ahsa'i, the founder of Shaykism, and his successor Haji Siyyid Kazim Rashti. Many Shaykhis became Babis after the death of Siyyid Kazim and the subsequent declaration of the Bab in 1844.

Dhabih wrote a Mathnavi, a huge mystical work consisting of seven books. A mathnavi is a traditional form of Persian poetry, "used chiefly for heroic, historical, and romantic epic poetry and didactic" purposes.[3] The Mathnavi well known in the West is the one by the 13th-century Sufi poet, Jalal al-Din Rumi, which ran to five books. Dhabih uses his mathnavi to explain his beliefs and the teachings of his faith and record significant events in his life. He covers topics such as the spiritual insight of the Shaykhi leaders, which lead them to prophesy the coming of the Bab; the Bab's three-day stop over in Kashan, during which he stayed with the three brothers; the spiritual status and ideas of the Bab and Baha'u'llah; and Dhabih's three visits to Baha'u'llah. The first two visits took place in 1849-50 and 1853-54, when Baha'u'llah was in Baghdad. On the third visit, in 1868, Dhabih arrived in Edirne when Baha'u'llah's house was cordoned off by guards in preparation for Baha'u'llah's exile to Akka. Baha'u'llah instructed Dhabih to go to Gallipoli, and the two met at the Gallipoli port. At this time, Dhabih received one of Baha'u'llah's important tablets, Suriy-i-Ra'is, which was written while Baha'u'llah travelled from Edirne to Gallipoli. In the first half of this tablet, Baha'u'llah addresses Ali Pasha, the Ottoman Prime Minister, about Baha'u'llah's enforced exile to Akka. In the second half, he addresses Dhabih, who he names 'Anis' (the Intimate), and answers Dhabih's questions about the nature of the soul.[4] Dhabih records in his Mathnavi that he accompanied Baha'u'llah to Akka, after which he seems to have returned to Iran.[5] I can find no information on when Dhabih received the Surah of Sacrifice.

A photograph of Dhabih is found on Wiki. Apparently, the photo was taken when Dhabih was under arrest in Tehran, in the years after his third visit with Baha'u'llah. The photo was scanned from page 432 of Adib Taherzadeh (1977), The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volume 2.

Paragraphs 1-3

After addressing the surah to Dhabih in the opening paragraph, Baha'u'llah begins with an exchange between himself and God. To do this, Baha'u'llah has to speak in two different capacities: on behalf of God (para 1 and 2) and to God (para 3). In Baha'i theology, God is understood to be an invisible essence that transcends creation. This means that God has no direct connection to creation and therefore does not speak directly to creation. What, then, is the precise nature of the 'God' voice that speaks to Baha'u'llah (and, by extension, humanity) in the opening paragraphs?

The answer is found in the realm known as the divine Will. The first step in the process by which God brings creation into being is the Will. God creates the Will through itself, not from God's Essence, and then the action of the Will brings about the rest of creation.[6] Periodically, God causes the reality of the Will to appear in this physical world, as the innermost self of a human being. Human beings with the Will as their essence are of a special kind, called manifestations of God. The reality of the Will is hidden within the self of the manifestation and is revealed through the manifestation's person (that is, countenance), words and actions.

The Bab, who is a manifestation of God, explains in his writings that the Will ("the Point") has two stations. These are like two inner selves, which act in response to each other. One self speaks the word of God and the other self responds to the divine revelation addressed to it.

"Verily the Point possesseth two stations. One is the station that speaketh from God. The other is the station that speaketh from that which is other than God, a station whereby He expresseth His servitude for the former station. By virtue of the former, the latter worshippeth God in the daytime and in the night season, and glorifieth Him at morn and at eventide."[7]

The Bab explains that the first station of the Will "speaks from God and on behalf of God, in the mode of divine verses" and the second station of the Will "speaks to God, in worship and adoration of Him, in the mode of prayers and supplications."[8] In paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Surah of Sacrifice, we hear Baha'u'llah speaking from God and on behalf of God, and in paragraph 3, Baha'u'llah responds to God as a servant.

Paragraph 1 is made up of four declarations, each roughly one sentence long, about God's uniqueness and power. These declarations follow the same pattern: they each begin by introducing the 'place' from which God is speaking - "the throne of grandeur and splendour", "the realm of glory and majesty", "the Essence of Pre-existence" and "within His own substance" - and follow with a statement about God's singleness. In three of the declarations, the statements are spoken in the first person and convey the same message in slightly different language:

"I, verily, am the Lord God, and there is no other god beside Me, the Help in Peril, the Everlasting."

"I am, in truth, Almighty God, beside Whom there is no other God, and I am the Powerful, the Omnipotent, the Beloved."

"There is no divinity save Me, the Manifest, the Visible. I testify within My essence, to My essence and by My essence that I am God".

The effect of this repetition of statements is to emphasise that the voice we hear speaking is talking to us from the highest realms of reality and that there is no thing in existence that stands beyond the one who speaks. In the last declaration, the being explains that its claim to being God comes out of the substance and nature of its own essence. Its lordship and power comes from the fact that it stands at the core of existence (via the Will). Nothing exists without this being standing within it as its lord.

In paragraph 2, God speaks directly to Baha'u'llah ("O Beauty of the Primeval"), asking him to sprinkle drops of the ocean of grace over created things, so that they might catch a whiff from the camphor fountain, which is the manifestation. Camphor smells like menthol and cinnamon combined. The idea is that a person will pick up on the camphor scent by the grace of God. It is as if a person is wandering along and, of a sudden, happens to notice an unexpected fragrance in the air, which others do not notice. Next, we are told that the scent leads to the river of paradise, which has been "distilled" in the words ("Pen") of Baha'u'llah. Those words are a sign of God's knowledge, but few realise this.

In paragraph 3, Baha'u'llah responds by saying that he does not know how to fulfil God's request because he is overwhelmed by his enemies. He expresses the reservation that speaking about God's wonders will make matters worse. There is no answer to this from God.

Paragraphs 4-6

At this point, the focus of the surah changes and Baha'u'llah appears to do a 'camera turn'. For the rest of the tablet, he addresses Dhabih and humanity.

In paragraph 4, he asks Dhabih to tell others about Baha'u'llah's message and explains how Dhabih is to do this. The instructions centre on the idea of detachment, and are the same ones Baha'u'llah gives in many of his tablets. He begins: "If thou dost wish to enter into this station…" The "station" refers to the spiritual state of the manifestation, which is described in paragraph 2 and is said to be a reality that only a few attain. Dhabih must detach himself from all in heaven and earth and all that has happened or will happen. Dhabih must, instead, focus his love, knowledge and trust entirely on Baha'u'llah, having Baha'u'llah as his companion, goal and fortress.

These are radical instructions, and their significance is impossible to capture in words. Baha'u'llah is asking Dhabih to realign his whole being away from spiritual and earthly things, including events, and turn himself inwardly toward Baha'u'llah and rest his entire confidence and love in him. The instructions do not involve doing anything in the world, but instead focusing on a transforming adjustment within the self. If Dhabih realigns himself accordingly, Baha'u'llah says that God will awaken in him a spiritual insight that will enable him to see a reality that no one else has ever seen, especially those who claim to have knowledge of God but whom God has not allowed to see anything. The final sentence reiterates the essential instruction Baha'u'llah is giving: Dhabih is to leave alone the "idolaters and what they possess" - that is, not allow himself to be entangled in the affairs of those who deny Baha'u'llah. Instead, he is to rise above it ("ascend on the wings of holiness") and focus on developing an intimacy with Baha'u'llah, so that he might find the paradise hidden in Baha'u'llah's Word (described in paragraph 2).

Paragraph 5 involves another camera turn. It begins with "Say", suggesting that what follows is a speech or message Dhabih is to give to others on Baha'u'llah's behalf. Such passages double as messages addressing all humanity. The essential argument is that Baha'u'llah's message does not come from himself, but from "the Spirit that speaketh in My breast". This is the voice that announces itself in paragraph 1 as the one, all-powerful God. This same Spirit spoke in the breasts of the prophets and messengers of the past. Therefore, anyone who rejects what Baha'u'llah is saying also rejects what the prophets of the past have said. Baha'u'llah asks people to consider his claims with equity and not to weigh them "by what is with you". In other words, he is asking people to examine what he says with an open mind and not through the lens of their religious tradition. What Baha'u'llah means by this becomes clearer in paragraphs 7-9.

Paragraph 6 is another camera turn to Dhabih, in which Baha'u'llah expresses dismay at the way his enemies have treated him, and how this has prevented him from illuminating creation. But these events have been written by fate on preserved tablets. This is reported by the Pen, which, as explained in paragraph 2, has within it "the waters of life from the fountain of the All-Merciful". But no one understands.

Note that in paragraph 6 (and in subsequent paragraphs) Baha'u'llah refers to himself as a "Youth". This is a reference to the fact that the Bab was a youth and referred to himself as a youth (he was 23 years old when he began his mission). Baha'u'llah, in referring to himself as a "Youth", is underscoring the fact that he is claiming to be the return of the Bab – that is, Him Whom God Shall Manifest.

Paragraphs 7-9

The first two sentences of paragraph 7 allude to a principal argument Baha'u'llah makes against those who reject him, which is argued in detail in the Book of Certitude. Baha'u'llah occupies many pages of that book interpreting Matthew 24: 29-31, as well as some relevant verses from the Qur'an, which describe signs that will appear in the world on the Day of Resurrection; for example, the sun will darken and the stars will fall. The opening sentence of paragraph 7 alludes to two of these signs. It says that a commotion came about because the "heavens of idle imaginings" were torn apart and the sun stopped shining.

In paragraph 46 of the Book of Certitude, Baha'u'llah interprets the phrase "cleaving of the heaven", which is a paraphrase of Qur'an 82:1: "When the heaven shall be cloven asunder". Baha'u'llah explains that the phrase refers to the process that takes place whenever a new divine relevation appears in creation and supersedes the established one. The word "heaven" refers to the spritual reality of a divine revelation, which acts as the canopy of creation when it is established. In order for a new revelation to take the place of an old one, the heaven of the established revelation must be taken down. This is the process of the heaven being torn apart. It is torn down like old wallpaper, so that a new wallpaper and modern look can be put up in its place.

The phrase Baha'u'llah uses in the first sentence of paragraph 7 refers to the "heavens of idle imaginings" being torn apart. Common sense suggests that Baha'u'llah could not be referring to the heaven of a divine revelation by the term "idle imaginings". For this reason, I suggest he is referring to the way the people understand the established religion at the time when the new one is being introduced. Put simply, the people's understanding of their religion has, over centuries, moved so far from its original teachings that their beliefs now amount to idle imaginings. This is referred to as a 'heaven' because those beliefs are raised up as the unquestioned truth of that revelation by its followers, creating a canopy of understanding. This heaven is then torn apart when the new manifestation comes and establishes a replacement set of teachings.

The second sign referred to in the first sentence of paragraph 7 is the sun of creation no longer giving off its light. In paragraphs 31-38 of the Book of Certitude, Baha'u'llah explains that the word "sun" may refer to, apart from the physical sun, the prophets, the Imams, the leaders of religion, and the laws and teachings of the established religion. In this case, Baha'u'llah uses the phrase "sun of creation", which probably rules out the physical sun. But whatever other 'suns' are being referred to, the point is that the "sun" no longer gives off light; in other words, whether it is the prophets, Imams, leaders of religion or laws and teachings of previous revelations, all are eclipsed by the sun of the new revelation.

Baha'u'llah is telling us in the first sentence that these two events – the heaven of idle imaginings being rent and the sun darkening – have caused a "commotion". It does not take much imagination to guess how people might react when they are told that what they have held to for centuries as the one true religion is now being taken down and replaced. Baha'u'llah then states in the second sentence that the commotion made by the people at the appearance of the new manifestation is proof of their hypocrisy in claiming to believe in God. This judgement harks back to paragraph 5, where Baha'u'llah explains that his message is from "the Spirit that speaketh in My breast"; that is, the same Spirit that spoke in the breasts of all the prophets. Therefore, to reject one is to reject them all. The assumption here is that, if one claims to know the 'melody' of this Spirit's voice, then one will recognise it no matter which prophet is speaking it. It is analogous to multiple orchestras playing Beethoven's 5th symphony at various times all over the world. Everyone who claims to know the symphony will recognise it no matter which orchestra plays it. And if someone denies it is that symphony because, for example, the Berlin Philharmonic is playing it and not the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra, then you have only to conclude that the person has learned to recognise orchestras but not the symphony. For this reason, Baha'u'llah accuses of falsehood those who claim to believe in God but make a commotion when God speaks anew through a new prophet. Baha'u'llah follows in the rest of paragraph 7 with reiterations of the fact that he really is speaking with the same voice as the previous prophets and warns people to listen to him.

Paragraph 8 again summarises a principal argument Baha'u'llah makes throughout his writings about what constitutes proof of his mission. He begins by stating that someone had sought an opinion from another person about the truth of Baha'u'llah's claims. Most likely, the opinion sought was from a divine or religious leader, because the enquirer thought the person to be learned. What follows, starting "Say", is a three-sentence outline of the argument. The three points are:

God does not need anything in creation to vindicate the Cause.
All in creation beside God is created by God.
God's proof is God; God's existence is the same as God's sovereignty.

The argument is based on ontology – that is, the structure and nature of existence. God created all things and is independent of them. God does not rely on anything for anything. The only proof of God is God. This all-conquering aspect of God's existence is what makes God sovereign over all in creation. In light of this, it is pointless asking a divine whether Baha'u'llah's claims are true. A divine is a creature of God, just like everything else, and has no privileged knowledge about God's Cause.

Here is a simple table depicting the flow of grace from God to creation.

Level	Existence
1	God
2	Manifestation, the Word, the verses
3	Creation

All the bounties of God flow from God, through the manifestation, to creation. Everything in level 3 is dependent on level 2 – for existence, knowledge, power and all other bounties. Therefore, it is impossible for anything on level 3 to have knowledge of God that is independent of level 2. It is a misunderstanding of the structure of existence to ask a being on level 3 about levels 2 and 1 and any realities that appear from them in level 3.

This principle harks back to the point in paragraph 5, where Baha'u'llah asks people not to weigh what he says "by what is with" them. The things that are 'with' people are a part of creation (level 3) and therefore in no position to act as an independent standard against which Baha'u'llah's claims can be assessed. Instead, toward the end of paragraph 8, Baha'u'llah asks people to view him "with the eye of holiness". By this, he means that they should put aside the standards that have their origin in things in the world, such as the opinions of religious leaders, and examine his claims on their own merits with an entirely open mind. By this means, they will "crush the idols of vain imaginings" (para 7) and be allowed to see what only those empowered to do so can see (para 2).

Paragraph 9 continues the themes introduced in paragraph 8. The message Baha'u'llah delivers, he says, has been brought purely out of love for humanity, but God is not affected by whether or not it is accepted (because God is independent of all created things). God does as God pleases. Baha'u'llah tells Dhabih/humanity to look at his Cause "with the eyes of God". This is a restating of the idea discussed above that people are to assess God's Cause on its own merits and not against the standards of "what is with" the people.

Towards the end of the paragraph, Baha'u'llah reminds people that all that they own and take pride in in life is "established solely by the verses of God" and that these verses are subject to God's Will. This point can be seen by referring to the table above. All that we have in life exists on level 3 and, therefore, relies on level 2 for its existence. This is a warning. People imagine that what they own and rely on for security and reputation in life is stable and entirely under their control. In fact, all created things are under God's control, via the verses of the manifestation (level 2). Do not deny the verses, Baha'u'llah says, for in doing so, one brings one's works to naught. The idea here, I think, is that if we deny the verses, we spend our life misinterpreting the nature and purpose of the reality in which we exist and therefore act in life in a way that does not profit us.

Paragraphs 10-12

In general, paragraph 10 restates in different words the advice Baha'u'llah gave Dhabih in paragraph 4. Essentially, that Dhabih must tell others about Baha'u'llah's good tidings and, in order to be effective in doing this, he must detach himself from everything in the world and rest all his love and trust in Baha'u'llah. That, by doing this, Dhabih will find himself able to experience a sanctified reality that is shown to only a few by the grace of God. This message is summed up in one sentence in the middle of paragraph 10, where Baha'u'llah tells Dhabih to "Strip thyself of everything that the hand of grace may take thee, exalt thee to the majestic and beloved seat, and clothe thee in raiment that will illumine all beings". Note that the term "Sinai of Pre-existence" in the last sentence of this paragraph is a reference to the level 1 world of existence.

In paragraph 11, Baha'u'llah focuses on "the people of the Qur'an" as an example of the behaviour described above that he counsels Dhabih and the rest of us to avoid. Baha'u'llah refers to his exile to Iraq and to how this event stands as a testimony and proof of his claims. He explains that, by means of this exile, God has completed his proof and fulfilled his blessings to those who believe. But the people of the Qur'an missed the import of what happened. Their insight was obscured by the "veils of imaginings" (para 7) and because of this, they never saw the divine purpose in those events. Baha'u'llah accuses them of surrendering their insight into the hands of others. In other words, instead of examining Baha'u'llah's claims with an open mind, they took as gospel the opinions of their religious leaders ('what is with them'). They judged Baha'u'llah by the standards of human beings that were created to appear at level 3 by Baha'u'llah himself in level 2. Baha'u'llah sternly instructs Dhabih not to do this; he must see with his own eyes, and thereby benefit from the flow of grace that is being sent by God in the new dispensation.

What does Baha'u'llah mean when he says that his exile to Iraq was a complete proof of his claims? The spiritual meaning of Baha'u'llah's exile is infinite and well beyond anything I could set out here. I will give one explanation, which Baha'u'llah expounds in the Book of Certitude. A principal theme of the first half of that book is the fact that all the prophets of God were persecuted when they declared their mission to humanity. Baha'u'llah writes a short piece about each major prophet, from Moses to Muhammad, and shows how each one was denounced and persecuted by his contemporaries. In paragraph 14, Baha'u'llah asks about the motive behind such behaviour. What could have caused people to denounce the very one they had for centuries been praying for God to reveal? He answers his own question, saying that what caused such misguided behaviour in the past is causing people to repeat the same mistake in his day. He says "such behaviour can be attributed to naught save the petty-mindedness of such souls as tread the valley of arrogance and pride, are lost in the wilds of remoteness, walk in the ways of their idle fancy, and follow the dictates of the leaders of their faith."(Book of Certitude, para 14) He goes on in the same paragraph to state that if people had "sanctified their eyes, their ears, and their hearts from whatever they had seen, heard, and felt", they would have recognised the new prophet. Similarly, if the people of the Qur'an had looked at Baha'u'llah's exile with an open mind, they would have seen that the way Baha'u'llah was being treated was the same as the way Muhammad and all past prophets had been treated, and seen in this the true spiritual meaning of the events unfolding before them.

In paragraph 12, Baha'u'llah tries to give Dhabih an idea of the gravity of the persecution he has been forced to endure at the hands of his enemies. He does this by comparing the divine origin of his own persecution to that of the Bab. He states that the Bab suffered martyrdom after he asked for permission to sacrifice his life for the Cause. But Baha'u'llah was never given the opportunity to make such a request. He was "sacrificed even before being offered up". It seems that Baha'u'llah was destined in pre-existence to suffer multiple martyrdoms that were to reoccur at every moment for decades: "I have been sacrificed at every moment for the past 20 years". The 20-year period probably began after the martyrdom of the Bab in 1844, when persecution of Baha'u'llah began in earnest with his arrest and imprisonment in the Siyah Chal.

Paragraphs 13-end

Paragraph 13 is another empassioned statement of Baha'u'llah's instructions to Dhabih already outlined in paragraphs 4 and 10. Dhabih must stop focusing his attention on "the worlds of being" and "the contingent universe" and what is in them. In doing this, Dhabih will be enabled to enter "the house of mysteries", where no one gains entry except with the permission of God. Baha'u'llah encourages Dhabih to see the greatness in the radiance Baha'u'llah is shedding on him and the rest of humanity in this new revelation. If he gains entry to this spiritual 'place', it is better for him than anything else. And if he should gain entry to it, he would see from that vantage point the divine purpose in the persecutions sustained by Baha'u'llah, which Baha'u'llah has allowed himself to undergo in the hope that people might wake up from their "heedlessness", detach themselves from the world and enter Baha'u'llah's court.

Paragraph 14 continues on with the idea of what Dhabih should do when he sees the true significance of Baha'u'llah's sacrifice from the vantage point of the sanctified court. Baha'u'llah uses the imagery of a person burying their face in an item of clothing that once belonged to a person they deeply loved. The person holds it up against their face and breathes in the scent the beloved left behind on it. This is the intimate encounter Baha'u'llah asks Dhabih to participate in with Baha'u'llah's blood-stained cloak, in the hope that the repercussions of Dhabih's spiritual ecstasy might lead to the rest of humanity removing its veils of idle imaginings and entering "the kingdom of names and attributes" (that is, Baha'u'llah's court).

The rest of the paragraph is devoted to Baha'u'llah recounting a personal experience, in order to show Dhabih the degree and subtlety of opposition he will face when he tries to follow Baha'u'llah's instructions. Baha'u'llah explains that, when he tried to enter the sacred realm, Satan in the form of a human being tried to prevent him, so Baha'u'llah threw stones at him. Baha'u'llah warns Dhabih to watch out for any person who tries to get in the way of his entering the sacred realm. Any person who attempts this is Satan in human garb. Dhabih is to do what Baha'u'llah did and "exorcise him with a luminous star-shower". Dhabih must adopt nothing less than absolute determination to make his way to the "sacred and adored shore".

In paragraph 15, Baha'u'llah refers to the fact that he concealed his station as Him Whom God Shall Manifest "out of a wisdom" that only the sincere know about. This statement refers to a request the Bab made of Him Whom God Shall Manifest to wait 19 years before declaring his mission.

"And though no doubt is there about it, do Thou grant a respite of nineteen years as a token of Thy favour so that those who have embraced this Cause may be graciously rewarded by Thee."[9]

Out of respect for this request, Baha'u'llah waited until 1863 before openly declaring his station, 19 years after the Bab's declaration in 1844. But all along, it was Baha'u'llah that the Bab was proclaiming and all along it was the same Spirit that spoke in the breast of Baha'u'llah as spoke in the breast of the Bab (para 5). During this 19-year period, the Babis did not know who Baha'u'llah was and most treated him unjustly. Baha'u'llah states that it was his policy to be patient during this time and wait for God to bring about a change in his circumstances.

The surah ends with a blessing on Dhabih.

[1] Unless stated otherwise, all biographical details about Muhammad Isma'il Kashani are from Abbas Amanat: Resurrection and Renewal. The Making of the Babi Movement in Iran 1844-1850 (Cornell University Press, 1989) pp 344-348

[2] Adib Taherzadeh: The Revelation of Baha'u'llah. Adrianople 1863-68 (Oxford: George Ronald, 1977) p 137

[3] The Encyclopædia Britannica Online (05 Oct. 2009) says a mathnavi is "a series of distichs (couplets) in rhymed pairs (aa, bb, cc, and so on) that makes up a characteristic type of Persian verse, used chiefly for heroic, historical, and romantic epic poetry and didactic poetry." http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/367995/masnawi. Passages from Dhabih's Mathnavi are quoted in Amanat (see reference in footnote 1).

[4] The official translation of Suriy-i-Ra'is is found in The Summons of the Lord of Hosts (Haifa: Baha'i World Centre, 2002) pp 141-157. The tablet is online at http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/SLH/slh-10.html.

[5] Adib Taherzadeh: The Revelation of Baha'u'llah. Adrianople 1863-68 (Oxford: George Ronald, 1977) pp 412-13

[6] "God, verily, created the Will from nothing through itself, then He created through it all that to which the name 'thing' can be applied. The cause of its existence, in truth, is its own self and naught else." The Bab, quoted in Keven Brown "Creation".

[7] The Bab, quoted in Nader Saiedi: Gate of the Heart. Understanding the Writings of the Bab (Canada, Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2008) p 46

[8] Nader Saiedi: Gate of the Heart, p 46

[9] The Bab, Selections from the Writings of the Bab, p 7

Animal welfare and veganism

2011-05-18T10:51:00.036+12:00

As you'll no doubt have realised, I am passionate about animal welfare issues. Treating animals with kindness is a Baha'i principle. I've noticed that many people who are passionate about animal welfare are also vegan. Vegans not only do not eat meat, but do not make use of other animal products either, such as eggs or milk, or leather for shoes. I think it's unfortunate for the animal welfare movement that it appears to be dominated by vegans. Many people can be won over to the idea that farm animals should be treated humanely, but many people don't see a problem with eating meat and think veganism is extreme.

I am pleased to be a member of WSPA (World Society for the Protection of Animals). It may be run by vegans for all I know, but such things are never mentioned in its animal welfare work. The organisation sticks to its purpose of preventing animal cruelty and leaves people to run their own lives. But other animal advocacy groups, such as the New Zealand organisation SAFE (Save Animals from Exploitation), also promote veganism. SAFE's board members "Ideally ... will possess a compassionate attitude for all life, a personal commitment to improving the wellbeing of all animals, and an understanding and belief in a vegetarian/vegan lifestyle." I've also found that many people discussing animal welfare on the Internet are vegan.

For example, I took a look at a lecture by Gary Yourofsky, an animal rights activist in the States, in which he outlines the philosophy behind his veganism. He relies heavily on the religious principles that we should do unto others as we'd have them do to us and that we should not kill. He widens the usual interpretation of these principles by arguing that they apply to animals as well as to humans. Gary argues that, when we say we should treat 'others' as ourselves, 'others' means animals as well as humans. He puts animals and humans in the same category, in that animals share the physical capabilities of humans, such as sensory organs and a brain, and the ability to experience trauma and distress too. It is therefore not right to kill such creatures. He believes that treating animals differently to humans is like racism; he calls it speciesism. "The term is mostly used by animal rights advocates, who argue that it is irrational or morally wrong to regard sentient beings as objects or property." Wiki

I see two separate issues here, which vegans conflate: one is animals living free of cruelty, and the other is killing animals for meat. In Gary's lecture, he forces his audience to watch what goes on in a slaughter house. He really lays it on thick in order to get people to feel disgusted about eating meat. But all along I am thinking that he's merging the two issues into one. For him, cruelty is the same thing as killing. All the abuse of animals that goes on in factory farming is just a prelude to the killing end game. The unavoidable conclusion is that everyone who eats meat is responsible for the horrific abuse of factory farm animals. It isn't smart politics to alienate people like me who really care about animal welfare.

I see Gary's view as a product of modern Western society. The idea that the 'do not kill' principle applies to animals is very modern. I'm not familiar with Old Testament law, which is where the principle comes from, but I can't imagine anyone who lived a thousand years before Christ ever imagined it applied to animals. Unlike people back then, people today have a very uncomfortable relationship with death. We hide it away in hospitals, homes and slaughterhouses. I know from my experience how difficult it was to accept the (humane) killing of some of my roosters. But in the end, it was good to go through that process because I gained more appreciation of life and the reality of death as a defining moment within it. (The latest craze about planking, where guys lie down flat and balance in dangerous places like railings, is a good example of how death is unreal to young men.)

As I understand Baha'i law, cruelty to animals is forbidden but eating meat is permitted:

"Burden not an animal with more than it can bear. We, truly, have prohibited such treatment through a most binding interdiction in the Book. Be ye the embodiments of justice and fairness amidst all creation." Baha'u'llah: Kitab-i-Aqdas, page and para 87)

"Briefly, it is not only their fellow human beings that the beloved of God must treat with mercy and compassion, rather must they show forth the utmost loving-kindness to every living creature. For in all physical respects, and where the animal spirit is concerned, the selfsame feelings are shared by animal and man. Man hath not grasped this truth, however, and he believeth that physical sensations are confined to human beings, wherefore is he unjust to the animals, and cruel." Selections ... `Abdu'l-Baha, pp 158-159)

"Say: O concourse of priests and monks! Eat ye of that which God hath made lawful unto you and do not shun meat. God hath, as a token of His grace, granted you leave to partake thereof save during a brief period [ie, the fast]. He, verily, is the Mighty, the Beneficent. Forsake all that ye possess and hold fast unto that which God hath purposed. This is that which profiteth you, if ye be of them that comprehend." Tablet to Napoleon III, in Summons para 154, p80

Based on the above, I agree with much of what Gary Yourofsky says. Yes, we should treat animals with infinite kindness and yes, they do suffer under cruelty just as humans do.

But is killing animals for food a form of cruelty? As I understand it, there is a fundamental difference between humans and animals. Humans have a soul, which means they are eternal life forms. When they die physically, they continue living in spiritual worlds forever. Animals do not have a soul. When they die physically, that is it for them. (Note though, that although animals do not have a soul, that does not mean they do not suffer under cruelty.)

The soul is also the vehicle behind our conscience and moral dimension. It's via the soul that a person has the ability to understand abstract concepts like justice, loving kindness and cruelty. Animals do not have a soul and therefore do not have the capacity to understand such concepts. They do not establish institutions to discuss the implications of these principles for the affairs of this world.

Animals, then, do not have a moral code that tells them not to be cruel to each other. My chickens will happily peck each other just to get an advantage over others. Little chicks are not protected, but picked on. As the farmer and the one with the moral code, it is me who interferes to ensure that the weakest in the flock get sufficient food and are protected. I think that, although humans and animals have much in common, we should avoid getting romantic about animals. We say they are innocent, but that is because they can't be held responsible if they are cruel. They don't know any better. They are not innocent because they are always kind. Animals kill each other for food, and always will. You can't tell an animal that this is cruelty. This shows that, despite shared sensory capacities, there is a fundamental difference between humans and animals.

Animals also do not understand the concepts of time - of past, present and future, and eternity. I noted someone saying that animals were eternal but humans not. But what is eternity to a creature that is created to be always in the present? A creature in the present is focused on whether life is good right now. If it is, all is well. They do not understand that they might be killed for food one day. They do not suffer weeks and years of terror in anticipation as a human would. Ideally, animals live very happy lives and then, maybe, one day, suffer a quick and painless death. That is that.

Some of my chickens in a house Steve built for them

But although I am not against meat-eating, I am wholly against factory farming, which is cruel. If we are to eat meat, the least we can do is ensure that the lives of the animals we benefit from are happy. Factory farming means high-density animal populations, and no animal will be happy living like that. Some 'free-range' farms house thousands of chickens in very large barns. In theory, the chickens are free range because they can go outside, but in practice very few do because that many chickens cannot get to the doors. For example, in theory, you can get 'out' when you are at a packed rock concert (the doors are not locked), but you only make the effort if you absolutely have to. Chickens are creatures of habit and if they are not trained to find the door, they'll stay put for good.

Principles of pre-existence

2011-05-02T13:00:00.008+12:00

The following is the beginning of my attempt to explain the ideas of pre-existence that Abdu'l-Baha discusses in chapter 80 of Some Answered Questions: "Real Pre-existence". It's not finished, but is enough to make a worthy blog entry. It is certainly meaty! Heaven knows, I saw stars trying to work it out.

Principles of pre-existence

Pre-existence of cause and time

Pre-existence refers to the idea of something existing before something else.

There are two ways to look at pre-existence:
- in terms of cause: A existed before B in that A caused B; for example, your mother came before you in that she gave birth to you.
- in terms of time: A existed before B because it preceded it in time; for example, the 19th century came before the 20th century.

Essential pre-existence and temporal pre-existence

Abdu'l-Baha divided pre-existence into two kinds: essential pre-existence and temporal pre-existence. These relate to the two ways of looking at pre-existence explained above. Essential pre-existence is to do with cause and temporal pre-existence is to do with time.

Essential pre-existence or pre-existence of essence
Abdu'l-Baha defines essential pre-existence as an existence that is not preceded by a cause.

The word 'essential' here is used in a philosophical way to mean a characteristic that is "guaranteed by the identity of the subject; necessary" (The Free Online Dictionary). In other words, an essential characteristic is a characteristic that is guaranteed to be a part of a thing's identity. For example, light and heat are essential attributes of the sun. If the sun did not give out light and heat, it would not be the sun.

If a thing is essentially pre-existent, this means that pre-existence is a necessary aspect of what that thing is. By definition, it 'pre-exists' or always already existed. It did not rely on anything else to bring it into being. It has no cause.

Temporal pre-existence or pre-existence of time
Abdu'l-Baha defines temporal pre-existence as an existence that is without a beginning.

A thing that is temporally pre-existent is a thing that has always existed, stretching back throughout all eternity.

Absolute and relative pre-existence

The concept of pre-existence can also be looked at in terms of absolute pre-existence and relative pre-existence.

Absolute pre-existence refers to the pre-existence of God. In philosophy, the idea of an absolute refers to the qualities of "perfection, completeness, universality, non-relativity, exemption from limitation or qualification, unconditionality". (Dagobert D. Runes, "Dictionary of Philosophy") Therefore, with absolute pre-existence, the quality of pre-existence is perfect, complete and without limitation. This is impossible for a created thing; it refers to God's pre-existence.

In contrast, relative pre-existence refers to pre-existence as between created things. The word 'relative' means "relational or pertaining to relations" (Dictionary of Philosophy). Therefore, relative pre-existence is about how created things are pre-existent in relation to each other.

For example, Abdu'l-Baha cites the example of the sun and its rays. The sun in relation to its rays is said to be an essential pre-existence. There is an unequal relationship between them: the rays are dependent on the sun for their existence, but the sun is independent, for it does not rely on its rays for its existence. The sun pre-exists, or always already exists, from the point of view of its rays.

But although the sun is said to be essentially pre-existent in relation to its rays, it is not in itself essentially pre-existent. It has a cause. It is not absolutely pre-existent, only relatively so.

Chicken slavery

2011-04-16T15:10:00.021+12:00

This past week, I've been thinking a great deal about caged hens. I was reawakened to the issue by a guy down south who is spending a month in a cage to protest the caging of layer hens. The New Zealand National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee has produced a new Draft Code of Welfare for Layer Hens, which is supposed to improve the living conditions for layer hens. But instead of banning cages outright, it continues to allow the practice of housing layer hens in cages, albeit slightly bigger ones. The fact still remains that these poor creatures endure 18 months confined in an area barely larger than their own body mass. The harmful effects on the health of hens kept in such cruel conditions is beyond doubt. I won't go into the details here because they invariably cause me to weep uncontrollably. But here's a YouTube clip from one of our TV channels, Prime, that appeared in 2007. It shows the horrific things that some protesters found when they secretly went into a factory farm in Auckland and filmed what they found.

The interesting thing for me is why, after being reminded of this issue, it began to torment me. I realised this was because I now have my own chickens. I've been tending my own flock for just under a year now and I've come to love my birds very much. I put them to bed every evening at sundown, by closing up their huts, I get up each daybreak to let them out, I make up their morning mash, I clean their huts and change their water, I throw them wheat and treats, I ensure they have fruit to peck at, I talk to them and, when necessary, interfere in their power struggles. They are like children to me. I am responsible for their welfare. I make sure their needs are met and that they are happy. So when I was reminded that there are hens in the world that don't have even sufficient room to move around in, I suddenly saw how it would be if my hens were treated in that fashion. And the idea devastated me.

I began to notice the daily habits of my hens that battery hens wouldn't experience. The morning flutter: immediately after vacating their huts, they run and flap their wings, gliding along the ground for many meters, rising up and down. The little chicks do this too. Their morning stretch is a flutter that lifts them up in one place, wings outstretched (see photo above). They often do it in pairs, with their little chests facing each other. Grazing: all my chickens eat grass all day, just like sheep and cattle. Pecking and scratching: all my birds spend the day pecking in the soil and scratching around to find insects. Dust bathing: This is an important communal activity, apparently. They put their tummies on the dirt, then dig at the dirt with their beaks, loosening the soil. Then, somehow, using their feet and wings, they fling the dirt up over themselves. It goes up under their wings and right over their backs. My white hens look awful after a dust bath. But they love it.

The difference between me now and me a year ago is that hens have shifted from the arms-length 'farm animal' category to the familial 'pet' category. Of course, they are still farm animals, but I think of them as pets and love them as pets now. They recognise me and I recognise each of them as individuals. When I come out in the afternoon with their wheat, they get excited when they see me and come running up to the house. It's a thrilling sight to seem running along on their little legs with such gay abandon. When I walk down to them with their trays of mash, they walk with me, around my boots, and I have to ensure I don't stand on them. They make quick warm clucky sounds, which put together sound like a composition.

They have a complex social network. For example, our main rooster, Roostie, has got two girlfriends, Smart White and Smart Brown. All three hang out, roaming around all day together, and rule the entire flock. Trouble came when the two Smarts, for some reason, decided they were both clucky at the same time and sat on their respective nests all day. This left Roostie without his usual playmates. He looked awfully dejected. He started stalking the Red family (a Silkie hen with 3 Rhode Island Red adult kids), who are independent of the main flock. Roostie turned his attention to Beetle Bomb, the hen of the Red family. He would follow them around and, whenever he got the chance, try to jump Beetle Bomb. Meanwhile, we encouraged the Smarts to get off their nests (because we want them to lay, not sit on eggs). Luckily, Smart White got off a day later, and Roostie is back to his normal self and Beetle Bomb is no longer harassed. When I looked on the Internet, I discovered that science backs my experience up. Chickens are much more intelligent that humans give them credit for. Housing them in cages torments them and causes them to go out of their minds.

"The well-known author and zoologist Dr Desmond Morris has pointed out that studies of birds have shown that their world is subtle and complex, and that they have a complicated set of drives and responses—all of which are denied in factory farms." The natural lives of chickens

Of course, those who are responsible for torturing chickens do it because they can produce eggs cheaply. It's all about economics. When I saw this, I was reminded of the movie "Amazing Grace", which depicts the struggle by William Wilberforce in England to outlaw the slave trade. I know the movie isn't all that historically accurate, but it does depict the heart of the matter - that Wilberforce was up against economics. Most men in parliament at the time benefited from the trade and many of their constituents too. So it was a real battle to get the practice stopped.

For us today, it is amazing that people back then saw slavery entirely in terms of economics, and not in terms of ethics. The traders justified the practice to themselves by refusing to see the slaves as human beings. I think something similar happens with farm animals - hens and pigs and so on. I base that conclusion on my own experience. Before July last year, I had never had anything to do with hens, and so I didn't think much about them in cages. Now, all I can see is cruelty to my own family. I encourage everyone to read up about the intelligence of chickens and know how badly they suffer in cages and refuse to buy non-free range chicken products.

The spirit

2011-04-06T11:38:00.042+12:00

In late March, I had an interesting exchange on Twitter with Barney Leith. No big deal - he probably hasn't thought twice about it, but it got me thinking. Barney was responding to a media report about research that concluded that, based on census figures, religion was set to die out in nine countries. The report said:

"A study using census data from nine countries shows that religion there is set for extinction, say researchers.

The study found a steady rise in those claiming no religious affiliation. ...

The team took census data stretching back as far as a century from countries in which the census queried religious affiliation: Australia, Austria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Switzerland."

Jason Palmer: Religion may become extinct in nine nations, study says

To this, Barney asked: "How much weight can we place on the findings of this study that claims religion may become extinct in 9 countries?". I replied "People may say they don't affiliate with any religion, but plenty still talk about spirituality. Just look at Twitter!". And Barney answered: "Spirituality: ambiguous concept used to refer to a wide range of beliefs & practices. Lots of interest, yes, but in what?"

Have to confess, I was a bit shocked by this - lots of interest in what? In the spirit, of course! There may be a wide range of beliefs and practices related to spirituality, but spirit is one. People talk about it in different ways, Baha'u'llah talks about it too, but we are all talking about the same thing. We just see it through different lenses. The word 'God' is also an ambiguous concept underpinning a wide range of beliefs and practices. Lots of interest in that too. Baha'is see God one way, others see God in other ways, but hey it's all God.

The Bab has a succinct way of putting it. It's all one soul, one religion and one cause:

"Know ye that 'the paths to God are as numerous as the breaths of the creatures' yet, there is no soul but one and there is no religion but the one religion, and it is the Cause of God." Epistle on the Spiritual Journey towards God, trans Todd Lawson

Barney's lament about the concept of spirituality being ambiguous reminded me of the exchange in Qur'an 17:85, which Baha'u'llah discusses in the Kitab-i Iqan. Muhammad's adversaries, in an attempt to ridicule him, ask him about the spirit: "And they will ask Thee of the Spirit", to which Muhammad was told to reply: "The Spirit proceedeth at My Lord's command." Baha'u'llah reports that the divines fell about laughing and accused Muhammad of being ignorant. It seems they thought the comment wasn't up to much - pretty ambiguous, in fact - and we know where that got them!

In the Hidden Words, Baha'u'llah appears to assume his audience knows what spirit is. He boldly addresses his readers on many occasions as "O son of spirit". Also ambiguous, perhaps, but one thing we can take from it is that we are all children of spirit, which fits with the Bab's assertion that it's all one religion anyway. That being the case, there should be no wonder at people the world over talking about their experiences of spirit, and doing so in numerous settings, not just within the discourse of the established religions.

To answer Barney's question, then, I'm not at all concerned about reports that religion will die out in nine countries because census figures show a gradual drop in religious affiliation. That observation is simply one about fashion, like, for example, an observation that women wear cotton today but wore silk a century ago. Just because women wear fewer clothes these days than they used to doesn't mean they'll end up wearing nothing! (I hope. If they do, I'll be even less fashionable than I am now. :-)) The assumptions behind the report show ignorance about the nature of reality, which is that we're all swimming in a sea of spirit. I always loved Baha'u'llah's analogy designed to illustrate this:

"Say: My creatures are even as the fish of the deep. Their life dependeth upon the water, and yet they remain unaware of that which, by the grace of an omniscient and omnipotent Lord, sustaineth their very existence. Indeed, their heedlessness is such that were they asked concerning the water and its properties, they would prove entirely ignorant. Thus do We set forth comparisons and similitudes, that perchance the people may turn unto Him Who is the Object of the adoration of the entire creation." Súriy-i-Haykal in Summons of the Lord of Hosts, p40, para 76

The spirit proceeds at the Lord's command: there's a wake-up call here. Watch your assumptions. The spirit does what the Lord commands and not what we assume it is doing. If we think spirituality outside established religion is namby-pamby, we cut ourselves off to an awful lot of God's work. And the joke will be on us, just as was on the divines.

The functioning of the human spirit

2011-03-17T14:50:00.012+13:00

Below is the next installment in my study guide on the philosophy of SAQ. It is part one of chapter 3, which is called "The nature of human existence". Part two is called "The reality of the Kingdom of God" (unless I change it). I'll put that up when I've completed it. Again, numbers in brackets refer to chapters of SAQ.

The functioning of the human spirit

Human spirit has a beginning but no end

Abdu'l-Baha describes the human spirit as "phenomenal". (38) By this, he means that it is preceded by a cause. It comes into existence when the body's elements are combined in the womb in accordance with the laws of nature. It does not exist before that.

However, unlike the other spirits in nature, the human spirit does not cease to exist when the body's elements decompose. This is because the human spirit is, as explained in the previous section, a "divine sign" (38); that is, it is a sign of the perfections of God in the phenomenal world. In addition to that, the human spirit is the state of perfection in the phenomenal world and, as such, it cannot cease to exist. Without the human spirit, the phenomenal world would have no purpose. (52)

Mind is the power of the human spirit

In several chapters in Some Answered Questions, Abdu'l-Baha explains that the human spirit is the intellectual power of investigation and discovery. Within the bounds of human ability, this power encompasses intellectual and sensible things and makes discoveries in the spiritual worlds and the physical world. (38) It is behind the discovery and development of such things as sciences, arts, law, inventions and institutions, which were once hidden and unknown. (48)

The human spirit has five distinct abilities:
1. Imagination, which conceives ideas
2. Thought, which reflects upon ideas
3. Comprehension, which understands ideas
4. Memory, which retains ideas
5. The common faculty, which communicates data from the senses to the spiritual powers. (56)

In explaining the relationship between the mind and the human spirit, Abdu'l-Baha says that mind is "the power of the human spirit." (55) The functioning of the mind is an "essential quality" of the human spirit, in the same way that the rays of the sun are an essential quality of the sun. Abdu'l-Baha also likens the spirit to the lamp and the mind to the light. It seems, then, that the human spirit is the source of the mind's power and the means by which it functions.

This is also confirmed by the following passage from Baha'i World Faith, p 346, "These faculties [of the mind] are but the inherent properties of the soul, such as the power of imagination, of thought, of understanding; powers that are the essential requisites of the reality of man, even as the solar ray is the inherent property of the sun. The temple of man is like unto a mirror, his soul is as the sun, and his mental faculties even as the rays that emanate from that source of light." (Tablet to August Forel, pp 24-25)

The human spirit has two modes of operation

The human spirit has two modes of operation.

First, it can act and perceive reality using the body as its instrument. In this mode, the spirit uses the eyes to see, the ears to hear, the tongue to speak and so on.

Second, because the human spirit is independent of the body, it can also operate without the body. In this mode, the spirit operates in the way we experience ourselves in dreams. While we are dreaming, the body is asleep and the functions of the body, such as sight and hearing, are shut down. Nevertheless, the spirit still acts and perceives reality. It still sees, moves, speaks and so on. In fact, the spirit can do things that it cannot do using the body; for example, it can see the future, whereas through the eyes, it can see only what is physically in front of it. It can fly unaided, whereas the body can fly only in aircraft.

The spirit also operates without the body when the body is awake by using its spiritual, or inner, senses and faculties. Abdu'l-Baha gives the example of people being able to see America even while they are standing on the opposite side of the world from America. When we imagine things in our mind's eye, hear things with our inner ear, organise affairs in our mind, the spirit is operating independently of the body.

(61)

Humans possess all the divine perfections

All things have been created in such a way that they reflect something of the perfections of God. That is, each thing is like the earth in the sense that the earth is a centre that absorbs and reflects the rays of the sun. Similarly, each thing absorbs and reflects the perfections of God.

But things reflect God's perfections differently, depending on their nature and position. For example, when the sun shines on objects on earth, their absorption and reflection differs depending on each object's position and nature. Similarly, each created thing, depending on its nature and position, will reflect the glory of God differently. For this reason, it will reflect a different attribute of God. It might demonstrate God's greatness, power, generosity, vision, grace and so on.

The human spirit, however, is unique because it is "the center where the glory of all the perfections of God shine forth." In other words, the nature of human beings is such that they can reflect all the attributes of God. They are a "collective reality" that incorporates into one all of the perfections of God. This means that there is a sign in humans for every attribute of God; for example, the sign in humans of God, the Seer, is the human eye. Because we are created this way, we are able to understand all the perfections of God. For example, through the process of hearing, we gain an understanding of God, the Hearer. If we could not hear, we could not imagine what it was like.

(50)

Humans can live in materiality or spirituality

As explained earlier, human beings possess the powers that are found in nature; that is, they have the powers of the mineral, plant and animal, and the power of the human spirit, which is the power of investigation and discovery. In addition to this, the human spirit has the potential to reflect all the divine perfections.

Because humans have all the material and divine perfections, Abdu'l-Baha describes the human condition in this world as "in the highest degree of materiality, and at the beginning of spirituality". (64)

As a result, human beings have a choice. They can live their lives in the material world, relying entirely on the powers they have from nature. Alternatively, they can choose to explore the spiritual realms, which are beyond the material world, and develop their latent spiritual perfections, and thereby awaken to the heavenly realities and mysteries.

Abdu'l-Baha says that "Not in any other of the species in the world of existence is there such a difference, contrast, contradiction and opposition as in the species of man." (64)

Perfections appear only through the spirit of faith

The spirit of faith, or heavenly spirit, is a level of spirit above the human spirit. Unlike the human spirit, it is not a spirit of nature and it is not a power of investigation. It is a ray of light that comes from the Holy Spirit (the manifestation) and its bounty is granted only to the righteous. (36, 58)

The spirit of faith is the power that causes human beings to realise their spiritual capacity. We access its power when we read and follow the writings of the manifestation, which teach us the secrets and realities of the spiritual worlds. Knowledge of these worlds cannot be gained by the investigative powers of the human spirit because the spiritual worlds are beyond the material world. (36) The human spirit must be aided by the power of faith. "It is like a mirror which, although clear, polished, and brilliant is still in need of light. Until a ray of the sun reflects upon it, it cannot discover the heavenly secrets." (55)

Abdu'l-Baha gives examples of divine perfections that humans acquire in attaining perfection: "These are the divine appearances, the heavenly bounties, the sublime emotions, the love and knowledge of God; universal wisdom, intellectual perception, scientific discoveries, justice, equity, truthfulness, benevolence, natural courage and innate fortitude; the respect for rights and the keeping of agreements and covenants; rectitude in all circumstances; serving the truth under all conditions; the sacrifice of one's life for the good of all people; kindness and esteem for all nations; obedience to the teachings of God; service in the Divine Kingdom; the guidance of the people, and the education of the nations and races." (15)

If any trace of these divine perfections appears in the world of nature, it is unstable, for it is not supported by the spirit of faith. It is ephemeral like the sun shining on a wall. (15)

Altiyan Childs continues to show insight

2011-03-04T16:45:00.017+13:00

"The lyrics have never been the X factor. The mythical, traditional idea of what the X factor is is certainly not lyrics, or we wouldn't be glorifying alcohol and 'sluterism' in this day and age." (Kane Young: Altiyan loves a bit of Childs support)

"Sluterism". That's how it appears to me too. On the music video TV channel, there's barely a video without a half-dressed woman in it. Perhaps the worst video I saw (which isn't many, I admit) that I would call slutty was one of Janet and Michael Jackson. They were in some weird black and white space, and watching Janet covering her bare breasts with her hands was the weirdest thing. I couldn't understand why that move had ever been included. It seemed to be nothing more than soft porn - which everyone knows sells.

Whatever Altiyan has in mind by the term 'sluterism', he certainly has guts to challenge the extreme uses of sex in popular culture. Being a performer himself, he is in a good position to take it on. People like me can be easily labelled as old school. But when Altiyan questions it, people will look at the images they have taken for granted in a new light. Altiyan clearly uses sexuality as part of his performance, so he can't be written off as anti-sex.

In another interview, Altiyan was asked whether the music industry was "favouring imagery over artistry". Again, he showed a willingness to challenge assumptions and behaviours in popular culture that are so pervasive people cannot see them. "Yes, oh my gosh, I mean let's be quite honest what we are glorifying? We are glorifying [s]ex, alcohol, drugs, parties, clubs, the club has become the new church…" (Thomas Bleach: Altiyan Childs: Bringing the Good Guy Back, in The Messenger, 12 Feb 2011, p10)

Altiyan makes a good point about religion. Religion gets a bad rap, and justifiably, for sucking people in and anesthetizing their questioning faculty. But is popular culture any different? The same power trips are at work in both spheres. There's money and power in sex, alcohol and drugs for those who control them, just as there is money and power in controlling access to salvation.

The idea of imagery versus artistry points to the heart of the matter, in my view, which is appearance versus meaning. If meaning, or real creativity, informs the appearance, you get artists who will challenge cultural assumptions. A healthy discourse develops and society changes as a result. But when appearances prevail, when appearance is an end in itself, people are locked in. Any expression outside the norm is ridiculed.

And that explains, I think, why Altiyan feels embarrassed to say, but nevertheless finds the courage to say: "I am bringing the good guy back… It's all about the old school stuff with me and I still think it's popular. I look out to the fans and see that people love recognising the good people and believe that everyone should be treated right." (Thomas Bleach: Altiyan Childs: Bringing the Good Guy Back, in The Messenger, 12 Feb 2011, p10) You see, here, he refers to being a good person as "old school". It is the put-down term for 'old fashioned values'. True, they are old fashioned; the concept of being good was a point of discussion among the ancient Greeks. But that's because being good is about being human. For example, being good has suddenly become high fashion in the wake of the Christchurch earthquake. The TV coverage is full of it - people helping others out all over the place, and in doing so, discovering their own 'good guy'. Altiyan will in time find himself on the right side of fashion with his 'good guy' talk. But it takes insight to speak about being good when everyone else thinks it sucks.

A sign of how much people are willing to find a dark side to Altiyan came with the two unfortunate events that occurred in Tasmania, when Altiyan was there to give a concert. It's impossible to work out exactly what happened due to the different accounts from various sources reported in the media. What is clear is that Altiyan was injured in a fight outside a pub, and that the management of the hotel in which he and his entourage stayed accuses them of trashing their rooms. But it isn't clear that Altiyan acted wrongly in either of these situations. We don't know for sure who started the fight or who trashed the hotel room. Altiyan denies doing both these things, but others accuse him of them.

As regards the fight outside the pub, Altiyan says that "a group of guys inside were calling me a 'dirty faggot' and a 'wanker'". (Joel Christie: X Factor winner Altiyan Childs attacked by 'haters' in brutal bashing) He and his friends decided to leave but were followed by four men, who proceeded to attack Altiyan outside. Altiyan's bodyguard intervened and broke the fight up. The four men fled. Altiyan sustained multiple bruising. The Sunday Telegraph reports that David Kaine, the hotel's night supervisor, accused Altiyan of starting the fight by hitting on another man's girlfriend. (Jonathon Moran: X-Factor star Altiyan Childs hits rock bottom after wild night in Hobart) The Mercury reports Mr Kaine as saying that Altiyan said to the woman "Why have them when you could have me, a superstar". (Wild Childs' hotel shame) Heaven knows. Given what Altiyan has to say about being famous, it doesn't sound like something he'd say. Altiyan's explanation is that his "love for people will always get me into trouble. It's got me into trouble this weekend, when I reach out and touch someone. It is me breaking down the boundaries." (Jonathon Moran: X-Factor star Altiyan Childs hits rock bottom after wild night in Hobart) It seems to me that Altiyan was doing what we see him doing with his fans all the time - touching people and saying loving things to them - and this was interpreted wrongly.

As to the trashed hotel room, Altiyan says: "All I can say is, it (the room) still looked pretty good to me when I went downstairs. It wasn't particularly dirty, it wasn't infested with anything remotely awful. Anyway, it is what it is. I have passed on my apologies. If you tell me there is a $12,000 to a $15,000 bill, then obviously there is a $12,000 to $15,000 bill." (Jonathon Moran: X-Factor star Altiyan Childs hits rock bottom after wild night in Hobart) Altiyan seems not to know what happened to the room, but has taken responsibility for the damage anyway.

The reports about these incidents in the media have been shockingly biased. I guess the various media outlets need to make money and the best way to do that is to sensationalise events. But this from the Sunday Telegraph has the following wild statement: "The Sunday Telegraph can reveal Childs tried to cover up the incident [of the trashed room] this week, claiming he was the victim of 'haters' who attacked him at a Hobart pub, while on tour." (Jonathon Moran: X-Factor star Altiyan Childs hits rock bottom after wild night in Hobart) But the report contains no evidence on which it relies for this accusation of a cover-up. Perhaps it would be more truthful to say that Altiyan had not mentioned the issue of the hotel room when interviewed about the fight. I don't know, maybe that's the 'cover-up'.

The Sunday Herald Sun also reported the claim about a cover-up, but again provided no evidence. It also said "…X-Factor winner Altiyan Childs says he has hit rock bottom, racking up a $15,000 bill for a trashed hotel room from an all-night party." (X-Factor winner Altiyan Childs in hotel bust-up) The clear implication is that Altiyan trashed the room. The report does not contain Altiyan's explanation that he didn't know about the damage. Similarly, The Mercury (Wild Childs' hotel shame) and The Sunday Telegraph (Jonathon Moran: X-Factor star Altiyan Childs hits rock bottom after wild night in Hobart) both started their reports with: "POP star Altiyan Childs faces a clean-up bill of up to $15,000 after trashing a hotel room in Hobart last week". They do report Altiyan's explanation but, despite it, glibly state as fact that Altiyan trashed the room.

Other, worse, statements include this from the appropriately named "The Dirt": "X-Factor winner Altiyan Childs has been fined $15,000 for trashing a hotel room after an all night binge." (Madam H: Altiyan Childs In Hotel Bust Up) Fined! As if he's already been to court, tried and found guilty. Comments on Twitter that I've seen centre on the theme: "I always knew he was a loser; this proves it." Just one media commentator had the balls to say: "Do you think this is true? Altiyan has done some pretty wild stuff, like hiding in a cave during The X Factor, but we don't know if he'd trash a hotel room and start fights!" (Altiyan Childs Trashes Hotel Room?)

(Read my earlier article, Altiyan Childs: Irrepressible Spirituality.)

I'm on Twitter

2011-03-03T11:56:00.004+13:00

Last week, I was down in Auckland visiting my daughter, who has an IPhone and a Twitter account. I plucked up the courage to ask her to show me how Twitter worked. I set up an account and have made a start.

I've never gone in for Facebook. I like Twitter for all the reasons it's different to Facebook. I don't mean to put Facebook down; it's just a personal preference thing. I like the fact that Twitter is public and goes out to everyone. And I like the fact that people can choose to follow you or not as they please. You start tweeting, people read what you say and then decide on that basis whether to follow you. I just say things that interest me and people can come and go as they please.

The other thing I like about Twitter is that you only get 160 characters to say your bit. I'm always thinking about things and need a place to put my thoughts down. They are just ideas that have come to me, which I wouldn't necessarily write a whole blog about.

Steve has set up a stream of my tweets down the side of my blog here. So you can read my notebook of thoughts as you wish. Suffice to say, they are all potential blog entries, but I don't have the time to write them all up.

The spirit of faith

2011-02-21T10:56:00.007+13:00

I am working on the next section of my study guide for SAQ. I thought I'd put up a small section of it now, because it was interesting for me when I wrote it. Abdu'l-Baha usually says that there are five spirits: plant, animal, human, spirit of faith, and holy spirit. The human spirit, as explained in the previous chapter, "The organisation of nature":

"is the intellectual power of investigation and discovery, and the reasoning faculty that apprehends ideas and intelligible and sensible things. It encompasses all things. It can make discoveries in the spiritual worlds as well as in the physical world. (38) Its power is behind the development of sciences, arts, law, inventions and so on, which were once hidden and unknown. (48) The human spirit is the highest level of perception in nature. (58)"

The following small section explains the relationship between the human spirit and the spirit of faith. The key thing that came out of it for me is that the human spirit, that enormously inventive power of investigation, cannot, alone, steer a person into the realms of the heavenly realities. This can only be done through the spirit of faith. The flight of the soul into the heavenly realities can only take place if the soul accesses the power of the spirit of faith. Human intellect and reason, alone, cannot do it. It is another power, beyond the human powers, that can transport us heavenwards. That power is the spirit of faith, which is beyond nature and is not a power of investigation.

Virtues appear only through the spirit of faith

The spirit of faith, or heavenly spirit, is a level of spirit above the human spirit. Unlike the human spirit, it is not a spirit of nature and it is not a power of investigation. It is a ray of light that comes from the Holy Spirit (the manifestation) and it is a bounty of God enjoyed only by the righteous. (36, 58)

The spirit of faith is the power that causes human beings to realise their spiritual capacity. Humans access it through the writings of the manifestation, which teach people the secrets and realities of the heavenly worlds. Knowledge of these spiritual worlds cannot be gained by the investigative powers of the human spirit because those worlds are beyond the material world. (36) The human spirit must be aided by the power of faith. "It is like a mirror which, although clear, polished, and brilliant is still in need of light. Until a ray of the sun reflects upon it, it cannot discover the heavenly secrets." (55)

Abdu'l-Baha gives a list of examples of divine perfections that humans acquire in attaining perfection: "These are the divine appearances, the heavenly bounties, the sublime emotions, the love and knowledge of God; universal wisdom, intellectual perception, scientific discoveries, justice, equity, truthfulness, benevolence, natural courage and innate fortitude; the respect for rights and the keeping of agreements and covenants; rectitude in all circumstances; serving the truth under all conditions; the sacrifice of one's life for the good of all people; kindness and esteem for all nations; obedience to the teachings of God; service in the Divine Kingdom; the guidance of the people, and the education of the nations and races." (15)

If any trace of these divine perfections appears in the world of nature, it is unstable, for it is not supported by the spirit of faith. It is ephemeral like the sun shining on a wall. (15)

Whitebird

2011-02-07T12:51:00.008+13:00

Steve killed Whitebird today. He was one of the first three chicks that hatched under our guardianship after we came here. We were so excited to see the little things come out of their eggs. I went crazy over the cute little heads and eyes peeping out at us from under their mother's feathers. I've read even seasoned chicken breeders say that it's a sight you never get sick of.

The three chicks hatched on the Birthday of the Bab - 20 October last year. They had an eventful time of it. Whitebird had splay legs. He couldn't walk because his legs would go out horizontally from him and he'd fall down in the middle. We tied his legs together using wool, about 2 cm apart. This allowed him to stand and take steps. He came right after about a week. Blackbird, Whitebird's sister, had a recurring limp, and at one point seemed to nearly die. I think we let the family free-range in the cold when we shouldn't have. Anyway, things came right and Blackbird's limp went away as she got older. The other sister of the three was killed by the cat. That was the last time the cat attacked the chickens. I made sure the cat would never forget the consequences of such an action.

It took me six months to come to terms with the idea of us killing our roosters. Like most people, I had bought meat from the supermarket and not thought much about it. I couldn't get my mind around a chicken being deliberately killed here, on my patch, on my watch. But gradually, I worked it through. Abdu'l-Baha helped enormously by explaining the reality behind it.

Animals have an animal spirit, which is extinguished when the body's elements dissipate. Animals do not comprehend intellectual realities, so do not have a sense of their imminent death. Whitebird lived 15 weeks and, in that time, had a very happy life. His death was quick and humane and, after that, he knew nothing more. Abdu'l-Baha says it is the highest honour for the animal to be used as food for humans. This made me see that it was important that we eat Whitebird. In this way, we honour his life and what he has given us.

On a practical level, though, Whitebird was starting to awaken sexually and we needed to act for the sake of flock maintenance. It would have resulted in war between roosters otherwise. Once I saw this, I understood how important it is to manage flocks properly in order to keep the peace. We have other roosters that are getting older and will cause problems too, if not dealt to. Seeing this was the final piece of the puzzle for me and I hardened up emotionally about the idea of Whitebird dying.

Steve and I want to produce our own food as much as possible. Killing our own chickens was always going to be an important part of that process. I needed to reconcile myself to it. It's a relief to have done this. Steve says the process went well for him and that from now on it'll be easier.

The organisation of nature

2011-01-31T19:47:00.012+13:00

Below is chapter 2 of my study guide on "The Philosophy of Creation in Some Answered Questions". The chapter is called "The organisation of nature". It is divided into two sections: "The structure of nature" and "Spirit and being in nature". Again, the numbers in brackets refer to chapters of SAQ. References that are up against the margin refer to the set of paragraphs above it.

THE ORGANISATION OF NATURE

The structure of nature

The material world is nature's world of appearance

Abdu'l-Baha defines 'nature' as "that condition or reality that, in appearance, consists of life and death or the composition and decomposition of things". (1)

This tells us that the appearance of nature is the world we witness as life and death, or the composition and decomposition of things. For Abdu'l-Baha, 'life and death' and 'the process of composition and decomposition' are the same thing.

The reality that appears to us in this way is the material world, which is created from things that are subject to composition and decomposition, from the largest object in outer space to the smallest atom. We think of the material world as a solid physical thing, but this apparent solidity is not what defines the material world; it is in fact the process of elements combining and recombining. Keven Brown puts it this way:

"What defines the material realm is not matter, which is an essential principle of both the material and spiritual worlds, but the ability of something to become decomposed after composition." Keven Brown, "Creation", section 3

So the world of appearance in nature is the material world.

The essence of nature is an intellectual reality

If the reality of nature has a world of appearance, this implies that part of that reality is a world that does not appear. In this respect, nature can be likened to a human being, who appears as a physical body, but who also has a rational soul, which cannot be seen.

Abdu'l-Baha says that: "nature… in its essence, is an intellectual reality and is not sensible." (16)

An intellectual reality is "a reality of the intellect; it has no outward form and no place and is not perceptible to the senses." (16)

Examples of an intellectual reality include spiritual qualities, love, sorrow and the rational soul, for these are realities but do not have a place or form and cannot be perceived by the senses. For more details on intellectual realities, see "Spirit appears in nature as a set of powers", below.

Nature's reality has a hidden dimension that is its essence. This is an intellectual reality, which means it does not have a place or form and it cannot be perceived by the senses.

The intellectual realities are nature's organisation

In Baha'i World Faith, Abdu'l-Baha gives another definition of nature, which gives us more information about the reality he had in mind when he spoke about nature. He says:

"By nature is meant those inherent properties and necessary relations derived from the realities of things. And these realities of things, though in the utmost diversity, are yet intimately connected one with the other." (p340, 344)

In this passage, Abdu'l-Baha is referring to the intellectual realities that are the invisible properties of things in nature and the relationships that exist between things. These intellectual realities and their relationships are diverse and yet they form a close network of interconnectedness.

These intellectual realities and relationships are like the properties and relationships of the parts of the human body. Each part is designed with its own purpose and influence and has crucial relationships to the other parts.

Similarly, all parts of nature are connected together like a chain and act on other parts. All have a power to influence others either directly or indirectly. This is due to the capacity for "reciprocal help, assistance and interaction" that is a property of all things. This mutual influence causes beings to come into existence, and to grow and develop. (46)

Nature is ruled by one divine organisation

"Nature in its own essence is in the grasp of the power of God … He holds Nature within accurate regulations and laws, and rules over it." (1)

Ultimately, the things in nature and their inherent realities and relationships are governed by an all-unifying power. This is the Will of God.

This all-unifying power determines the structure of the overall organisation and the laws that govern its functioning. It defines how the elements that make up the beings in nature are combined, mingled and arranged, thereby mapping out their form, purpose, influence and lifespan. Nothing can deviate from this organisation. (1)

Beings come into existence only from this natural organisation. This is why no being can come into existence by chance or by the design of humans. They can only come into being through the operation of the divine organisation. (47)

Things in nature have no will or intelligence. They act according to their inherent nature; for example, the element of fire burns, the element of water flows, plants grow and light shines according to their natures and not according to an individual will and intelligence. The exceptions to this are the beings that have perception, which are animals and humans. The movements of animals and humans are voluntary. (1)

Perfections in nature are revealed gradually

"The universe has no imperfection." The world that exists could not be better than it is, because it has been created according to the divine organisation. If the world were not perfect, this would mean the Creator lacked perfection. (46)

All beings are created perfect and complete at the start of their existence, but their perfections appear in degrees. All perfections appear when a being reaches maturity.

For example, all the perfections of the plant are contained in the seed. But these are not visible until the seed opens and begins the growth process. The plant then begins to manifest leaves, stems, branches, flowers and fruits.

In the same way, the embryo develops gradually, passing through different forms from a fertilised egg into a mature adult human being. During this process, hidden perfections in the embryo show up in the person's differing forms and strengthening abilities. For example, the perfections of spirit, mind, sight, smell and taste become manifest by degree.

Also, the earth was created from the first "with all its elements, substances, minerals, atoms and organisms". But these perfections developed gradually and appeared by degree; for example, minerals appeared first and humans appeared later.

(51)

The same principle applies to original matter, which is the embryonic state of the universe. Its earliest forms gradually grew and developed through ages and cycles until it appeared in the system of nature that we know today. (47)

The purpose of nature is human existence

The purpose of existence is to reflect the divine perfections. This purpose is carried out within the reality of humanity. For this reason, human beings are created with the ability to reflect all the divine perfections. (50)

Humans are unique among all beings in nature in their ability to reflect all the divine perfections. They constitute the highest, or chief, member of nature - like the fruit of the fruit tree of the world. (46, 52)

There was never a time when humanity did not exist, in the same way that the fruit of the tree always exists, even if it has not yet appeared on the tree. If humanity at one time did not exist, then existence would have lacked its purpose. (46)

Species do not evolve out of other species

In accordance with the principle that perfections appear gradually, the appearance of humanity in the world has passed through numerous stages and forms. Signs in the human body of redundant organs from ages past are proof of that evolution. Throughout this process, humanity has always been a distinct species. This evolutionary process should be likened to the development of the person in the womb. The embryo is, from the beginning, a human embryo and never an animal embryo. Changes in form do not mean changes in species. (47)

Again, in accordance with the principle that perfections appear gradually, the earth reveals its perfections in stages. This has meant that animals appeared on earth before humans. But this does not mean that humans were once animals. The order in which beings appear in nature is determined by the divine organisation. It is not evidence that a later species developed out of an earlier one. (49)

Individual beings in nature are unique

"No being in any respect is identical with, or the same as, another being." (81)

All things are unique. This is because all things reflect the divine perfection of oneness. This principle applies to spiritual beings as well as those composed of elements.

Because of this principle, it is impossible that a thing, with its exact same composition of elements, should appear twice in this world. Therefore, the doctrine of reincarnation, where a person, after death, is believed to return to this world in a new life, is false.

However, categories of beings, or species, do appear repeatedly in nature. For example, the same kind of tree or bird or animal appears repeatedly, and this is the reason for the appearance of species in nature. But the same individual being, with the exact same make up of elements, does not reappear in a nature. Species appear repeatedly through combinations of new elements.

(81)

Spirit and being in nature

Spirit appears in nature as a set of powers

By the word 'spirit', Abdu'l-Baha is referring to a power that a thing in nature inherently possesses as a result of the combination of its elements, which enables it to perceive realities in nature and/or have an effect on nature.

Spirits are intellectual realities; that is, they have "no outward form and no place and [are] not perceptible to the senses."(16) The only way we can access them is through our minds. Because spirits are intellectual realities, they cannot do the things that sensible realities do; for example, they do not enter and exit bodies, or come down or go up from bodies. Instead, spirits have a "direct connection" to the body or a thing. For example, the intellectual reality of knowledge is directly connected with the brain, but does not enter the brain. The relationship of "direct connection" is like that of images reflected in a mirror. (25)

Because spirits are intellectual realities and cannot be accessed directly using the senses, the proof of spirits is through the effects they produce in nature. For example, using our senses, we are able to witness that plants have the power to grow and animals have the powers of the senses. (48)

Spirit in nature is not the same thing as the 'Spirit' referred to in the scriptures; for example, where Christ says: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit”. This is because the spirits in nature are subject to composition, corruption, change and decomposition, whereas the Spirit referred to in the scriptures is a divine perfection and an effulgence of the world of the Kingdom. See Baha'i World Faith, p 370.

Four grades of spirit and being in nature

Generally speaking, there are four grades of spirit found in nature:

the mineral spirit
the vegetable spirit
the animal spirit
the human spirit. (36)

In relation to these four grades of spirit, there are four kinds of beings in nature: mineral, vegetable, animal and human. (50)

The mineral spirit

The mineral spirit is not mentioned specifically in Some Answered Questions, but in Baha'i World Faith, Abdu'l-Baha identifies that there is a spirit in the mineral:

"As to the existence of spirit in the mineral: it is indubitable that minerals are endowed with a spirit and life according to the requirements of that stage." (p 338)

Abdu'l-Baha does not say what power the mineral spirit refers to. It could refer to such phenomena as chemical reactions, electricity and nuclear power.

In Some Answered Questions (36), Abdu'l-Baha does refer to electricity and the fact that, like all else in nature, it is subject to the composition and decomposition of elements:

"So, to use another figure, electricity results from the combination of elements, and when these elements are separated, the electric force is dispersed and lost."

This tells us that he saw the power of electricity as a power of nature, whatever category of spirit he might have placed it in. The quote comes in his discussion on the vegetable spirit.

The vegetable spirit

The vegetable spirit is the power of growth. It comes about through:

the combination of elements
the mingling of substances
the influence, effect and connection of other existences.

When the above three requirements for the vegetable spirit are withdrawn - for example, when the elements are no longer combined - the vegetable spirit is terminated. (36)

Perfection in the vegetable world is to grow well in ideal conditions and to fruit. Prosperity in this world is to progress into, and nourish, beings in the animal and human worlds. (15)

The animal spirit

The animal spirit is the power of the senses. It perceives the reality of things from what is visible, audible, edible, tangible and smelled. (36) It is the lowest level of perception in nature. (58)

It comes about through the combination of elements and the mingling of substances. But the processes of combining and mingling are more complete and perfect than those for the vegetable spirit. It is like a lamp, which produces light when the oil, wick and fire are brought together. (36)

When the above requirements for the animal spirit are withdrawn - for example, when the elements are no longer combined - the animal spirit is terminated. (36)

Perfection in the animal world is to grow well in ideal surroundings and have all needs supplied. Prosperity in this world is to progress into, and nourish, human beings. (15)

The human spirit

The human spirit is also called the rational soul and the human reality.

The human spirit is the intellectual power of investigation and discovery, and the reasoning faculty that apprehends ideas and intelligible and sensible things. It encompasses all things. It can make discoveries in the spiritual worlds as well as in the physical world. (38) Its power is behind the development of sciences, arts, law, inventions and so on, which were once hidden and unknown. (48) The human spirit is the highest level of perception in nature. (58)

The relationship of the human spirit to the body is like the sun shining in the mirror. The sun appears in the mirror but does not descend into it. (38)

The human spirit is attracted to the human body like a magnet. This occurs when the elements of the body are brought together according to the laws of nature. (38) This attraction takes place as a matter of course, in the same way that, if a mirror is clear and facing the sun, it will certainly become illumined and reflect the sun's rays. (52)

Unlike the other spirits in nature, the human spirit does not cease to exist when the body's elements decompose. It is a "divine sign" - that is, it reflects the perfections of God - and is therefore eternal. (38)

"'Abdu’l-Bahá explains… that because the soul of man 'is not a composition of diverse elements…and is not subject to decomposition…it is ever-living, immortal, and eternal.'" Keven Brown, "Creation", section 3

More details about the human spirit will appear in the next chapter, "The nature of the human spirit".

One manifestation: two stations

2011-01-15T09:57:00.016+13:00

I've started reading Nader Saiedi's "Gate of the Heart". I was spurred on by Sen's raving about it on his blog and thought, well, it must be good, and therefore better than "Logos and Civilization", which I couldn't finish. I'm glad to say that some issues I had with Logos have been rectified in Gate of the Heart. A key one was that, in Logos, Saiedi would say that the Bab said this and that, but not back it up with quotes from the Bab (and it's not as if you can consult official translations). Gate of the Heart includes quotes. Yay!

The very first one blew me away. It's about the two stations of the manifestation. It isn't news to us that the manifestation has two stations; Baha'u'llah says as much in the Iqan:

"We have already in the foregoing pages assigned two stations unto each of the Luminaries arising from the Daysprings of eternal holiness. One of these stations, the station of essential unity, We have already explained. "No distinction do We make between any of them." The other is the station of distinction, and pertaineth to the world of creation and to the limitations thereof. In this respect, each Manifestation of God hath a distinct individuality, a definitely prescribed mission, a predestined Revelation, and specially designated limitations." Kitab-i-Iqan, para 191

But reading what the Bab has to say about the two stations has made me see that this two-station business is more complicated than I thought. Drawing on the three-world structure of existence (which I have covered in previous entries), I assumed that the two stations Baha'u'llah speaks of lined up with the two worlds of existence - the world of the kingdom and the world of creation - like this:
- world of God
- world of the kingdom - first station of the manifestation
- world of creation - second station of the manifestation.

My assumption wasn't wrong. But the two stations that the Bab refers to are two stations within the world of the kingdom; that is, within the world of the manifestation or, to use the Bab's terminology, within the Will or Point. So the structure looks more like this:
- world of God
- world of the kingdom - first station of the manifestation
- world of the kingdom - second station of the manifestation
- world of creation - second station of the manifestation.

On page 46, Saiedi quotes the Bab:

"Verily the Point possesseth two stations. One is the station that speaketh from God. The other is the station that speaketh from that which is other than God, a station whereby He expresseth His servitude for the former station. By virtue of the former, the latter worshippeth God in the daytime and in the night season, and glorifieth Him at morn and at eventide.

The substance of this gate is that God hath fashioned two stations for the Sun of Truth. One is the station of His unknown and unknowable Essence, the Manifestation of His Divinity. Thus, all His revealed divine verses stream forth on behalf of God....All else beyond this supreme Sign present within Him is His creation....

And within the inmost reality of all things there hath been, and will forever continue to be, a sign from God through which the unity of the Lord is celebrated. This sign, however, is a reflection of His Will present within it, through which naught is seen but God. However, within the Will, that supreme Sign is the Will Itself, the Supreme Mirror of God, which hath never referred, nor will it ever refer, to aught but God....He is the possessor of two signs, that of God and that of creation, and through the latter he worshippeth God and boweth in adoration before Him. [...]"

(The ellipsis in square brackets is mine; the others are in the original.)

In chapter one, Saiedi discusses the two stations of the manifestation with regard to the different voices of the manifestation. For example, on the one hand, Baha'u'llah speaks with the voice of God, as in the Hidden Words, and on the other hand, he speaks in supplication to God, as in the prayers and meditations. Saiedi explains that, in the first station, the manifestation speaks "from God and on behalf of God", and in the second station, speaks "to God". In the first station, the manifestation reveals "divine verses" and in the second station, reveals "prayers and supplications",(p46) which we later find out includes the passages in the writings that explain, and comment on, the divine verses.

But going back to the quote above, I understand the Bab to be saying in the third paragraph that the essence of all things is a reflection of the Will, but the essence of the manifestation is the Will itself. Following the Bab, Saiedi refers to the first station of the manifestation as the "hidden" aspect, which is pure God, and the second station of the manifestation as the "manifest" aspect, which is the self of the Will as a created reality.

This left me confused about the relationship between the second station of the manifestation in the Will and how things come into being in the world of creation. An answer came from a quote from the Bab that I found on Keven Brown's site. The Bab speaks of creation coming into existence in seven stages. The first two - Will and Purpose - equate to the two stations of the Will outlined above. Once this pairing takes place, the lower levels of creation follow as a matter of course. The two levels below Will and Purpose are Determination and Fate. The Bab says:

"The first stage of anything for which the “thingness” of existence is not a condition is the Will. The moment thingness is attached to it, it becometh Purpose, and this moment is accompanied by predestination. The manifestation of these three stages is fate. In this regard,[2] it is incumbent upon all creatures to acknowledge the spontaneity (badá’ ) of God,[3] lauded and exalted be He, for His will cannot be altered after the stage of fate; it is fixed." Quotes re the 7 stages, no 1

This quote helps me to understand better the two stations of the manifestation. 'Thingness' of existence is not a condition of the first station of the Will. The second station is its 'thingness' and, once these two come together, then existence comes into being through the stages of Predestination and Fate. The Bab says: "The names of these three at the beginning of the creative act are Will, Purpose, and predestination, which the people of eloquence express as calling-into-being, origination, invention, creation and being made". Quotes re the 7 stages, no 6

The final three stages of creation are called permission, fixed time and book.

I have by no means finished Saiedi's book. This subject is complex, and every time I sit down to read about it, I learn more. I will therefore write more as I can make sense of it.

The nature of existence

2011-01-01T14:25:00.014+13:00

I'm working on a study guide on the philosophical principles found in Some Answered Questions. The book is structured according to answers to questions, but running through the answers is a system of thought, which gets lost in the question-answer structure. I've tried here to bring that system out.

Below is a draft of chapter 1, "The nature of existence". I expect to fill it out with more detail in the final version. But I thought I'd put it up at this stage to show what I'm up to and because the material is interesting even now, I think.

The numbers in brackets refer to chapters in Some Answered Questions from which the referenced material is drawn.

Comments welcome.

The nature of existence

The three conditions and worlds of existence

There are three conditions of existence:
- divinity - the existence of God
- prophethood - the existence of the manifestations
- servitude - the existence of creation. (62)

This means that there are three kinds of existence or degrees of existence.

Each of these conditions of existence has a corresponding world of existence:
- the world of God
- the world of the Kingdom
- the world of creation. (82)

The reality of existence in each of the three worlds is different.

The conditions of existence place limits on the way a thing can develop. A human being, who is created in and for the world of creation, can never develop into a manifestation, and a manifestation can never develop to a state of perfection equivalent to that of God. (37)

The lower cannot comprehend the higher

Abdu'l-Baha asserts the following principle: (37)

That which is lower cannot comprehend that which is higher.

In terms of the three worlds of existence, this principle means that human beings cannot understand the world of God or the world of prophethood. Humans have no idea what it means to say that God 'exists' in the world of God, nor can humans comprehend the reality of prophethood in the manifestations.

This principle also applies to the various levels of existence found within the world of creation; for example, the mineral world cannot comprehend the vegetable world, the vegetable world cannot understand the animal world, and animals cannot understand the intellectual powers of human beings.

The world of God is beyond attributes

As explained above, the reality of divinity is a realm of existence that we cannot understand. Because of this, whatever the characteristics of that world are, we cannot know them. (37)

However, humans can witness signs, reflections and appearances of God in the world of creation. We commonly refer to the perfections of God that we witness in this world as the names and attributes of God. But these names and attributes are not the actual perfections of God, for whatever those are we cannot understand them.

God is the source of all perfection but is not limited to perfection as it is manifested in the lower worlds of existence. Therefore, when we say that God has names and attributes such as the Generous and the Merciful, we do not assert that God is generous and merciful, we assert that God is not capable of being miserly and mean. We are not describing God's perfections, but denying that God has any imperfection. (37)

The object of existence is the appearance of the perfections of God. (50)

The names and attributes need beings

Abdu'l-Baha asserts the following principle: (47, 80)

The names and attributes of God require the existence of beings.

By this is meant that the names and attributes need beings to display the characteristics of their perfections. In practical terms, this means that, for a person to be a lover, they need a beloved; for a person to be a teacher, they need a pupil and so on. If there is no being on which the characteristics of the perfection is manifested, then the perfection cannot be witnessed in reality.

Absolute non-existence cannot become existence

Abdu'l-Baha asserts the following principle: (47, 80)

Absolute non-existence cannot become existence.

If beings were once absolutely non-existent, then existence would not come into being. This is because absolute non-existence does not have the capacity for existence.

Creation has always existed

Based on the two principles outlined above, Abdu'l-Baha explains that creation has always existed; that is, it does not have a beginning, and, for the same reasons, does not have an end. (47)

Firstly, based on the principle that the names and attributes require beings, if God is to be assigned the names Creator, Pre-existent and Everlasting, there must be a corresponding creation that has always existed and always will exist in some form or other. To imagine a time when beings did not exist is to imagine an imperfection in God - that there was once a time when God was not a creator.

Secondly, if absolute non-existence cannot become existence, then existence must always have been a reality in some form or another.

Original matter was arranged into infinite forms

The first things to exist were created from matter, which was one. (47) The different aspects of matter appeared in different elements and this produced various forms. Over a very long time, these elements became permanent and specialised, and were combined and arranged, according to a natural organisation and universal law, into infinite forms and beings.

Existence and non-existence are relative

The concepts of existence and non-existence are relative. To say that a thing has come into existence from non-existence is to say that the condition it was in before was a condition of 'nothingness' compared to what it is now. But that 'nothingness' is not absolute non-existence. (80)

For example, man comes into existence from dust. Both man and dust exist. (80) But in relation to each other, man exists and dust does not - dust in relation to man is 'nothingness'. Similarly, when a person's body no longer 'exists', that means it has passed back into dust.

Things develop by passing from one level of existence to another.

Existence is in motion

Abdu'l-Baha asserts the following principle (63):

All things are in motion.

Nothing stays in the same state. This means that the process whereby elements combine, disassociate, recombine and bring about changes in form, is going on all the time in all things.

This state of motion is essential - that is, natural - to all things. It cannot be separated from them.

All that is composed of elements must decompose

Abdu'l-Baha asserts the following principle (47):

All that is composed of elements is subject to decomposition.

Every composition, collective or particular, must of necessity be decomposed. Some quickly decompose, others more slowly. It is impossible that a composed thing should not eventually be decomposed.

Altiyan Childs: irrepressible spirituality

2010-12-13T14:13:00.051+13:00

I've been following with delight and fascination the fortunes of Altiyan Childs (35), a rock singer who won the reality series "X Factor Australia", which finished screening late November. I was introduced to Altiyan and his progress on the show by my cousin Susan, when I went to Auckland in late October for the Leonard Cohen concert. At that time, I didn't have TV, for I needed a satellite dish to get reception at my new rural location.

"Ali", said Susan to me in a charged, husky voice. "Look! He's an introvert!" She pointed and drew my attention to the images flashing on her TV screen of the man she'd been raving about.

I peered at the figure making a grand entrance onto the stage, wondering what all the fuss was about. "He is?" I said, bewildered that anyone with genuine sensitivity would be game to enter a talent quest reality show.

Then it was all over. As I watched Altiyan scurry about the stage, making wild feline faces and somehow managing also to sing "Eye of the Tiger", my body temperature raced up, and I exploded out of my smug self-control into fiery pieces about the room. "Good Lord," I thought, "Who on earth is this guy? This is unexpected."

During the judges comments at the end of the performance, the camera dwelt on those dark, lightened features. They moved in perfect concert with the hidden flow of inner feeling. The eyes down to the floor in fear, then up to the roof with relief, the head hard to the side in wonder, then staring front-on composed, the brow pulled together in anxiety, then brightened out in joy, the brown eyes shining with delight, then filling with tears.

"Oh my God!" I said to Susan. "He's gorgeous."

Early on in the show, Altiyan was a real outsider, and no one knew what to make of him. He repeatedly forgot the lyrics and stumbled around distractedly on stage. As one journalist described it: "He'd forgotten the words and appeared more like a crazed, constipated Charles Manson lookalike than a man oozing X factor." (Paula Yeoman: nzherald). But the X Factor format, which to my mind is better than the Idol format, has the judges choose contestants to mentor, and Altiyan flourished under the visionary tutelage of Ronan Keating. To watch Altiyan go from lost and submerged to found, in control and on fire was a revelation. Now, the audience loved him.

So what made this guy tick? I had to know. And when I looked, the story got even better. I discovered that Altiyan Childs wasn't just a shallow rocker, with not much between his ears beyond wanting to be rich, revered and laid. He had a complexity that shone out irrepressibly, even through the impertinent personal questions, in-your-face comments, cringing childish antics and hype of some media interviews. To my amazement, Altiyan revealed a great deal about his inner self at these interviews; for example, that he had not had sex since 2004 when he broke up with his fiancee. The topic of what was dubbed Altiyan's 'chastity', and the corresponding challenge of ending it, gave the media a field day. But I was keen to know about his relationship to his sexuality and why he'd gone down that road. This was just one of many aspects to Altiyan that led me to see him as an exciting, new phenomenon of spirituality in popular culture - one with the potential to influence millions.

"It's not that I want to destroy anything, I just want to influence it. Artists should influence people. There's too much glorification of alcohol and sex in the world for me. I want to inject a bit of soul back." Q&A: Altiyan Childs

On celibacy

Altiyan says he has "a very intimate love affair with celibacy and its potency". (NZ marks the spiritual spot) When he broke up with his fiancee, he was determined not to go down the road many others take - that of abandoning oneself to the senses to drown out the pain. Instead, he determined to work at mastering his sexual drive. He says he "said to his dick, 'I'm the boss of this house'".(NZ marks the spiritual spot) It took about 40 to 50 days to control. After which, he experienced an accumulation of energy in his body, which enlivened him. But his sexual energy has not gone away completely. "It gets thrown inside you and gets transformed into something far greater and far more everlasting." He denies being afraid of women; he loves them. He just sees them now as sisters. "If they walked around naked - to me, it's just geometry." (Altiyan's Kiwi love affair)

On loving humanity

Altiyan says that, when he was five, his father used to worry for him because he was a very sensitive and caring child. "I liked to give all my toys away... from a young age, I had this intense empathy and love for people around me." (TV3 full interview) At school, he actively made friends with those who were socially isolated and hung out with them. "Our group was like the reject group. We were like a little reject family." (One-on-one with Altiyan Childs)

When asked if he feels like a superstar now that he's famous, Altiyan says that he does not, for he's aware that he's entirely dependent on others for everything around him. "Everything I'm wearing is made by strangers. Everything I look at is made by strangers. So I just cannot feel like a superstar." (TV3 full interview) Instead, he throws the compliment back onto humanity in general, expressing the belief that all human beings are superstars. "We're capable of anything. Our imagination is so strong that we must be superstars. I mean we create this world and the way we see it." (TV3 full interview)

At all times, even in moments of happiness, Altiyan remains aware of the suffering of humanity. He describes his awareness as a "disease", caused by the fact that he cannot separate himself off from the common people and their pain. He is exasperated at the indifference of leaders to the plight of people. "Our leaders should be madly in love with us. Instead, they're madly in love with themselves." (NZ marks the spiritual spot) He believes it is his duty to remember those who are suffering, and not to let himself get over it.

Altiyan's love extends to his enemies as well, whom he believes are important because they can teach us things that our friends won't. "Only your enemies can teach you certain things about love that your friends dare not teach you. There's no boundary for them to cross." (TV3 full interview)

On fame

Altiyan says that seeking fame has become its own career. "People chase fame these days like it's a job. What do you want to be? I want to be famous." (Q&A: Altiyan Childs) He attributes his own popularity to people's awareness that he's genuine, wanting to connect with people emotionally in a heart-to-heart fashion. This is why he appeals to both 8 year olds and 88 year olds. He had tried for 20 years to become a success with his band, Masonia, but gave up on a music career entirely in 2008. He only entered X Factor because his father insisted, uncharacteristically, that he do so. But now he is famous, and he recognises that fame has come as a result of his following his passion and as a spiritual recompense for the suffering he went through in his early years. "I'm just really grateful that people connected with my joy and my sorrow." (NZ marks the spiritual spot)

Altiyan is now working on an album of his own songs. He had to sing covers for the X Factor show, but he is a songwriter as well as a singer and is itching to record his own compositions. I look forward to hearing the songs he is inspired to produce, and wish him well for the project. He says that, if fame had come to him six years earlier, he would have been corrupted by it, for he was troubled then. Now he believes he is incorruptible. "Parts of my body and mind are [corruptible], but my spirit is incorruptible. I could be wrong but I'd rather believe this than anything else." (Q&A: Altiyan Childs) I'm pleased to hear it. Because humanity needs more of Altiyan's goodness, humility, sensitivity and caring. And I hope the Lord grants him the grace to influence millions of others to be that way too.

Read my later article about Altiyan, "Altiyan Childs continues to show insight".

Proceeding through manifestation

2010-12-09T16:13:00.006+13:00

I have found a preliminary answer to a question that has been bothering me for some time. The issue is this: if everything in creation, including the manifestation of God, proceeds from God by way of emanation, what do Baha'is mean by the term 'manifestation' in the phrase 'manifestation of God'?

Unfortunately, I cannot find in the writings a definition of the word 'emanation'. It is always explained using analogies. A common analogy Abdu'l-Baha gives for proceeding from emanation is the rays of light from the sun. It is said that these emanate from the sun because the sun does not resolve itself into the rays; rather, the rays just come out of the sun, while the sun remains unchanged. Other analogies are action from an actor, writing from a writer, a discourse from a speaker. These are all examples of proceeding through emanation because the essence or reality of the cause does not literally appear in the effect. In other words, the cause does not divide into parts in order to create the effect. Rather, the effect just comes out of the cause.

Proceeding through emanation is always contrasted with proceeding through manifestation. Abdu'l-Baha does define proceeding through manifestation (SAQ ch54): "the proceeding through manifestation means the manifestation of the reality of a thing in other forms". A common example he gives is that of a seed. A seed proceeds through a process of manifestation to become a tree. This is because the actual seed - its reality or essence - changes form, taking on the form of a seedling, and so on until it is a fully grown tree. Given this idea, I think all forms of 'seeds' would proceed through manifestation. For example, the egg and sperm, once joined, would proceed through manifestation to become an adult human. But other, different, examples include the way that water changes its form into steam or ice, and the way the ocean changes its form continually with the activity of waves.

The reason the contrast between proceeding through emanation and through manifestation is emphasised in the writings is because some philosophers believed that creation was a manifestation of God; in other words, something of the essence of God was to be found in all things. But the Baha'i writings reject this outright, emphasising the important distinction between proceeding through emanation and through manifestation. All things emanate from God - that is, come out of God - but they are not manifestations of God - that is, the essence of God does not change form and become a part of created things. This would mean that God had become divided into parts. Instead, Abdu'l-Baha explains (ch54) that God is in one condition and that condition never changes.

This brought me to my question: if every created thing is an emanation of God, what do we mean by the word 'manifestation' when we refer to Baha'u'llah as the 'manifestation of God'? For, it is certain that the manifestation of God is an emanation of God and not a manifestation of God in the sense that we discussed above. The answer came in SAQ ch54 where Abdu'l-Baha is explaining proceeding through manifestation. He says:

"But the proceeding through manifestation (if by this is meant the divine appearance, and not division into parts), we have said, is the proceeding and the appearance of the Holy Spirit and the Word, which is from God." (p 206)

I finally woke up to the very important distinction that is made in the brackets. The bit in brackets makes it clear that there are two meanings to proceeding through manifestation:
1. the manifestation of the reality of a thing in other forms - this is the seed becoming a tree, which involves the seed dividing itself into parts
2. the divine appearance.

So the appearance of the divine in creation - or, put another way, the manifestation of the divine in creation - is a different sense of the word 'manifestation' to that of the reality of a thing resolving itself into different parts and forms. It seems to me that the first definition is a philosophical one - it is a special technical meaning used by philosophers. The second definition is more in line with the dictionary definition: "the demonstration, revelation, or display of the existence, presence, qualities, or nature of some person or thing". (New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary)

Abdu'l-Baha then goes on to explain what is meant by proceeding through manifestation in the second sense - the divine appearance. Basically, the proceeding through manifestation in this sense means the appearance of the Holy Spirit and the Word, which are the perfections of God. This is very close to the dictionary definition of 'manifestation', the idea of the display of the qualities of a thing. Abdu'l-Baha gives an example of this: the reflection of the sun in a mirror. This reflection displays all the qualities of the sun - the heat, light, and image. So when we say that Baha'u'llah is a 'manifestation of God', we mean that he manifests or displays the perfections and qualities of God, including God's existence, presence and nature. This is in line with the dictionary definition of 'manifestation' but not the philosophical one.

But note that the reflection of an image in a mirror is still an emanation - the image emanates from its cause and appears in the mirror. The image is a manifestation in the sense of a display of its cause, but an emanation in relation to how it originates from its cause.

Active force and recipient

2010-12-04T10:11:00.007+13:00

I continue with my reading of the dissertation about Shaykh Ahmad's philosophy, Idris Hamid: "The Metaphysics and Cosmology of Process According to Shaykh Ahmad al-Ahsa'i", which I downloaded from Dissertation Express. I've read a small passage that I thought I could reproduce here, and which would make sense without the hundreds of pages of explanation that have gone before. Hamid gives an illustration, in my view, of what Baha'u'llah is referring to in the famous creation passage from Tablet of Wisdom:

"The world of existence came into being through the heat generated from the interaction between the active force and that which is its recipient. These two are the same, yet they are different... Such as communicate the generating influence and such as receive its impact are indeed created through the irresistible Word of God which is the Cause of the entire creation, while all else besides His Word are but the creatures and the effects thereof." (Tablets p140)

I explained in a previous entry "Notes on the three worlds of existence" that the first 'world' or realm of existence that emanates from the the Essence of God is, variously called, the world of the Kingdom, the Primal Will, the world of Command, the Word of God. Shaykh Ahmad also refers to it as "the First Creation" (Hamid p241) and "Absolute Existence". As I explained in my previous entry, "Being a throbbing artery", Shaykh Ahmad argues that every thing in creation is a composite of existence and essence. The only 'thing' that is not subject to this division is the Essence of God. Its existence is the same as its essence; it is the only truly simple 'thing'. Every thing else is a composite of its existence and its essence (ie, form). This distinction between existence and essence is the same distinction that Baha'u'llah is making between the "active force" and its "recipient". This is clear because, Shaykh Ahmad explains, existence is active and its recipient, essence, is 'passive' - although it is not truly passive, because it is active in its passivity. (Shaykh Ahmad likens it to the 7th form of the Arabic verb, the medio-passive, which is active in form and passive in meaning.)

Shaykh Ahmad explains that this distinction between existence and essence is very subtle at the level of the First Creation and becomes increasingly pronounced at the level of physical reality (p251). At the level of the First Creation, Shaykh Ahmad refers to the aspect of existence as "Willing in Possibility" (p253). At this level, 'existence' is, basically, a realm of possibilities. Shaykh Ahmad refers to the aspect of essence, at the level of the First Creation, as "Willing in Being". Looking at God's Willing from this point of view, it is in a state of actively receiving possibilities and is therefore like a realm infinite possible impressions. The impressions that are actually realised constitute things - what Shaykh Ahmad calls "delimited existence".

Idris Hamid gives a helpful illustration of the interaction between "Willing in Possibility" and "Willing in Being". I think it shows how the two are the same and yet different, and active and receptive, as Baha'u'llah describes them. It's impossible to get one's head around what Baha'u'llah is saying, without a concrete example (for we all rely on sensible images for understanding, as Abdu'l-Baha explains in SAQ ch16). Here is the example - from page 254 of the dissertation.

"Consider a quantity of water. Water has its own configuration, through its molecular structure etc. Now consider that water flowing through a riverbed. The riverbed may be considered as the form of the water. The water inheres in it and, from the geological perspective, defines and determines it over time. The riverbed receives the water and continually becomes though its very receiving of the water. Yet though the riverbed gives form to the water, it does not affect the water's configuration. Yet the configuration of the water determines all of the water's chemical and geological possibilities. It makes it possible for, and determines the manner in which, the water creates the riverbed. The water considered by itself is like Willing-in-Possibility. The water considered with regards to the riverbed is like Willing-in-Being."

I think the illustration is a bit confusing in that Hamid seems to shift from saying that the actual riverbed is the form of the water (which it cannot literally be) to saying that "the water considered with regards to the riverbed" is the form of the water (which it must be). But, that aside, what comes through from the example is the idea that one thing - ie, water - has two aspects and can be viewed from each - in itself (existence), and in relation to its form (the shape of the riverbed). Both aspects are the same yet different; one is active (water in itself) and one receptive (water in the shape of the riverbed).

I thought the image of the water flowing through the riverbed was a nice image of the infinite flow of possibilities and impressions of the Word through the reality of things.

Being a throbbing artery

2010-11-20T10:24:00.015+13:00

I haven't written for a while because I am enthralled by the discoveries I have made in my reading. It all began when I started reading Keven Brown's writings about creation from his web site. He has researched and written extensively in this area and has made great strides in it. He has helped me to understand the process and structure of creation as taught in the Baha'i writings and Shaykh Ahmad, and I am enormously indebted to him. After reading Keven's explanations, I was able to make more sense of what the writings say. For the Baha'i authors use the jargon of their day and the implications are lost on modern readers, unless we have someone like Keven to explain them for us. Keven has done much translation work as well, translating passages on the subject of creation that are not currently available and retranslating passages, many from Abdu'l-Baha, to make the meaning clearer. He has put some of his translations up on his site.

From reading Keven's article "Abdu'l-Baha's Response to Darwinism", I found out about a dissertation written in English about Shaykh Ahmad's philosophy. It is Idris Hamid: "The Metaphysics and Cosmology of Process According to Shaykh Ahmad al-Ahsa'i". I was able to download it from Dissertation Express. I am currently about half way through reading this. It is amazing. I never realised that such a comprehensive work had been written about Shaykh Ahmad's system of thought. The dissertation focuses on Shaykh Ahmad's "al-Fawa'id Hikmiyyah" (The Wisdom Observations). Idris Hamid describes this work as "a concise summary of the author's philosophical and mystical commitments"(p5). And, because the dissertation is written within the Western philosophical tradition, Hamid has the unenviable task of making Shaykh Ahmad's Islamic concepts meaningful to a Western audience. This is the task all Baha'is face when teaching the Faith, and it is interesting to see the tack that Hamid takes. I haven't read the whole thing yet, so I can't say too much, but Hamid says that he will use the concepts of another thinker who is roughly close to Shaykh Ahmad, and compare them.

So to the phrase Baha'u'llah uses in the Tablet of Wisdom:

"Be thou as a throbbing artery, pulsating in the body of the entire creation, that through the heat generated by this motion there may appear that which will quicken the hearts of those who hesitate." (Tablets p143)

As a result of all this reading and learning, I went back to the Tablet of Wisdom to see if I could get more out of the enigmatic statements about creation that Baha'u'llah makes there. I found that I was certainly able to get more out of it. And I had a new thought about the sentence above.

One of the key things I have learned from my reading is how to look at existence. What all Baha'i authors teach and Shaykh Ahmad too, is that existence - that is, an object or a substance or even an intelligible like justice - has two parts to it - it is a pairing of 'existence' and 'essence' or, in other words, 'matter' and 'form'. Matter is like a blank canvass on which form is imprinted. Matter is like stone out of which a form is sculptured. (This gives new meaning to the phrase, "O moving form of dust"!) This pairing is at work at all levels of existence, from the most subtle reality in the highest heaven to the most solid one in the depths of the earth.

The Bab links this pairing with the process whereby the letters B and E are joined together. Baha'u'llah describes how, at the beginning of creation, God says "Be! and it is", and, in the Long Obligatory Prayer, speaks of how "the letters B and E have been joined and knit together". In relation to this, the Bab says:

'Through the "B" God created the matter (mádda) of all things...and through the "E" God created the form (Súra) of all things.' (trans Keven Brown, Excerpt 8)

And, in fact, the same pairing is being referred to in Baha'u'llah's passage in the Tablet of Wisdom about how creation came into existence:

"The world of existence came into being through the heat generated from the interaction between the active force and that which is its recipient. These two are the same, yet they are different. Thus doth the Great Announcement inform thee about this glorious structure. Such as communicate the generating influence and such as receive its impact are indeed created through the irresistible Word of God which is the Cause of the entire creation, while all else besides His Word are but the creatures and the effects thereof." (Tablets p140)

"The active force" and "its recipient" are, again, a reference to the pairing of matter and form. This helps explain why they are the same, yet different. If you look at an object, you can see how its matter is different from its form, and yet these two things cannot be separated and are, in a sense, the same thing. Baha'u'llah goes on to say that "Such as communicate the generating influence and such as receive its impact are indeed created through the irresistible Word of God...", which shows the line-up with the B and E: the generating influence is the B and the recipient is the E, for these are also created through the Word.

With these ideas in the back of my mind, I was struck anew by the language used in the passage quoted above: "Be thou as a throbbing artery, pulsating in the body of the entire creation, that through the heat generated by this motion there may appear that which will quicken the hearts of those who hesitate." I saw that we are being asked to replicate within our own selves the creation process that takes place at the level of the Word. We are being asked to become a generating influence on a recipient humanity. This new insight underscored for me the truth of an idea I've had for years, but have been unable to easily substantiate: that what is of primary importance in teaching is our own spiritual state. This principle is outlined by Baha'u'llah:

"Whoso ariseth among you to teach the Cause of his Lord, let him, before all else, teach his own self, that his speech may attract the hearts of them that hear him. Unless he teacheth his own self, the words of his mouth will not influence the heart of the seeker." Baha'u'llah: Gleanings, CXXVIII)

The reason why it is important for us to focus on our own spiritual state is because real teaching isn't, at root, an intellectual process, where we share a bunch of nice-sounding ideas ("God is one, religion is one, humanity is one - yay!"), or try to convince people of things using reason. It is an ontological process - that is, it is a process that takes place at the level of reality. For example, when a child is born, that young person comes into existence anew in this physical world - that is an ontological process in that it takes place in the arena of reality or existence. In order for us to engage with reality, our beings have to become highly crafted tools that have the ability to influence the processes and outcomes of reality. When we develop to such a refined state, we become mini creators - we actually bring into existence in this world things that were never here before. This idea of our being mini creators is found in the following tradition, which Baha'u'llah quotes approvingly:

"O My Servant! Obey Me and I shall make thee like unto Myself. I say `Be,' and it is, and thou shalt say `Be,' and it shall be." (Baha'u'llah: Fourth Valley of the four)

After writing the above, I suddenly remembered the following passage. I believe that what I have said about our being mini creators is what Baha'u'llah means by our being quickeners of mankind.

"Verily, He (Jesus) said: `Come ye after Me, and I will make you to become fishers of men.' In this day, however, We say: `Come ye after Me, that We may make you to become quickeners of mankind.'" (Baha'u'llah: Proclamation of Baha'u'llah, p91)

Dream about hell

2010-11-05T10:29:00.005+13:00

Sometime last year, Steve and I watched a documentary series on TV called "Ross Kemp in search of pirates". I will never forget seeing the images of the pollution in the Niger Delta. As Ross travelled up a stretch of waterway in a small boat, the camera caught the metres-wide strip of rubbish that sat on top of the water all along the edge where the water met the bank. And then behind that were the shacks, where people 'lived'. I was astonished that people could live in such a place. And I was even more astonished that it had got into such a state in the first place. Surely, you think to yourself, ordinary sane people would never allow that. But, oil companies are not run by ordinary sane people!

I have found on YouTube the video clip that I saw on the Ross Kemp programme and you can watch it for yourself here. I have also found an article describing how Nigeria got into such a dreadful state, as a result of the appalling human rights violations and gross environmental negligence of the oil companies: "Niger Delta - by the Light of Shell's Flares Bursting in Air!"

Those images have stuck with me. I don't believe I have seen worse images of environmental degradation anywhere - even though there are dreadful things going on all over the globe. Then mid-last week, suddenly remembering those images again, I said to Steve that I wouldn't want to be in the shoes of those responsible for that pollution, for they will experience first hand what they have done, when they pass to the next world. Their life may be cruisy now, but their life in the next world won't be. They do have a reckoning coming, even if they deny it.

That night, I had a dream about what was coming to those people. I didn't ask to see it, but for some reason the Lord decided to show it to me. I found myself standing in front of a table with a book sitting on it. It was one of those books that is crammed full of high quality colour photos, with little text. The sort of thing that might sit on a coffee table. It was open and as I looked down and focused my attention on the photos, I realised that they were of a terror that was so horrible it was beyond anything one could imagine. The images were of masses of naked bodies, all black, in positions that suggested unimaginable torment. I could barely look at them, they were so dreadful. They were like serious close-ups of bodies in piles, such as were found in the concentration camps. I kept taking glances and then turning away. But I couldn't get rid of the sick feeling I had - like I was standing in a medieval torture chamber that was so large it constituted the whole world.

I began turning pages back toward the beginning of the book, in a bid to turn away the horror and find something nice to look at. But as I turned, I found more and more images, just as bad as before. As I turned, the horror became relentless. There seemed to be no escape. I began to see that the book had sections, and each section was devoted to a different 'shade' of torment. First, there was a section of male bodies, and then a section of female ones, and so on. I said to myself: "Dear Lord, there are variations on torment! Endless variations! Surely, this is hell. Anyone who has seen this would never do anything that might displease the Lord, for fear that they might end up here!" I wanted the experience to end, and so I kept turning the pages and trying to get to the beginning of the book. Then it dawned on me that there was no beginning of the book. I could turn forever and the sections of the book would vary and vary and vary, but the horror would never end. When I realised the book had no beginning, I woke up in shock. I knew that I had been shown images from a book depicting hell. But those who live there, never leave, never wake up.

Later, I wondered why all the images were of black bodies and I thought of the movie "Amazing Grace". The man in that movie who was responsible for carrying 20,000 Africans by ship to America was tormented by the images of those souls. I guess those responsible for polluting the Niger Delta, and forcing its inhabitants to live in misery, will be similarly tormented by images of those they have so badly wronged. If they ever saw what I have seen, they would crawl on the ground like a snake if it meant avoiding that fate. Anyone who knew it to be their lot would do anything to avoid it.

A note on perfection

2010-10-20T11:37:00.009+13:00

Blessings and greetings to all on this splendid anniversary of the birth of the Bab. I thought it was fitting on this glorious day to make a note on something I have been reading by the Bab.

Yesterday, I read Sen's article "Perfection and conservation in Gate of the Heart". I recommend it. It has the clearest statement I've seen about what the Bab would say about humanity's abuse of nature's waterways.

"In the Persian Bayan He writes: 'Nothing is more beloved before God than to keep water in a state of the utmost purity, to such an extent that if a believer should become aware that the glass of water he holdeth in his hand hath passed through any impure parts of the earth, he would be grieved.' In other words, it is implicitly necessary that all streams, lakes, and seas through which the water passes be clean."

But I wanted here to note a few thoughts on perfection. Sen summarises the spiritual principle in the Persian Bayan that underpins whether an action is acceptable:

"if it is performed for God and to attain God’s good pleasure, then every single action must be a means of realizing the potentialities of things and the beautification and refinement of the world."

The implication for action of this principle is that:

"in whatever activity the Babis are engaged, whether in the realm of industry or art, they must perform that work in the best possible manner and realize the utmost perfection in all things."

This principle reminds me of the pilgrim's note that reports Baha'u'llah as saying that we should finish what we begin. There is always something to learn from finishing a project because there is a different set of lessons at the beginning of a project to at the end. But the discipline of finishing projects also forces us to think hard about what projects we start in the first place. For, if we have to finish what we start, we will confine ourselves to a few projects and be forced to think about what our priorities are. (I said to Steve the other day that I think the fundamental principle of conservation should be 'stay at home'. If everyone lived at home and didn't use their home simply as a hotel, I think this would force us to reduce the number of projects we involved ourselves in.)

But the main comment about perfection I want to make is how the Bab's principle relates to the negative messages I tell myself. For example, I now recognise the following statement as being at the root of my anxiety- and depression-inducing thoughts: 'things as they stand are wrong and should be different to what they are'. Based on this, I am culpable: for I am responsible for things being wrong, but am pretty much powerless over how things work out in the world. My response was to constantly run around trying to fix things.

Recent reading in theology has helped me through this trap. I understand now that the world is always in a state of perfection. So it isn't true that things are wrong as they stand; things are perfect as they stand. But, at the same time, things are always changing, moving toward a higher degree of perfection. And that is where I come in with my work - it is an effort in the advancement of perfection. Each day, I work to realise "the potentialities of things and the beautification and refinement of the world".

I use this new understanding to counter negative messages that come in. I feel way better now that I can focus on a small number of projects and getting them right. People around me are busy, busy, busy! But I am determined to swim against the tide, for I believe this is the straight path.

Notes on the three worlds of existence

2010-10-13T15:02:00.010+13:00

I have been researching the concept of the manifestation and have learned about the worlds of existence in the process. I'm writing up notes as I go to solidify what I'm learning and have decided to put them up here to share it with readers. I am greatly indebted to Keven Brown. He has written some fabulous stuff in the fields of Baha'i philosophy and theology and I have benefited from his efforts; in particular, from his excellent article in Journal of Baha'i Studies 2001, 11(3), "Abdu'l-Baha's response to the doctrine of the unity of existence". I have relied on this article almost entirely in these notes.

It was Keven Brown who alerted me to an important sentence in chapter 82 of Some Answered Questions (SAQ), where Abdul-Baha says: "The Prophets… believe that there is the world of God, the world of the Kingdom, and the world of Creation: three things" - as opposed to the two-world universe of the Sufis: world of God and world of creation. I wanted to find out what those worlds were exactly and how they related to the common Sufi way of dividing existence into five worlds: Hahut, Lahut, Jabarut, Malakut and Nasut. I have some preliminary results, which also draw on Moojan Momen's article in volume 5 of Kalimat's Babi and Baha'i Studies Series, "Relativism: A basis for Baha'i metaphysics", pp 190-5.

Differing kinds of existence

Although I refer to the three worlds as worlds of existence, the reality of existence in each of them is different. We have no idea what it means to say that God 'exists' in the world of God. The 'existence' that is witnessed in the worlds below the world of God is a creation of God and is specific to each world.

The world of God (Hahut)

This is the world of the Essence of God, which is beyond the understanding of the prophets as well as ourselves. All essences, archetypes, names and attributes, potentialities and things are hidden here – which means they don’t exist here.

Emanation and manifestation

All worlds below the world of God come into existence as a result of their emanation from God. The analogy usually used to explain emanation is the light that emanates from the sun. The light comes from the sun and is dispersed everywhere, but the sun itself stays separate from the light. The idea of emanation should be distinguished from the concept of manifestation. Manifestation means that a single thing changes its form, but its essence remains the same. For example, if the sun was manifested in the light, this would mean that the sun itself somehow changed form so that it took the form of the light. An example of manifestation is the ocean and the waves. The ocean itself is in the waves and the waves of the ocean move, changing the form of the ocean. Similarly, water can take the form of ice and snow. Abdu'l-Baha, in SAQ, gives the seed as an example of manifestation – it changes its form over and over and gradually becomes a tree. The principal reason it is important to distinguish between emanation and manifestation in this context is to underscore the fact that the essence of God does not make up the essence of the created worlds below it. It remains separate from them in the same way that the sun remains separate from sunshine.

The world of the Kingdom/ Primal Will/ world of Command (Lahut)

This world is the first emanation from God. It comes into existence as a result of God's will, which is why it is referred to as the Primal Will. Keven Brown translates the Bab:

"In truth, the Essence is not connected with anything, for the cause of contingent things is His very creating, which is the Will that God created by and through itself without a fire touching it from the Essence. God created the existents through this Will, and it has ever indicated its own self and pointed to its own being." (Journal article)

To understand how things work in this world, the best analogy is oneself, for Baha'u'llah says that one reason we have been created in the image of God is so that we can better understand how God works. All that you do is a result of your will, which leads you to act – for example, by thinking, speaking, or breathing. These three actions correspond to descriptions of this realm as the First Intellect, the Word, and the Breath of the Merciful respectively. As a result of the will, God, in this first emanation, is said to take on differing 'states', such as the state of thinking, speaking or breathing, and the source of these states are perfections (divine attributes) hidden in the essence. These states are said to be 'with' God but not 'in' God. I think the idea here is that just as our essence is not manifested in our thoughts, God's essence is not manifested in God's thoughts; but in both cases, the thoughts emanate from the essence and reflect the perfections/characteristics of the thinker.

The entities that come into existence in this world are the essences of things. They take on a conceptual, or immaterial, existence. Keven explains in his Journal article that the essences of things "are equivalent to natural laws". In other places, he says they are "in some sense, ontological structures of the names and attributes", and the same thing as Platonic Forms. As these descriptions indicate, the important thing about them is that they determine the composition of things in the physical world – presumably, by pulling together various combinations of form with the names and attributes. By causing these combinations to occur, these essences cause things in the physical world to be actualised. This demonstrates that the cause of things in our physical world are these immaterial essences and not God directly. Here is Keven's translation of Abdu'l-Baha:

"The Primal Will, which is the realm of Command, is the inner reality of all things, and all beings are therefore the manifestations of the Divine Will, not the manifestations of the Divine Essence and Reality itself. 'His are the realms of Command and creation'. …Rather [in our view] is it the Primal Will, which consisteth of the radiance and bounties of that Sun [of Reality], that causeth the manifestation, appearance, and visibility of all beings." (Journal article)

Something to note here: that Abdu'l-Baha clearly states that humans, along with everything else in this physical world, are manifestations – that is, not emanations – of the Primal Will. That means that the essences in the Primal Will constitute our essence. This explains the extent to which we are 'divine'.

The world of the Kingdom and its essences are an "essential creation", which means that they always existed (are eternal, without beginning or end) but are nevertheless preceded by a cause - God. In relation to the world of time, they are preexistent, for they precede the creation of things in time.

Moojan Momen (p 190) says the world of the Kingdom is referred to in the writings as the All-Glorious Horizon, the Heavenly Court. The manifestation in this world is referred to as the Lord of Lords, the Tongue of Grandeur, the Most Exalted Pen, the Primal Will, the Primal Point, the Word of God.

The world of creation

The remaining three Sufi worlds are in the world of creation.

Jabarut: Moojan (p 191) says this is "the realm of the revealed God acting within creation; the realm of 'Thou art He Himself and He is Thou Thyself'. This realm is called the paradise of conditioned oneness, the all-highest Paradise. This is the realm of God's actions and decrees". I think this must be the realm where the essences discussed above take a form in the world of creation. Here, they are a temporal creation instead of an essential creation, which means they now exist in time.

Malakut: This is the realm of similitudes (alam-i mathal); the next world. This is the spiritual world in which we experience our dreams and in which we exist after we die.

Nasut: This is the physical world. In SAQ, chapter 47, Abdu'l-Baha says that "original matter" is eternal. It may change form, but as a substratum, it is an essential creation.

Moojan (p 192) cites a passage from Baha'u'llah about these worlds and how they are interlinked:

"[Malakut] is the world of similitudes (alam-i-mithal) which existeth between the Dominion on high (jabarut) and this moral realm (nasut); whatever is in the heavens or on the earth hath its counterpart in that world. Whilst a thing remaineth hidden and concealed within the power of utterance it is said to be of the Dominion (jabarut), and this is the first stage of its substantiation (taqyid). Whenever it becometh manifest it is said to be of the Kingdom (malakut). The power and potency it deriveth from the first stage, it besotoweth upon whatever lieth below." (Lawh-i-varqa)

This quote gives some idea of how things work in the world of creation. Essences in the Primal Will are manifest in jabarut and this constitutes their first 'substantiation' in the world of creation. When an essence is the cause of the combining of properties, realities are manifest in image form in malakut and physical form in nasut. Keven explains Abdu'l-Baha as saying (in SAQ chapter 82 regarding our general physical existence being a mental construct of man) that "'Materiality' is the product of impressions on minds resulting from the combination of attributes, properties, and symmetries deriving from a level more fundamental than 'material' things themselves." (Journal article) So the combining-type work of the essences causes materiality in the physical world and, presumably, we 'construct' that materiality in accordance with our inherent nature, which is why we experience materiality differently.

We also know from Tablet on the People's Right that all things, including deeds and characteristics, in nasut have corresponding forms in all the other worlds. "Certainly the realities of things, through different appearances and various manifestations, truth after truth, shine forth and reveal thenselves in every world." So each of us, and what proceeds from us, already has an image-form in malakut.

This is the reason why I don't go with what Moojan (p 192) says about malakut in his article - "This is the angelic realm" - leaving the impression that it is a world that only believers enter. I think the picture is more complex than that. If all humans and their characteristics and deeds already have image-forms in malakut, then we all appear in malakut now. The issue is what form we take there – a heavenly form or a hellish one. A similar principle is at work in the physical world, in keeping with the combining effect of the essences. We each live in a physical world here, but the nature of that world is determined by our inner spiritual state.

More on "He is God"

2010-09-30T13:19:00.008+13:00

A kind reader wrote and asked me to write more about the phrase "He is God", as I suggested I might. So here's part 2.

What I had in mind to mention was the link between the new phrase "He is God" and the advent of the new "Day of God". As I discussed in my previous message, Baha'u'llah has been singled out by God for His own sake. Baha'u'llah's revelation is a supreme one in that God decided to reveal himself in Baha'u'llah. Up to now, God has set limits on what the manifestations were permitted to reveal, but with Baha'u'llah, he let the limits go. The grace associated with this generous act is infinite and has ushered in what we refer to as The Day of God. It seems to me, then, that if Baha'u'llah is the Self of God manifest, then it is logical that we would simply say of him: "He is God".

But I also think that the change in wording from "No God is there but God" to "He is God" has implications for how we are required to respond to the call of God in this Day. With this being the Day of God, the only fitting response for believers is to be wholly absorbed in God. Anything less is unacceptable. We are asked to detach ourselves from all else but God. It is a primary requirement of a seeker:

"That seeker must, at all times, put his trust in God, must renounce the peoples of the earth, must detach himself from the world of dust, and cleave unto Him Who is the Lord of Lords." (Iqan, para 213)

This idea that we must be detached from all save God is everywhere in the writings. Here are some random instances from MARS:

"Turn ye away from all that is on earth and seek none else but Me." (Tablets of Baha'u'llah,p 169)

"My sole purpose hath been to hand down unto men that which I was bidden to deliver by God, the Gracious, the Incomparable, that it may detach them from all that pertaineth to this world, and cause them to attain such heights as neither the ungodly can conceive, nor the froward imagine." (Gleanings, p 108)

"Detach yourselves from all else but Me, and turn your faces towards My face, for better is this for you than the things ye possess." (Baha'u'llah: Gleanings, p 257)

"Peruse My verses with joy and radiance. Verily they will attract you unto God and will enable you to detach yourselves from aught else save Him." (Importance of Deepening, p 188)

The quotes tell me that we are being asked to be wholly absorbed in God. In that absorbed state, it makes no sense to say, in an objective way, "There is no God but God", because now we are 'inside' God and saying "He is God". The negative forces of "no", don't have a reality there. They have been wiped away. And we should wipe their reality away from our hearts too by forgetting about them and being wholly focused on Baha'u'llah and magnifying his name.

In my own words, I would say "He is a jealous God" (in a nice way). A jealous lover is a person who forbids their beloved from turning their attention to any thing else but the lover. And a jealous lover is a serious force to be reckoned with. The slightest distraction is unacceptable. That is how I think of Baha'u'llah. But I like that, because he's so cool to be with, who would want to be with anyone else anyway? It makes my life happy because I am doing the one thing I want to do, and the one thing Baha'u'llah would have me do. It's a win-win.

Also, I've thought a lot about those negative 'no' forces, and have come to the conclusion that they are bigger than me by a mile, in any case. It was a huge relief to realise that what was required of me was to love Baha'u'llah, and not to win a battle with the negative forces. Baha'u'llah is more powerful than any negative force and is able to deal with them as he pleases. He is God, not me. The purpose of creation is for the believer to return to God; the sideshows are a mirage for those given to distractions.

"This is not the day for any man to question his Lord. When thou hearest the call of God voiced by Him Who is the Dayspring of grandeur, cry out: ’Here am I, O Lord of all names! Here am I, O Maker of the heavens! I testify that Thou hast revealed Thyself and hast revealed whatsoever Thou didst desire at Thine Own behest. Thou, in truth, art the Lord of strength and might.’” Tabernacle of Unity 2:11

The Day not followed by night

2010-09-15T14:17:00.009+12:00

I'm finally ready to tackle this thorny one. I've been thinking about it for ages. Finally, a week or so back, I saw it in my heart and decided to record what I saw here.

I began thinking hard about this verse because it bears on the infallibility issue. Baha'is believe that, with this being the Day that shall not be followed by night, the Baha'is will never go off the straight path because the House of Justice is infallible and will guide them aright. House infallibility, therefore, is integral to the common interpretation of this verse. Needless to say, I think this interpretation is magical thinking. But it challenged me to think about what the verse does mean.

I don't know all the places where Baha'u'llah writes about this Day not being followed by night, but my commentary will be on its use in Suriy-i-Haykal, paragraph 63:

"O Temple of Holiness! We, verily, have cleansed Thy breast from the whisperings of the people and sanctified it from earthly allusions, that the light of My beauty may appear therein and be reflected in the mirrors of all the worlds. Thus have We singled Thee out above all that hath been created in the heavens and the earth, and above all that hath been decreed in the realms of revelation and creation, and chosen Thee for Our own Self. This is but an evidence of the bounty which God hath vouchsafed unto Thee, a bounty which shall last until the Day that hath no end in this contingent world. It shall endure so long as God, the Supreme King, the Help in Peril, the Mighty, the Wise, shall endure. For the Day of God is none other but His own Self, Who hath appeared with the power of truth. This is the Day that shall not be followed by night, nor shall it be bounded by any praise, would that ye might understand!"

In my view, when Baha'u'llah speaks of the Day that is not followed by night, he is referring to a transcendent spiritual reality - the one that came into existence with his appearance. The paragraph above tells us that Baha'u'llah has been singled out "for Our own Self" and that this bounty to him "shall last until the Day that hath no end in this contingent world". So the 'Day' that will not end is the spiritual reality of the bounty that came into existence when Baha'u'llah appeared.

The way I understand this is as follows: Baha'u'llah explains in the Kitab-i Iqan that no distinction is to be made between the manifestations. They are all one and reflect all the names and attributes of God. However, their revelations differ in their intensity, which means that, if some manifestations appeared not to show certain divine qualities, this was because of the purpose of their revelation not because the manifestation did not inherently posses that quality.

What we see in Baha'u'llah is God revealing "his own Self". Baha'u'llah's revelation is a supreme one in that God decided not to hold back anything and decided to reveal all of himself. Up to now, God has set limits on what the manifestations were permitted to reveal, but with Baha'u'llah, he let the limits go a great deal. The grace associated with this generous act is infinite and has ushered in what we refer to as the Day of God, for in revelation terms, God himself has been revealed in Baha'u'llah.

The logic of the phrase in question follows from this. What night could be followed by such a Day? Once God has been revealed, how could a night follow? This Day of God "shall endure so long as God, the Supreme King, the Help in Peril, the Mighty, the Wise, shall endure", as the passage above says, so basically nothing can follow it.

I am greatly struck by this idea of a reality being never ending. When I meditate on it, it forces me to think about how huge God is, that he has created this bounty that will never end. I believe the same 'never-ending' idea is also found in Baha'u'llah's Mathnavi. There, Baha'u'llah introduces the idea of a never-ending Spring. He first mentions it in line 36: "Bring a new green spring for all to see/raise up the dead for Your Resurrection", and continues discussing its qualities for another 30 verses.

But within this eternal Spring-time that Baha'u'llah's appearance has brought about, other familiar cycles continue, such as the cycle of revelation. Baha'u'llah tells us in the Kitab-i Iqan that a manifestation does not come unless the condition of 'oppression' exists in the world. In other words, for a manifestation to appear, the people of this world must have gone astray.

"What 'oppression' is more grievous than that a soul seeking the truth, and wishing to attain unto the knowledge of God, should know not where to go for it and from whom to seek it? … This 'oppression' is the essential feature of every Revelation. Unless it cometh to pass, the Sun of Truth will not be made manifest. For the break of the morn of divine guidance must needs follow the darkness of the night of error." Iqan, para 29

Here is the potential source of confusion. On the one hand, Baha'u'llah says that this Day shall not be followed by night, but on the other, he says that the darkness of error must exist before another manifestation will come. As I understand it, this apparent contradiction is explained by recognising that these two statements are true on different levels. Baha'u'llah's eternal Spring-time is an endless Day in the spiritual realm of the Kingdom. Baha'u'llah's many mystical works describe how its appearance affected that, and other, spiritual realms. This Day reigns outside of time; in fact, it reigns over all of the past and all of the future (500,000 years), which I think this verse in Tablet of the Bell refers to:

"Praised be Thou, O my God, I beseech Thee by Thy Day, whereon all days have been resurrected, and by Thy enumerating from it both former and latter times."

But within Baha'u'llah's eternal supra-Day, the cycle of revelation will continue, manifestations will come and go, and that will involve humanity passing through the darkness of error. This means that the Baha'is will experience a night too, and that, when it comes, their leaders will fall like stars from heaven, just as previous ones have.

"[The revelation of Baha'u'llah] will constitute the first stage in a series of Dispensations, to be established by future Manifestations, all deriving their inspiration from the Author of the Baha'i Revelation, and destined to last, in their aggregate, no less than five thousand centuries. "(Shoghi Effendi: Citadel of Faith, p5)

The Baha'i interpretation of 'the Day not followed by night' verse results in a similar error to the one made by Muslims over 'the seal of the prophets' verse. Again, it is a matter of understanding a verse on its correct level. It is true that Muhammad is the Seal of the Prophets, but Baha'u'llah tells us that this statement applies to the transcendent reality of the manifestation - firstly, that it is true of all manifestations and, secondly, that it is true of Muhammad specifically because it identifies his revelation as coming immediately before the Day of God. So, even though Muhammad is the Seal of the Prophets, this does not mean the cycle of revelation has ended, as most Muslims believe.

Similarly, the statement that this is the Day not followed by night is about the nature and intensity of Baha'u'llah's revelation - that Baha'u'llah revealed the Self of God. It does not mean that, all of a sudden, the Baha'is can never go off the straight path! God forbid. This interpretation is also a claim to the finality of revelation, for the night of error is a necessary requirement for a manifestation to appear.

I am not suggesting that the reality of Baha'u'llah's eternal Day does not affect what happens in this physical world. The Most Great Peace will come, and life across globe will get easier. But this does not mean that God will stop sending his messages in ways that are contrary to our idle fancies, and it also does not mean that humans will stop rejecting God's signs.

On wealth

2010-09-03T11:22:00.006+12:00

I was inspired to write on wealth again here because I've just read a fabulous paragraph, newly translated, in which Baha'u'llah is quoted by Nabil, making one of his usual hard-hitting one-liners. The paragraph appears on a new blog called Kashkul, which is put together by Will McCants. I can't recommend the blog highly enough. Will can translate the writings from the original languages and his entries are fresh translations of material not seen in English before. Here's the paragraph from Nabil's unpublished account:

One day in the outer part of the Blessed House (in Baghdad), one of the travelers from Tehran respectfully asked the Presence (Baha’u’llah), "How large of a stipend and expenditure does the Sadr A`zam (chancellor) allot you every month such that all the expenses which arise are completely taken care of?" (Baha’u’llah) said, "I should give the likes of the Sadr A`zam a salary, not them bestow it on me. My affairs are with God and not in the trust of others."

Nabil Zarandi’s unpublished history, excerpted in Mazandarani, Zuhur al-Haqq, 4: 227-8

Translated by Will McCants in "Fool's Gold"

What a scream. Baha'u'llah's comment captures the issue of wealth in a nutshell: no one gives Baha'u'llah a stipend; he gives everyone else one!

I have certainly been hit hard economically by events of the global financial crisis. For several years, I had a greatly reduced income. I would listen to the radio and think that getting work was very unlikely, given the economic situation. I focused on the depressing things going on around me and was resigned. In my prayers, I would beg Baha'u'llah to lead me to work or some source of income.

But during the year Steve and I were preparing to move north, I had no time to worry about it. I got used to being poor and started looking at the bright side. I adjusted my habits to accommodate my lack of income. I became inventive with my cooking, so that I eventually used all items in my cupboards, which had been there for years. When I had plenty of money, I never looked at them. When I had no money, I ate in a more healthy way because I had no money to be slack and buy everything from the supermarket.

As I began to let go the worry about money, I found myself becoming increasingly joyful. I felt free. Everyone worries about money. It's very difficult not to catch the disease. I shifted my focus from worry about lack of income to a joyful reliance on God. Might as well be happy, as anything, I thought.

When we got to our new home, I was in a position to work again. I began again asking Baha'u'llah if he would send me work. But this time, I took a new approach. I saw that I could suddenly revert into my worry state again, now that I had time to think more about the reality of my situation. The minute any kind of worry about money threatened, I saw how it impacted on my connection to Baha'u'llah. The joy would disappear and the darkness would threaten. I thought: 'no, I have survived this far, I am not about to start worrying again. I will ask Baha'u'llah respectfully for help, then leave it with him.' For I had learned that being happy and near Baha'u'llah was much more fun than worrying.

Two weeks later, a guy I worked for many years ago rang out of the blue and offered me lots of work.

The moral of the story is summed up in the following Word of Wisdom:

"The essence of wealth is love for Me; whoso loveth Me is the possessor of all things, and he that loveth Me not is indeed of the poor and needy." Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p156

If you need wealth, turn your heart to Baha'u'llah and focus on your love for him. Don't hassle him about money. He is the one that dishes out the stipends; that's easy for him. Higher on his agenda is for us to love him and be near him. And that means we love him for his own sake, not because he can do things for us.

It occurred to me that this conclusion is backed up by the Tablet of Ahmad. The whole tablet is about truly recognising God and how important that is. At the very end, Baha'u'llah says he'll sort out all our problems if we say the tablet sincerely. This suggests that getting our hearts in the right place is what matters. The rest is worthy of just a final comment.

On the phrase, "He is God"

2010-08-18T13:13:00.014+12:00

I searched MARS to find commentary on the meaning of the phrase "He is God" and found a couple of passages from Abdu'l-Baha about it. Confirming the principle that the Word of God has multiple meanings, Abdu'l-Baha gives two different, but complementary meanings, neither of which I want to dwell on here, for another meaning is found in Baha'u'llah's Commentary on a Verse of Rumi, which I do want to discuss. But I will quickly cover Abdu'l-Baha's two meanings as well.

The first comment I found from Abdu'l-Baha appears in Promulgation of Universal Peace. He mentions it while explaining the opening verse from John ("In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God") and how this bears on the station of Christ and the fact that he is the Word. In response, Abdu'l-Baha explains that Christ embodied all the perfections of God, therefore it can be said that "He is God".

"'The Word was with God.' The Christhood means not the body of Jesus but the perfection of divine virtues manifest in Him. Therefore, it is written, "He is God." This does not imply separation from God, even as it is not possible to separate the rays of the sun from the sun. The reality of Christ was the embodiment of divine virtues and attributes of God. For in Divinity there is no duality. All adjectives, nouns and pronouns in that court of sanctity are one; there is neither multiplicity nor division. The intention of this explanation is to show that the Words of God have innumerable significances and mysteries of meanings - each one a thousand and more." (Promulgation of Universal Peace, p 155)

Given that "He is God" can mean "Christ is God", it is also the case that "He is God" means "Baha'u'llah is God".

The second comment from Abdu'l-Baha is from volume 3 of Tablets of Abdu'l-Baha. It is a short tablet written specifically to explain the meaning of the phrase. Abdu'l-Baha says it means that the Essence of God cannot be accessed by humans and that our access to God is through Baha'u'llah.

"Thou hast asked regarding the phrase, 'He is God!' written above the Tablets. By this Word it is intended that no one hath any access to the Invisible Essence. The way is barred and the road is impassable. In this world all men must turn their faces toward 'Him-whom God-shall-Manifest.' He is the 'Dawning-place of Divinity' and the 'Manifestation of Deity.' He is the 'Ultimate Goal,' the 'Adored One' of all and the 'Worshipped One' of all." (Tablets of Abdu'l-Baha Vol 3*, p 485)

The point seems to be that, because our access to the essence of God is cut off, we therefore access God through Baha'u'llah; in which case, we can say: "He [Baha'u'llah] is God".

The two definitions are therefore closely related: one says "Christ is God" and the other says "Baha'u'llah is God"; but in both, the basic idea is that the Essence of God is out of reach, therefore, we say that the manifestation is God. And it doesn't matter which manifestation we are talking about, they are all "God" from the point of view of their divine stations.

Baha'u'llah's discussion of the phrase "He is God" in his Commentary on a Verse of Rumi appears to give a new, but no doubt related, meaning. It comes out of a fascinating paragraph, which begins with the bald statement: "These days are the manifestation of the firm and incontrovertible phrase, 'No God is there but He.'" [para 2] For years, I understood Baha'u'llah to be referring to the new Day of God when he used the words "these days". And perhaps he does, but I'll pass over that issue for now because more evidence about it comes up later. The rest of the first sentence - "God is there but He" - seems straightforward, until Baha'u'llah expands on its implications in the next sentence. He goes on to explain the significance of the way the famous "No" phrase is worded. In particular, the fact that the word "no" is at the beginning of the phrase and precedes the word "God" means that the negative idea of "no" appears to dominate over the positive idea of God. As Baha'u'llah puts it: "The negative particle modifying the positive noun is prior to and has taken precedence over the essence of affirmation."

This placement of the word "no" at the beginning of the phrase has implications for reality, for the Word of God is the author of reality and the way that God has chosen to word things makes a difference to how events play out in the physical world. Baha'u'llah explains that the presence of the word "no" at the beginning of the phrase has resulted in the forces of darkness appearing to win out against the forces of light in this world. He says: "What you have witnessed, that to outward seeming the letters of negation have triumphed over the letters of affirmation, is because of the influence of this phrase", and states that the phrase was consciously worded in this fashion on account of a hidden wisdom of God: "the Revealer of [the phrase] has, owing to a hidden wisdom, caused the negative particle to come first in this universal phrase." He doesn't tell us what that wisdom is because it would cause the reader to fall dead. (That's what I like about Baha'u'llah, he knows really important stuff!)

I found Baha'u'llah's point reassuring: I wasn't going mad; the baddies do seem to win. (For those who haven't seen the movie "No Country for Old Men", it is about that issue. And there's that negative particle appearing at the beginning of a phrase again.) But Baha'u'llah's next point is reassuring. He explains that although events on earth do seem to play out in a way that's contrary to God's will, on an esoteric level - that is, on a higher spiritual plane - they are playing out exactly according to God's will.

Baha'u'llah says that the "form of the words" is like a container that holds truth, and the meanings intended by God are like pearls of knowledge that are deposited in them. The people can find those pearls of knowledge only when God lifts a veil and gives us access to them. Paragraph 3 is devoted to an illustration of this principle: the Muslim clergy wrote commentaries about the Qur'an but never understood it. But with the appearance of the Bab, God has lifted a veil and this has enabled children to know more than clergymen.

At the beginning of paragraph 4 comes the other striking point: that the All-Merciful says in this dispensation: "We have removed the negative particle from before the affirmation…" (God does not give the wisdom for doing this, but might send it later). So what have we got? It seems to me that if the negative particle is removed from the beginning of the "No" phrase, we are left with something like "God is there but He", which can be turned around to the positive statements "God is He" and "He is God".

Back to the first sentence of para 2: "These days are the manifestation of the firm and incontrovertible phrase, 'No God is there but He.'" I now think that by the words "these days", Baha'u'llah refers to the early days of his dispensation before events in the physical world have had a chance to manifest the change in the wording of the phrase. For it seems clear that, with the appearance of the Bab ("In this dispensation"), the negative particle has been removed and so the influence of the "no" on the word "God" has been removed.

This gives us a new explanation of the phrase "He is God". In this new dispensation, God has removed the negative particle "no" from before the positive noun "God" in the phrase "No God is there but He". Therefore, Baha'is say, "He is God".

The implications of this new wording on the world are beyond anyone but God. But it is inspiring to think about their possibilities, knowing that anything we can dream up will be a drop in the bucket of the reality. For, how could anyone in the 1980s have imagined the implications of the Internet a decade later? I often think about how Baha'u'llah told the believers that, in future, women will be able to travel all over the world unveiled and alone, without fear of molestation. That must have seemed extraordinary to them. (I can't remember where I read that; I hope I didn't dream it up.)

More on this topic next time, provided I can get my head around it.

Baha'u'llah's images

2010-08-10T09:47:00.008+12:00

For years, I've been grappling with the concept of detachment and how to explain it. Baha'u'llah does define it in a few places; here's one such definition:

"The essence of detachment is for man to turn his face towards the courts of the Lord, to enter His Presence, behold His Countenance, and stand as witness before Him." (Words of Wisdom, Tablets p155)"

But these are just words until the meaning dawns in the heart, and that is the understanding I am trying to fathom. I saw another vista of it the other night, when I couldn't sleep and got up to pray.

I've found over the last, say, three years that the images Baha'u'llah creates in his writings have stayed with me and have begun to paint a metaphorical picture in my mind's eye of creation through Baha'u'llah's eyes. That creation is the mind-boggling vastness of this physical world and the infinite spiritual worlds. My overall sense of the universe that I occupy has expanded. For much of my life, my sense was of living in this physical world. My world was bounded by the physical features that surrounded me. But through the images that Baha'u'llah uses in his writings, and his persistent instruction to look at him and not the world, it's as if I've 'lifted' my eyes up and looked beyond and begun to see the infinite creation around me. The world I occupy now isn't bounded by its physical features, but by the vistas Baha'u'llah has implanted in my heart.

Here are some examples of those images. A couple of early ones to get a hold on me are from the first Persian Hidden Word. Baha'u'llah tells us to live on the mount of faithfulness and in the garden of the spirit, and points out that these are my "habitation". Gee, my habitation, I thought. You mean that's where he has decreed I should be living. I knew I wasn't living there. It sounded too good, and certainly better than where I was. He ends the Hidden Word with another key point "if on the wings of thy soul thou soarest to the realm of the infinite and seekest to attain thy goal." So I realised that if I was to grab hold of what Baha'u'llah held out to me in his chalice, I had better up sticks and move myself to the designated habitation.

More recently, I have been impressed by the frequent use Baha'u'llah makes of the image of the horizon. I just did a search in MARS and there are 244 uses of the word 'horizon'. Most commonly, the horizon is the Supreme Horizon, and the other references are to images of the same thing; for example, the horizon of God's will. But when I awoke to the many references to the horizon in the writings, I began looking at the horizon in my physical world and gradually came to see it as the Supreme Horizon - not literally, but metaphorically.

And now, you see, 'canopy'. I have horizon, now what about a canopy to join the horizons all around me up? There are canopies too - the canopy of majesty, the canopy of grace and the canopy of mercy.

So maybe you are getting the idea: my habitation is in the rose garden of the spirit, on the mount of faithfulness, surrounded by the Supreme Horizon and a sky of grace. You can fill out your picture as you please, because there is no shortage of images in the writings. I like "the Orb of Thy Power" (gives me a sun), "the Day-Spring of Glory" (gives me a water source) and "the Ocean of Thy Grace"(gives me a view to die for). (Blue prayer book, pp148-9)

When I realised that I was unconsciously creating a metaphorical world around me, I had a new way of understanding detachment. For the times when I cannot see this metaphorical universe are the times when I have become caught up worrying about the details of my life. I create little dramas in my heart and mind over life's difficulties. Then I become attached to the world, and forget that the only answer to any problem is God, not me. I forget the import of the images: the Orb of Thy Power - what does that tell me? That if I need anything in my life, then having that Orb in my universe is a really smart way to go!

This, then, gives you an idea of my spiritual journey and the place I'm headed on it. I'll finish with these wonderful images: "Therefore, cast away what is in your right hand, then follow God's paradise so that you might find an august station at the center of the Garden near the sea of immortality." (Countenance of Love) I really like the image of a vast garden stretching right down to the edge of a beach and on to the sea.

The water company

2010-07-29T12:10:00.005+12:00

Many months ago, someone wrote to me in response to my short biography at the top of this site, where I say that I am a Baha'i by faith but not a member of the community. This person was perplexed: how could someone be Baha'i but not a member of the community?

I was a member of the community for 20 years and used to see things that way too. I used to think 'Baha'i' and 'Baha'i faith', and could see no further than the Baha'i community. The community was my little haven and the world beyond the community was a spiritual desert. It's no wonder Baha'is fear expulsion. How can one survive 'out there'?

I didn't have a ready answer to that question when I was expelled. Initially, I just kept to my spiritual disciplines, which luckily I had instilled into my daily routine: read the writings every morn and eve, say my obligatory prayer, fast, and so on. In fact, it took me about 7-8 years to fully get out of thinking that the faith was confined to the community. I am amazed at how long it took. But I had to overcome 20 years of socialisation. I always knew intellectually that the faith was bigger than the community, but it took 7-8 years for my soul to see reality in that new light.

I remember it all came together one day. It was one of those 'Ah ha' moments that can't be captured in words. I was looking around me when suddenly I 'saw' the revelation manifesting itself in every atom, as Baha'u'llah says it does. I saw it manifesting itself in everything and everyone in my little world. Suddenly, I saw the faith everywhere. Here's a lovely passage where Baha'u'llah describes his influence seeping from the hidden word out through the temples of all things and man.

"From the depths of utter obscurity He hath brought forth into the open court that hidden word upon which depend the spirits of all the prophets and saints.

When He took that secret word from the realm of pure being and absolute unity and manifested it in the worlds of creation, by that act a breeze of mercy arose, wiping the stench of sin from all things and placing a new robe of forgiveness upon the numberless temples of all things and man." Tablet of the Deathless Youth

The view represented by my questioner reminds of me of a story I heard - I'm not sure if it's true, but that doesn't matter. The story was of a company that had been given by its government the rights to all water. The company even claimed to own the rain. This meant that people weren't allowed to collect rain water at home. Presumably, if they did, it was a considered a debt to the water company.

This is the mistake I think the Baha'is make: they think the community and its administration has been given by Baha'u'llah sole access to Baha'u'llah's grace, so that any claim to be Baha'i outside of that system is considered illegitimate. But the reality is that Baha'u'llah controls his own grace - he does as he wills - and he wills that his grace rains on all alike, as the following passage clearly states:

"Thou art the All-Bountiful, the overflowing showers of Whose mercy have rained down upon high and low alike, and the splendors of Whose grace have been shed over both the obedient and the rebellious." (Baha'u'llah: Prayers and Meditations, p 250)

This means that I can be, and am, Baha'i without being a member of the Baha'i community and without recourse to anyone except Baha'u'llah. I suggest that any Baha'i struggling to get their head around this should get out more and open their heart to the universal nature of the revelation. There's a lot going on out there that oughtn't to be missed.

Among the trees

2010-07-15T13:09:00.005+12:00

I've chosen a new template for my blog to reflect my new home, which is surrounded by trees. The property has a few acres of native bush on it, and the background I've chosen here gives an idea of what it's like to walk amongst the bush.

Steve and I have been here just over a week now. I had seen the property only once before and was wondering how I would like it second time round - this time, as my new home. But it turned out to be even better than I imagined. The place is stunningly beautiful. Every window in the house has a fabulous view out over the bush. It is glorious. All of the time, it lifts my spirits up. I feel like the luckiest girl in the world getting to live here. On warm days, I am able to sit out on the veranda in the sun and enjoy the amazing view.

It has been a long and stressful journey for Steve and me to get here. The renovations have left Steve with an ongoing pain in one of his arms. The constant work, decision making and organising left me very tired. My sleeping patterns went all to hell. I was unable to think about doing any writing. But now, I'm feeling in good shape. I want to leave all that behind me and get on with engaging my creative side again. The environment is certainly conducive to it! The Lord has been so kind to me, enabling me to come to such a great place to write.

And it's the fathomless grace of the Lord that I want to write about. In my view, experiencing that limitless grace in the appearance of Baha'u'llah and his new revelation is at the heart of why we are here and how we can best express our gratitude for it. Although Baha'u'llah's birthday isn't until November, I say one of his birthday tablets all the time. I love it because it focuses on the enormous bounty associated with his coming. If you want to be uplifted, I recommend it. It is celebration itself. Every moment of time celebrates Baha'u'llah's coming, so there is never a wrong time to get stuck into it.

"O concourse of the lovers of God! By the righteousness of the Almighty! This, verily, is a night the like of which hath never been manifested in the world of creation. Truly, this bounty is from God, the All-Powerful, the Beneficent. ...

Say: This, verily, is a night during which a pre-ordained measure of bounty and grace hath been decreed in the Scrolls of celestial glory and certitude, so that sorrow may be dispelled from all created things forever more. Therefore, rejoice in thy hearts, O ye who hath entered the realms of being and creation!" Tablet on the Birth of the Greatest Name II

Our new place upstairs

2010-06-18T13:33:00.010+12:00

It's official: Steve and I have this week sold our house, and are therefore free to move to our new home in the north. I can't believe it has finally become a reality. We have been preparing for this since May 09, which is just over a year, and seven months of that was hard-slog renovation. It all happened so quickly. We completed the last task on the house, put the house on the market, and negotiated a sale inside a week! We were delighted, because the average days for selling is 45 at the moment. It went like a dream, of course, because Baha'u'llah guided it through.

I think now about the dream I had soon after the fast in 2008. I blogged about it; it's called "Moving upstairs". Here's a few paragraphs of what I wrote. I think it is an example of what Baha'u'llah means when he says we dream something now and see it fulfilled in the future. The "friend" is, of course, myself.

"And so, in the dream, my friend was showing me the extensive alterations to her house. She had a whole new storey built onto her house. She showed me the new layout and use for the ground floor. She had brought in a lodger to live downstairs. He was a quiet Asian student and she showed me how she had made alterations to the back of the house so that he had space to put all his things. ... The dream seemed to be saying that this aspect of me has been put in order.

Then my friend invited me to see the new upstairs, where she now hung out. Ah, this was a revelation. Upstairs, she had built three very large rooms. All of them had a line of windows stretching all along the outer wall and they were flooded with light and sunshine. I saw pillars in the middle of the rooms to keep the ceiling up. But, and here's the interesting thing, the rooms were all empty! Two of them were entirely bare apart from the pillars. The third room had my friend's old bedroom in one corner of it. The rest of the room was also bare. As I looked around me and took it all in, I thought how lucky my friend was to have these lovely rooms with all that light and what fun she had in store figuring out what she was going to do with them and how she would furnish them.

The other thing that struck me was that my friend was still learning how to live upstairs. Up until now, she'd lived downstairs, focused entirely on working hard. She had not yet learned how to live upstairs, which was why she was still occupying one corner of one room and the rest was bare. She needed to spend more time upstairs, getting a feel for the place and allowing herself the time and pleasure of figuring out how she would use the other rooms and furnish them."

At the time of writing this in March 08, I believed (rightly) that it showed me I was undergoing a huge spiritual change. Late March 08 marked the beginning of the 9th year after my expulsion; Baha'u'llah was nine years in Akka before moving into the country, and I had asked him if he might ordain for me to move out of my 'Akka' to freedom. What I hadn't realised was that this spiritual change would have a physical manifestation in the form of us moving house into the country. I look now in wonder at the accuracy of the symbolism in the dream, particularly the image of the upstairs being sunny and full of light - for the northern part of New Zealand is much warmer than the south. I guess it is now time for me to occupy the rest of the upstairs rooms and begin to furnish them.

But the story has another layer of meaning, which is establishing roots now and will gradually reveal itself over the rest of my life. It anticipates my physical death: the shift from the physical world to the eternal abode, which is the ultimate manifestation of "upstairs". The move from the south to the north that I am about to make is a sign of that ultimate move from the physical world to the celestial realm.

How does one prepare now for that move? Yes, that is, perhaps, the important question about the spiritual journey. I have my answer, which is derived from my experience. The dream captures the heart of it: put in order and let go of our downstairs; awaken to the upstairs reality. Baha'u'llah outlines repeatedly in his writings the essentials of how to do this: we must detach ourselves from the things of this world and, instead, focus our complete attention on the eternal realm.

"O friend, the heart is the dwelling of eternal mysteries, make it not the home of fleeting fancies; waste not the treasure of thy precious life in employment with this swiftly passing world. Thou comest from the world of holiness - bind not thine heart to the earth; thou art a dweller in the court of nearness - choose not the homeland of the dust." (Baha'u'llah, in the Valley of Wonderment)

Here's another quote, taken at random. If you look for this theme in the writings, you'll see that it is everywhere. (It reminds me of the American woman who, once she became obsessed with smiley faces, saw them everywhere she went.)

"Then, O birds of the sacred skies, do not deprive yourselves, by virtue of your concentration upon this ephemeral world, of this immortal fountain. Possibly you will receive permission to enter the eternal chamber of audience with the glorious beauty. Thus do we make mention to you of the mysteries, insofar as what was referred to in all the tablets as the water of life was hidden from your intellects and your hearts. Perhaps you will attain to the water in that spring after severing yourselves from all who are in the heavens and on earth, and will return to the wonders of his overflowing grace." Breath of Spirit, paragraph 6

There's a great deal that can be said about this subject, and I hope in future to write about it in detail. But here, for now, I'll make a few points.

People get bent out of shape about passages like this. They think Baha'u'llah is advocating something akin to ascetism. But that can't be the case, because in other places he's denounced it and told monks to get out of their cloisters and marry. Our lives should produce fruit, he says, otherwise we're fit only for the fire. I think what he means - bearing in mind that his meaning is fathomless - is that our primary and principal focus must be on our spiritual and eternal source and home, which is God/Baha'u'llah. This Reality has a prior and superior claim on us; it trumps everything in creation. We show our recognition of this through a regular devotional life, in which we discuss the ongoing details of our lives with the Lord. The Lord rules over us and sets the standard on which we determine the right thing to do. If we are detached from the world, as the quotes above ask us to be, we will steer our lives according to this primal relationship. But if we are attached to things in the world, we'll consider them more important and make poor (immoral or unjust) decisions.

By establishing this regular discipline in our lives (it requires, you'll recall, getting away from everything twice a day to read the writings and pray), a spiritual tree begins to grow in our soul. We make mistakes; it doesn't matter. With a pure heart, we pick ourselves up and keep trying. Gradually, the tree of our fidelity grows and gives off a light that influences others. This is how true teaching occurs. It is 'powered' by the crystal-like reflections of our soul, when it is in a healthy spiritual state. This explains why the quotes above appear to advocate that a person should focus primarily on their own salvation and not that of others. It is for the simple reason that a person who has not yet found salvation cannot guide others to it.

And so, over time, we gradually become attached to the things of the Lord and detached from what's going on in the physical world. A mystical reality appears before us, and we see the eternal reality of paradise. In the following passage, Baha'u'llah testifies that this process has taken place in the soul of his correspondent. He speaks to her from his realm of eternity, acknowledging that she has flown 'up' into his eternal realm of the spirit and drawn near to him. Well, what else can he do, when someone comes knocking on his door, but welcome her in?

"Countenance of love, we have recognized your longing for God in the pavilions of eternity, insofar as you drew near and attained, in the arenas of encounter, to the presence of God. Thus have we reckoned everything in a book that was decreed in the Tablet. Know that you have advanced to the sanctuary of beauty and visited the kaaba of holiness in the garden of paradise on the Mount Paran of love." Countenance of Love

The final point I want to make is that, like Baha'u'llah's correspondent in the quote above, we must find paradise before we die physically. For when we die physically, we enter the world that our spiritual state has created for us at that moment. The reality of paradise must already exist within us, if we are to find it in the hereafter. Without it, we don't know how to get there and will not miraculously find it after death, except by the grace of God. I think this is what's meant in the following enigmatic verse, which Baha'u'llah quotes in the Valley of Wonderment:

"O Son, if thou art able not to sleep, then thou art able not to die. And if thou art able not to waken after sleep, then thou shalt be able not to rise after death."

I interpret "sleep" as the condition of a person who has not detached from the world and awoken to the reality of the eternal realm and home.

The divine springtime

2010-04-19T08:51:00.003+12:00

Ridvan has come around again and I am back reading the Ridvan-related passages at the beginning of Gleanings. But they seem a world away from the strange life I'm living currently. I am in the middle of a huge transition, and it is dominated by work on our house in preparation for its sale. Every day, weather permitting, Steve and I are out sanding and painting. I have been working on the house now since early November and I feel like I have changed professions from writer to renovator. My prayer life is dominated with appeals to Baha'u'llah to stop me from going into despair over it all. And, well, he must be helping out a lot because somehow I'm managing to stay the course.

We expect to have the house on the market in May, which isn't that far away. We have certainly done much of the work needed. And, once it's sold, Steve and I will get in the car and drive north to the other end of the country and a new world. I believe my whole life is entering a divine springtime. Going from a cold climate to a semi-tropical one, and from city living to country living, I expect not much about my life will stay the same except my family and Baha'u'llah.

I have plans to do lots of writing, which I hope I will find the time to bring to fruition - everyday things seem always to take over. Baha'u'llah says repeatedly in his Ridvan-related tablets about announcing to everyone the good news about his revelation. I've struggled for decades to figure out an effective way to do that, given that people are so suspicious of religion these days and have good reason to be. But I have some ideas about how to overcome that problem. Baha'u'llah says we are quickeners of mankind, not fishers of men, which makes me think that I need to put the message out there in my own way and let people choose to like or not as they will.

He is the Unconstrained

2010-03-04T08:36:00.008+13:00

Yesterday, I was reminded about the issue of women on the House. I hadn't thought about it for years, so I pondered the issue briefly again to register what my heart would say. First, I noticed that the issue did not raise my hackles, as it used to. I found I couldn't bring myself to care, in that I have moved on and other things interest me more now. In part, this is because my Baha'i experience is located outside of the Baha'i community these days and is therefore not concerned with the community's administrative problems.

I also found myself saying: it's inevitable that women will be on the House one day. The reason for this is the following. I have just finished reading the book "Wolf Hall" by Hilary Mantel (which is brilliant, by the way; a must-read, in my view). It is set in the time of Henry VIII - the transition time between his first and second wives. I didn't realise how much change went on in England during that time. A key issue was church and state, played out as whether the king of England was subject to the Pope, for if he was, then the Pope's religious law trumped any civil law made by Parliament. It's a fascinating subject in itself, but my point here is that reading the book threw me back into the prevailing attitudes of the time. I saw how issues that are settled by society now, back then, were being debated with great passion. And people were dying for them; for example, whether the people could have access to the gospels in English. Back then, if you had an English translation of the gospel, you would be burned. (Interesting, eh, the parallels: today the Baha'i administration tries to control scripture, too).

This is a long-winded way of saying that, viewed in this light, it is inevitable that women will one day be on the House. The Baha'is debate the issue, bringing in all manner of detail about what Abdul'Baha said here and there and bringing up 'evidence' like women having periods, but all this is like "the droning of a gnat in an endless valley" (Summons, p10). What these attitudes reflect is not related to the issue of women on the House, but to the state of the souls of those that voice them. For example, we get a picture of the spiritual state of those who burned people for having English bibles.

The way I look at issues like women on the House these days is in terms of the names and attributes of God, for these are the building blocks of reality. They explain the reality of the principle that men and women are equal: they are equal because both have the capacity to reflect all the names and attributes of God. Given this, women are able to be manifestations and House members just as much as men can. This was always true, but God has chosen to reveal it in this revelation.

And one day, the potentiality of this equality in the realm of the names and attributes will be manifested on earth in the form of women on the House. This will come about when God wills it. Baha'u'llah says that people would not be able to see the sun if God did not will for them to be able to do so. God unlocks the hidden possibilities in human souls according to his inscrutable decree. I used to hear Baha'is say in a cavalier sort of way that the next manifestation will be a woman. But, oh boy, look at the furore the mere thought of a woman on the House is causing!

God is unconstrained - this is what's important for me, above all. I can accept that the religion of God is constrained at any one time by those who reflect its light at that moment - which is why there are no women on the House now. What I can't accept is that those constrained humans have the power to constrain the outcomes of the Faith for all time. They can't, and to believe they can is chaining up the hand of God.

Here's another unconstrained thought: that, when quizzed, Baha'is will one day say: "Ruhi, what's that?"

The atmosphere of thy knowledge

2010-02-24T09:27:00.009+13:00

I'm aware that that's a grand title, and this reflects a conflict that goes on in me over what to write here about my spiritual journey and accounts for why I have, up to now, been conservative in what I have chosen to say. I have wonderful experiences and thoughts about Baha'u'llah, but know that the minute I try to put those things into words, they're liable to sound cheap compared to the experience.

But I've noticed that often Baha'u'llah says that when he writes about the majesty of God, his words are a blasphemy in that they are not and never can be even close to the reality he is trying to describe. However, I've also noticed him ask the Lord to inspire those who believe in him with a vision of the Lord's greatness so that they will feel compelled to gush out in words what they are experiencing, in the hope that the spirit in this effusion will attract others to Baha'u'llah. From all this, I'm starting to get a picture of how it works - well, a small picture that pertains to me and enables me to make sense of something that is a mystery. Even though any attempt I make to praise the Lord will inevitably fall short, nevertheless it is a bounty for me to do this so that others might be attracted by the spirit in what I say. This new understanding has given me fresh impetus to get writing, despite my inability to say anything about the Lord that is worthy.

As I said in my previous blog entry, I have been coping with the uncertainty that goes with packing up everything and moving to the opposite end of the country. This test has forced me to focus my attention on the meditations of the Bab and Baha'u'llah, in an effort to find an inner peace in the middle of my changeable circumstances. What did I find in the writings? First, I immersed myself in the Bab's meditations in the back of the Selections book. Repeatedly, he says that God is in control of everything and that nothing happens without the Lord's permission. I learned to repeat this line to myself: "Whatever God hath willed hath been, and that which He hath not willed shall not be." This gave me comfort. And then I'd repeat the line that comes after that: "There is no power nor strength except in God, the Most Exalted, the Most Mighty." (Selections from the writings of the Bab, p 191). Here is the same idea again, in different words:

"For assuredly whatsoever God hath decreed for Me shall come to pass and naught else save that which God hath ordained for us shall ever touch us." (Selections, p 15)

But of course, it's not that simple. What happened, and still happens, is that I would repeat these verses to myself in the morning during my prayer time, then get up to work on the house during the day and promptly forget what I had been repeating and fall back into my old mode of thinking. Then I'd wind up again about my situation and get into a panic state. Daily, I fought my stress and worries in this way. In the beginning, the effort felt hopeless. I would switch back into my old thinking patterns as soon as I put my prayer books down and got up to start my day. It was all about blind faith in God's promise to me then. I knew I was hopeless; all I had was perseverance. I just kept at it morning and evening, and sometimes not in the evening because I was too tired or wound up to read.

It's been several weeks and I've noticed some improvement. What I can see now, and couldn't before, is the existence of two spiritual worlds: the spiritual world in which I was living in my daily life, and the spiritual world that Baha'u'llah was calling me into. I've often wondered about the phenomenon of human culture, how people brought up in different cultures can be human and yet experience common things completely differently, having different stories with which to interpret what's happening to them. Now I see the differences between my old spiritual world and the one Baha'u'llah calls me to as being like two different cultures. Baha'u'llah says that everything in the physical world is a symbol of a spiritual reality. Now I see that my move from my old spiritual world to Baha'u'llah's spiritual world is a culture change. It means I have to re-examine everything I once held to be true and rethink the stories I tell myself in order to make sense of my world.

It was while I was meditating on this idea of a change in culture that I came across this verse, with the phrase "atmosphere of thy knowledge":

"I implore Thee, O my God and my Master, by Thy word through which they who have believed in Thy unity have soared up into the atmosphere of Thy knowledge..." (Baha'u'llah: Prayers and Meditations, p 188)

And I got to thinking about the concept of atmosphere - we have an atmosphere here on earth, which enables us to breathe, but there is a different atmosphere on the other planets, where we can't breathe. What is Baha'u'llah saying about his spiritual world, when he says it has a special atmosphere? All I know is that I need to be breathing the air from his world and stop breathing the air from mine.

News from the Marshalls

2010-02-03T12:30:00.002+13:00

It has been a month since I last wrote my blog. Steve and I have been very busy working on our property to prepare it for sale. I have lived in this house since the early 1980s, so I've built up many memories here and we've both accumulated much stuff. I see now how much one builds one's identity around a particular piece of dirt you call home. The last seven months have been about letting go of that identity by selling the stuff we've kept around us and renovating the house from room to room, which makes it look entirely different to the house we lived in for so long.

It's been a lesson in detachment. I've found the past month a stressful time, mostly due to the fact that our renovations required us to begin dismantling the lounge. The lounge is the place where I did all my growing up since I bought the property over 25 years ago. And Steve and I got married in the lounge, amid a thunder storm. When I bought this house, I was a solo mother and lived in fear of my daughter's father. Then in 2000 I spent a good year crying in the lounge as I adjusted to the Baha'i community thinking of me as a leper, and finding my Baha'i identity independently of the enrolled Baha'i community and the online Baha'i community. The lounge is where I prayed my heart out during those difficult times and developed a close relationship with Baha'u'llah - and it's that that I take with me as I leave this house and establish a new physical home in the north. Now that I'm over the initial stress, I feel secure in the knowledge that my sanctuary is with Baha'u'llah and that he will protect me as I make my way into my new life.

Steve and I have now sold the majority of the stuff we had lying around and are now occupied with renovating each room. We expect to be finished work on the house in March and to move when the place is sold. I feel like the hard part is over, and that was adjusting to the change and getting rid of the stuff. I am determined when I get to my new home that I will not get so bogged down with material possessions. One doesn't need much - a bed, table and chairs, a tele, furniture for computers, stuff for the kitchen, some linen and clothes, tools, books.

But I haven't spent the entire time focused on my own issues. I am haunted by the thought of what might be happening to the Baha'is who are on trial in Iran. I say the prayer at back of the US blue prayer book. When I think about what they must be experiencing, I consider my own worries to be non-existent. I often think of the line in a Neil Young song. I can't remember the name of the song, but it is on his album "On the beach", which is my favourite Neil Young album. The line goes:

I know my troubles are meaningless
But that don't make them go away.

Everyday, I look forward to being settled in my new place, so that I can begin writing in earnest again.

Response to Roy Hilbinger (2)

2010-01-04T11:19:00.013+13:00

In my last entry, I responded to some of the issues Roy Hilbinger raised in his blog entry "No going back" and said I had more to say. This time I want to respond particularly to this comment of Roy's: "there is in the writings of Baha’u'llah an advocacy of blind obedience".

What I was trying to say last time, and probably didn't drive home properly, was this: that Baha'u'llah isn't like an ordinary human being claiming to have authority over others and to lay down the law; for example, he's not like a politician or religious leader. Baha'u'llah is saying that his voice is the voice of existence; that is, the voice of nature and of reality. So when he says 'obey me no matter what I decree', there isn't any choice in the matter because, as they say in climate change circles, there's no negotiating with nature. Countries may be facing issues with their economies and pressure from interest groups, but nature will not compromise. Like or lump it, we must knuckle under and reduce emissions, make the necessary cultural and ethical changes that are required. To accuse nature of blind obedience is a category error, for one would not call the sun a despot because it regulates our whole existence by disappearing for half the day. In fact, we are so conditioned to its rhythm that we celebrate its patterns. We can see benefits in it, such as the chance to wind down and rest at night. Perhaps we've turned a negative - the sun's 'oppression' - into a positive.

I want now to go back to the ordinary, the usual, meaning of blind obedience, which is requiring a person to act according to another's instructions even if this means - and it usually does - acting against one's own conscience. First of all, I want to say that, contrary to Roy's assertion that Baha'u'llah advocates this, in fact Baha'u'llah forbids it absolutely. I will cite a couple of passages that I think make clear Baha'u'llah's uncompromising position on this.

I start with the well-known passage from the Arabic Hidden Words, in which Baha'u'llah links justice with conscience. He admonishes us to be just and explains that this involves us seeing with our own eyes and knowing with our own knowledge.

"O son of spirit! The best beloved of all things in My sight is Justice; turn not away therefrom if thou desirest Me, and neglect it not that I may confide in thee. By its aid thou shalt see with thine own eyes and not through the eyes of others, and shalt know of thine own knowledge and not through the knowledge of thy neighbor. Ponder this in thy heart; how it behooveth thee to be. Verily justice is My gift to thee and the sign of My loving-kindness. Set it then before thine eyes." (Baha'u'llah, Arabic Hidden Word no 2)

But there is another, lesser known passage from Surah of Sacrifice:

"Say: O people, act not as did the people of the Qur'an, and never surrender the reins of your insight into the hands of anyone else. Seize upon the grace proffered you in these days and see with your own eyes. Turn not upon your heels when the verses of your Lord are recited, nor be of those who reject the signs of God and hurl derision from where they sit." (paragraph 11)

You can see here that the word is "never"; never surrender the reins of your insight into the hands of another. I don't know, how clearer can it be?

The challenge inherent in what Baha'u'llah is saying can't be overstated. For example: we know from personal experience and from what we hear on the TV that there is a vast religious world out there that is the Muslim world. It's huge and has a powerful influence on the world. Muslims believe that Muhammad is the seal of the prophets and so refuse to give the time to day to Baha'u'llah's claim to be a prophet after Muhammad. But here is Baha'u'llah, seemingly against the odds, asking Muslims to look at his claims with an open mind, which is an enormous thing to ask of a believer who has been raised with the idea that his claim is heresy and should never be given the time of day.

But the challenge isn't just meant for Muslims. Just as there is a Muslim world, with its unique beliefs, customs and identity (whether scripturally based or not), there is an American culture with these too. It has beliefs, customs and an identity that is just as ingrained as the Muslim one. So what Baha'u'llah is saying here, when he asks us to see with our own eyes, is to see his claim without the rose-tinted glasses our culture has given us. I know that Roy genuinely believes he is seeing with his own eyes; nevertheless, he is seeing through the values of his culture: "The progressive social agenda is just a facade over something much darker; there is in the writings of Baha'u'llah an advocacy of blind obedience, and a condemnation of things that we as Americans hold as basic truths." This statement tells me that Roy's religion is American nationalism; it's to this pool of ideals that he appeals for his standard of truth. I doubt his interest in neo-Paganism would fundamentally challenge this standard.

There are other passages in which Baha'u'llah forbids blind obedience, but I'll not bother with them for I don't believe that citing passages will convince many of Baha'u'llah's sincerity in the matter. Instead, the point I want to make is that advocating blind obedience is against Baha'u'llah's system of thought. If Baha'u'llah is indeed the voice of existence, as he claims, then it's to the very heart of reality that he wants us to turn. Let's face it, as I have argued above, he is up against it asking people to do this; in addition to our cultural milieu, there are powerful influences such as family, love and work that pull our attention and alliances this way and that, depending on vested interests. Nevertheless, the principle is sound: in order to see reality, we must look at it with our own eyes. It is impossible to see reality in any other way; relying on others is indeed blind obedience. Therefore, if Baha'u'llah is the voice of reality and he wants us to see him, then we must blind ourselves to all else and gaze upon what stands before us - reality - with the faculties the Lord has placed within us; that is, with our own senses and mind. Independent action is, in this way, a fundamental requirement of Baha'u'llah's claim and teachings.

Response to Roy Hilbinger

2009-12-20T13:44:00.026+13:00

On the 2 December, Roy Hilbinger wrote a blog entry, "No going back", in which he gave his reasons for no longer believing in Baha'u'llah. Initially, I decided against responding, but one night, a response came to me and so I have decided to pursue it. I do not respond in order to convince Roy to change his beliefs. I don't blame him for getting irritated at Baha'is who hassle him to do so. I respect his decision and wish him well on his journey. Rather, I express here alternative ways of seeing the passages he quotes, which have put him off the writings, and explain the concepts that I believe underlie those passages and give them a different light. Having said that, I agree with some of the criticisms Roy makes, but do not see them as critiques of Baha'u'llah.

Roy says that he is particularly disturbed by the passages in which Baha'u'llah says there must be limits on liberty. He sees Baha'u'llah's position as "anti-democratic" and "almost cultic". (My initial reaction was to wonder if Roy had read Juan Cole's book Modernity and the Millennium, in which Juan shows how Baha'u'llah defended democracy at a time when to do so meant risking one's life. But that's not the approach I want to take here.) Roy quotes several passages; here's two, to give a flavour of what concerns him.

"Regard men as a flock of sheep that need a shepherd for their protection. This, verily, is the truth, the certain truth. We approve of liberty in certain circumstances, and refuse to sanction it in others. We, verily, are the All-Knowing." Kitab-i-Aqdas, para 124

"It is incumbent upon them who are in authority to exercise moderation in all things. Whatsoever passeth beyond the limits of moderation will cease to exert a beneficial influence. Consider for instance such things as liberty, civilization and the like. However much men of understanding may favourably regard them, they will, if carried to excess, exercise a pernicious influence upon men." Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p 169

Roy says he gets particularly upset at the second passage above: "This one always bothered me a lot; how can civilization be considered excessive?" Well, I would argue that the kind of thing Baha'u'llah had in mind would include our global troubles with the finance sector. As I understand it, the global financial crisis was caused by people who control a large proportion of global wealth not following prudent financial practices and taking extreme risks in order to make fortunes. I think this is an example of the liberty offered by civilisation being carried to excess. The finance sector is a good thing and is an important development for our civilisation, but its players have been allowed to go to extremes and we've all paid dearly for that. Governments the world over are now talking about how to regulate more closely those in the finance sector; that is, reduce their liberty; have them act in moderation. The Reserve Bank of New Zealand, for example, is taking extra measures to ensure that New Zealand banks are sufficiently cashed up to cope with a crisis like the one we've just had. Also, new legislation gives the Reserve Bank the power to regulate non-bank deposit takers and insurance companies. (For an excellent article on what caused the global financial meltdown, see "The financial crisis: whodunnit?" by Howard Davies, which was published in the September 2009 issue of the New Zealand Reserve Bank Bulletin.)

Another example of civilisation being carried to excess, I suggest, is climate change. As I understand it, the heart of the problem is that we use more carbon than we store. Here's a summary in layman's terms - one I can follow in any case:

"Carbon drives the world. Energy from the sun is captured by plants and, through the process of photosynthesis, is combined with carbon dioxide taken from the atmosphere. Carbon and energy are trapped as carbohydrate, which can then be used in plants to make fibre, protein, fats and oils. We can eat the carbohydrate directly to fuel our bodies, or we can let animals do the first processing then eat the meat.... These days, however, the demand for energy is not just for food, but also for transport, power and industry. Every year... we humans burn a million years' worth of energy stored through previous photosynthesis. The burning process releases carbon that had been locked up in oil and coal into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide." -- "Does the answer lie in the soil?" by Jacqueline Rowarth, in New Zealand Listener, 12/12/09 p23

And so we have key aspects of our civilisation, such as transport and industry, using huge carbon reserves to run our civilisation, but not putting anything back. We are not acting sustainably. Our whole civilisation depends upon using resources to excess, and this is having a lethal effect on us. I think Baha'u'llah's principle - that the liberty enjoyed as a part of our civilisation, if carried to excess, will have a pernicious influence - has proved prophetic. Perhaps one might also claim that Baha'u'llah was the first to suggest we act 'sustainably'. But, surely, it is also common sense. Everyone must accept limits on their freedom; a person without them is a blight on society - generally, a bully or a criminal. Baha'u'llah has simply pointed out that, like individuals, society/civilisation must also accept limits on what it can do - and this, for its own sake, not Baha'u'llah's.

It is common for people to get concerned about the passages Roy cites. In addition to the ones above, he also quotes passages in which Baha'u'llah points out that God does as God wills and that we must obey God. Roy says: "One of the more common phrases in Baha’u'llah’s writings is 'He doeth what He willeth'; that God is supreme and will do whatever he wants and we mere humans have no option but to obey." And he sees other passages as a limit on our freedom of conscience too.

I think how one interprets Baha'u'llah comes down to how you see who and what he is. I can understand where Roy's concerns come from. I used to be able to see those passages in the light that he does. But I've made a big shift in my understanding, which leads me to try and shed a different light on them. Going by what Roy says, he seems to view Baha'u'llah as a kind of leader, a politician, or high-ranking religious leader like the pope, or, more to the point, an ayatollah - yes, like Ayatollah Khomeini. He is the best example because Roy accuses Baha'u'llah of advocating blind obedience. And if you put that together with a passage from Baha'u'llah like this - "Whenever My laws appear like the sun in the heaven of Mine utterance, they must be faithfully obeyed by all, though My decree be such as to cause the heaven of every religion to be cleft asunder. He doeth what He pleaseth" - well, it's clear that you have a guy whose ego has run amok, a cultist, a religious nutter bent on taking over the world and imposing his ideas on all.

Except that Baha'u'llah isn't a politician or a religious leader in the sense of a pope or an ayatollah. He is a manifestation, or prophet, of God, which I know is just words to most people, and so I want to give an idea of what it means and why it's different. I'll start by using the truth that Roy says has always appealed to him and which he turned to when he left the Baha'i community. He says "When I first left the Baha’i Faith to strike out on my own, I mostly hung out with neo-Pagans because the idea that all creation, including ourselves, is sacred appeals to me." Touché. Baha'u'llah says everything in creation is a sign of God and that humans are made in the image of God and their spirit is a place of revelation. But how does Baha'u'llah know this? And how does Roy know that all creation is sacred? Roy knows it because he senses it within himself and his sense is confirmed by what he reads in books. Baha'u'llah, on the other hand, knows it because he is the voice that speaks within every atom of existence. If Roy gazes upon creation and senses that it is speaking to him, then he is hearing the voice of Baha'u'llah. A good illustration of the magnitude of Baha'u'llah's claim here is that he says it was his voice that spoke to Moses from the burning bush. (The prophets are one in essence, but their revelations differ in intensity in this world: "Some of the Apostles We have caused to excel the others."(Qur'an 2:253)) Here is an example of Baha'u'llah's voice calling to us from the heart of creation:

"Say: My creatures are even as the leaves of a tree. They proceed from the tree, and depend upon it for their existence, yet remain oblivious of their root and origin... Say: My creatures are even as the fish of the deep. Their life dependeth upon the water, and yet they remain unaware of that which, by the grace of an omniscient and omnipotent Lord, sustaineth their very existence. Indeed, their heedlessness is such that were they asked concerning the water and its properties, they would prove entirely ignorant." Summons p40

Again, this will just be words to most. But I think that delineating Baha'u'llah's claims in this way does make clear the difference between Baha'u'llah and a politician or religious leader. For example, if you are the voice within all existence, why on earth would you want to be a politician or religious leader? The power that these leaders temporarily have is a parody of the power that Baha'u'llah claims to have. If you give effect to your will through all existence, then you write the fortunes of these worldly leaders, you don't want to be one. Nor would you be interested in oppressing people in the way that leaders like Saddam Husayn or Hitler did. If you have the power to determine the fate of all, why aspire to be a tinpot bully? Instead, Baha'u'llah's purpose is to offer himself as a lover, in a world that it is outside the experience such leaders have ever known.

When I read a draft of this blog to Steve, he dryly suggested that Baha'u'llah's extraordinary claim to be the voice of existence might be even more horrifying to people than a claim to be a worldly leader. I had to confess that I hadn't seen it like that before, but that he was right. For the voice of existence isn't something one can argue with, and if you don't like what it says, then that's not good news. But it makes all the difference for me. For Baha'u'llah's qualities are all-loving, all-forgiving, all-powerful and so forth, and as such, he is the greatest comfort and joy to me. So, yes, he is the Ruler and we must accept him for who he is, but he is also our best-beloved who wants only what's best for us.

I'll end with this quote, which shows Baha'u'llah in a different light to the passages chosen by Roy.

"Say, people of The Bayan: Be fair. By God, your Lord, the All Merciful! Aside from this divine youth, and the immortal manifestations who appeared in this dispensation, consider the Bayan in its entirety, and make your own judgment. Even if you are not, in the end, satisfied with the decree of God and what he revealed, God will nevertheless be pleased with your judgment if it is fair, so that perhaps an eye might be opened by justice and gaze toward God." Tablet of the Son, paragraph 30

I have other things I'd like to say about Roy's blog entry - about blind obedience and names - but this is long enough, so I might raise those issues next time.

Trust in God's providence

2009-12-12T19:37:00.006+13:00

Life continues apace. Steve and I expect to move in about three months and we still have heaps of cleaning up to do on this house in preparation for its sale. Everyday, I am focused on this task and it is difficult to focus my mind on writing my blog. Usually, I have quiet time reading and thinking, in which I formulate my ideas for my next blog entry.

Life has become strange for me. It is unusual and mildly unsettling to spend each day dedicated to getting rid of everything in your house bar the essentials, and sorting things out around the property knowing you'll never see them again. They're not activities one does very often in life. Managing a large transition is a full-time project. It provides me with a full-time job while at the same time keeping from a full-time job.

I spend much time thinking about how I will live on the new property: how it will be sitting in each room of the new cottage, how it will be walking around the paddock and trees, how it will be living in a much warmer climate, how it will be living where there are no street lights and the night will be dark and the stars clear, how it will be with no immediate neighbours, how it will be living where plants grow easily and trees fruit readily, how it will be for me for writing?

They say that shifting house is as stressful as getting married. I couldn't understand this until now because the two activities seem like completely different kinds of changes. But what's common to them is that they are permanent changes and there's only so much you can plan for the long-term future. You can't anticipate all the things you'll be confronted with in your new life. You just have to decide that you'll take the plunge and leap into the deep end of the swimming pool and hope that you'll come up breathing.

In fact, this is what Baha'u'llah tells us to do in our spiritual lives. It appears in a couple of places: Gems of Divine Mysteries and the Mathnavi.

"Great God! This sea had laid up lustrous pearls in store;
The wind hath raised a wave that casteth them ashore.
So put away thy robe and drown thyself therein,
And cease to boast of skill: it serveth thee no more"
-- Gems, paragraph 43

"You, likewise, Noah, break the body's Ark
and hurl yourself into the Sea of Light!
Don't seek self-preservation; Drown this self!
then you'll come up for air in God's embrace
Seek out the King's protection, not the ship's
– the King's preserve will then provide refuge"
-- Mathnavi lines 191-3

Both passages talk about the same thing: letting everything go - absolutely everything except Baha'u'llah. I always knew I had never achieved this level of detachment, but the unsettling, uprooting task of shifting house has helped me along the path, and I'm grateful for it. The process has taught me much about learning to rely on God and trust in the Lord's providence. I am getting more out of my devotions now. Consider: what can I do? I am powerless about my future and what will happen to me. I don't expect it to be bad, but it is uncertain and I have only so much control over it (and even that is an illusion).

The more I let go, the more simple life becomes, and the more simple life becomes, the more beautiful it is, and the more beautiful it is, the more I see God in everything. I rejoice in little things all around like I have never done so before. I am the happiest now than I've ever been in my life. It feels like the simple joy of childhood. I feel like I am returning to my Lord and I cannot ever say how glorious he appears to me.

The Lovely Bones

2009-11-26T12:38:00.008+13:00

Talk of The Lovely Bones is in the air at the moment, with Peter Jackson's movie coming out now, and so I thought I'd get on the bandwagon. Nice to keep up with popular culture and be relevant.

In anticipation of the seeing the movie, I decided to read the book. Luckily, my daughter's copy had recently been returned to her, so I was able to settle in. I hate getting books out of the library because it takes me ages to read a whole book - more weeks than a library is willing to give me. My daughter said that she had struggled through it; that it was boring. This gave me pause because I'd recently given up on the popular book The Life of Pi because it was boring. I hoped that I wouldn't have to give up on this one. And I didn't. I managed to get to the end, but I did indeed find it boring in the middle.

My principal frustration was with the purpose of the story. When I did my course on writing fiction, it was drummed into me that everything in a story must serve its purpose. It is clear by the end of the book that the story is about how a family learns to let go and allow itself to live beyond a tragedy - to give itself permission to laugh again and enjoy things without reference to the dead daughter/sister Susie. As a goal for a story, I like this very much. I think it's a brave goal, in that not many stories would attempt to find an ending beyond revenge and justice. It is positive and a grasp at real healing.

It captures an aspect of what Baha'u'llah calls detachment. By this, I understand him to mean raising ourselves up out of the story of lives in the world and finding ourselves in the story of the Cause, which is in the spiritual realm and which transcends the worldly story and evaporates it by infusing its components with new meaning. The book uses the transcendent vantage point of Susie's heaven to instill new meaning into the lives of the family members. It gives them and Susie permission to move on and find joy without the weight of a tragic memory chained to their souls.

I applaud author Alice Sebold for aiming at this for her book. She goes about it by filling the story with miniature slices of life from the many characters that are somehow connected with Susie. As expected, much time is given to each family member - mother, who has an affair; father, who is desperate to find the murderer; sister, who has to live with people looking at her and seeing Susie; the brother who is too young to be told anything; and the grandmother, who is an alcoholic. Then there is Susie's true love, Ray, who she's kissed once, and other kids at school. And there are the neighbours and, of course, the murderer, and the cop heading the investigation.

The book opens with the murder, which holds together well enough. But after that, it starts to come apart as it jumps all over the place to capture snippets from the lives of each character. After a while, you lose touch with where the story is going because there is no central theme to hold it together. At gut level, you want the story to take you to the identity of the murderer and sufficient evidence for his prosecution. But it consciously steps away from this and the murderer's story becomes just one of many. The trouble is that no theme strong enough steps in to replace it. The theme of healing through transcendence is an admirable one, but it needs to be anchored in a solid story line - one associated with one character in particular. As it is, there isn't really a main character, apart from Susie. But she is in heaven, which makes her role passive.

For me, things really came unstuck when Susie enters the body of her friend, Ruth, who acts as a medium, and has sex with Ray. This was too much for me. I have no problem with souls in heaven watching us, but when they take over bodies for the sake of a highly stylised scene of redemptive sex, my credibility is stretched too far. I suppose a 14-year-old girl might see romantic sex as union with God, but for me it was 'give us a break'. However, given the slow pace of the story, you find yourself saying: at least we have some action here! But as you can see, Sebold was forced to put Susie into Ruth's body to give her an active part. I think it was a desperate move to inject some life into the story and it shows up a structural flaw. Sebold would have been better to develop the story of someone on earth - Ruth, the medium, say - and make her the main character and wind it all around her.

I have other issues with the book, but these are to do with the style of modern fiction writing. I find it's too 'once over lightly' and much prefer to read the classics because they have more depth. I was listening to a professor of literature on the radio saying that modern fiction is written to a formula dictated by publishing houses, who edit and publish what they think will sell to a common denominator. I don't know enough about it, but this explanation fits with my very limited experience of modern fiction. It reminds me of the way that the administration uses Ruhi to dumb down the revelation. There's an assumption that the common person will not be able to engage with the complexities of the Word of God, and so a very simplified version is presented instead. This assumption is born of arrogance, of course, as Baha'u'llah says in the Iqan.

But back to The Lovely Bones, after reading the book, I assumed that Peter Jackson would have to mess seriously with the story to create a plot with sufficient force to push a movie along. From the interviews I've seen, Peter did say he struggled with the story and finding elements from it that would translate well on screen. One reviewer who has seen the movie says that Peter has greatly changed the focus of the story in the book. The reviews are divided, with some reviewers loving the film and others saying it's mostly a failure. I don't care what they say; having read the book, I'm keen to see what Peter has made of it, good or bad. One reviewer said it was What dreams may come version 2. If that is the case, then I will enjoy it for I like seeing people's imaginative impressions of the next world.

I was very interested to hear Peter Jackson and Susan Sarandon, at the press conference held for the release of the movie, on the subject of the afterlife. Both of them admit to believing in it. But both also stress that they do not have any time for organised religion. The Baha'is should wake up. In my view, Peter and Susan are expressing views that are representative of the middle classes in the West. They are very open to spirituality but not organised religion. Ruhi will never bring them in. It might draw in needy people, but not those who want to stand on their own spiritual feet. The tragedy is that Baha'u'llah's revelation has everything these people are looking for, but they'll never see this in the 'revelation' the Baha'i community sells.

Here's a link to the press conference about the movie.

But Dodo, you'll live on a street!

2009-11-08T18:46:00.005+13:00

Dear Lord, it's nearly a month since I last wrote. I like to write at least every couple of weeks, but life turned to chaos on me this time. I have a good excuse, though. On October 25, we got word that Steve's father died unexpectedly in his sleep. This was astonishing news, because he was never ill. He was 85 and living a full life. He'd gone to bed at 10pm as he always did, after sending Steve an email about how to shift folders of email messages in his mail reader. And that was it. Steve's mum found him still in bed the following morning, an hour at least past his usual rising time. Steve and I hurriedly prepared to fly to the other end of the country to be with her and help with arrangements. I came back after the funeral, but Steve is still up north with his mum and won't be home until mid-November.

While I was up there, Steve and I and our daughter went to visit the property that Steve and I hope to buy next year. Wow, it was overwhelming. At nearly 5 acres, it is huge compared to the little town house we've been living in since 1991. The view to the east and north is spectacular. I'd go for the place just for that. The property is located about the middle (in terms of height) of a ridge on one side of a valley, and the view in the east/north direction is of the valley plunging down below you, with the hills in the distance on the other side of the valley in the shape of a curve like an amphitheatre. The whole area is covered in native bush. It's just beautiful. You can't see a house in any direction.

This is what prompted me to come up with the title for this blog entry. It comes from George Eliot's Middlemarch, at the end of the story when Dorothea (her sister Celia calls her Dodo) tells Celia that she has decided to marry Will Ladislaw. Celia is shocked because Will is a politician and does not have an estate, and the marriage means that Dorothea will move from the country to London. In the DVD version, Celia says in horror: "But Dodo, you'll be among queer people and live on a street!" That is the line that runs through my mind when I think of the property Steve and I hope to move to next year. I love it because it isn't on a street and I can't see any neighbours. But it doesn't have the feel of an English estate, with the sprawling grasslands; it is more a small cottage on a lawn set up high amongst native bush. The idea of living there is to me like living in paradise. If it happens, it'll be the work of Providence and I'll have the Lord to thank for making my dreams come true.

A mystical look at organic unity

2009-10-11T10:33:00.015+13:00

This blog entry gathers together some of my recent thoughts on what organic unity means. I'm not sure where the idea of organic unity comes from. It isn't from Baha'u'llah that I'm aware; from Sen's book on Church and State (the passage on organic unity, pp 249-257), it must be the Guardian. A search on MARS brings up 45 instances of the Guardian using the word 'organic'. I don't want this to be a discussion on the Guardian's use of the term. I'm interested in the concepts from Baha'u'llah that might underpin the concept of organic unity.

The passage quoted by Sen, and the one Baha'is would most likely point to, is this one:

"Regard ye the world as a man’s body, which is afflicted with divers ailments, and the recovery of which dependeth upon the harmonizing of all of its component elements." (Summons p80)

The fundamental idea seems to be that we should regard humanity as a body. This is backed up by other important passages, such as this one from paragraph 58 of the Aqdas:

"Beware lest the desires of the flesh and of a corrupt inclination provoke divisions among you. Be ye as the fingers of one hand, the members of one body."

From the passage in Summons, we also get the idea that 'health' is a matter of harmony: "the recovery of which dependeth upon the harmonizing of all of its component elements". For me, this is where the idea of 'unity' comes in. A body is 'united' if it is in harmony. This is important because one might think that a body, such as that of a person which is stuck together by skin and bone, is already a 'unity' because it is an indivisible physical unit. But no, just because it is a unit, doesn't mean it is united, because its parts may not be in harmony. And, as Sen forcefully argues in the Church and State passage, unity does not mean that one organ rules the others, but rather that each organ has it own distinct role to play: "the brain cannot become a circulatory system, or instruct the liver to grow according to any pattern other than that 'idea' of a liver that is coded into every cell. It would be unhealthy even to try."(p254)

Baha'u'llah focuses on the idea of harmony in this other quote, which he starts in a similar way to the Summons quote above, but finishes differently.

"Regard the world as the human body which, though at its creation whole and perfect, hath been afflicted, through various causes, with grave disorders and maladies. Not for one day did it gain ease, nay its sickness waxed more severe, as it fell under the treatment of ignorant physicians, who gave full rein to their personal desires and have erred grievously. And if, at one time, through the care of an able physician, a member of that body was healed, the rest remained afflicted as before." (Summons pp 90-91)

This passage underscores again the idea that health means the harmony of parts. It's not sufficient to heal one part, the whole must be healed and put into in balance.

The reason I got to thinking about the meaning of 'organic unity' was due to my recent meditations on gardening and, in particular, the garden of deeds and its fruits. Added to that was the idea of recycling, which has forced me to think about what I do with waste, and also how that ties in with the idea of composting. I think what I want to do is apply the concept of 'organic unity' to our deeds and the way we live our lives; that is, our lives are like a body and our deeds are like the organs. The body of our life is made up of distinct but related deeds, and a 'healthy' life is one in which our deeds are in harmony. A life lived in this state is a united one.

A story that got me thinking along these lines reportedly comes from Abdu'l-Baha (it may not, but that doesn't matter). It is quoted in a book by a German Baha'i therapist called Nossrat Peseschkian in the book "In Search of Meaning. A Psychotherapy of Small Steps". He begins the book with this story, which he attributes to Abdu'l-Baha and titles "About Eternal Life":

"A mighty king wandered for a long time though his kingdom. On a sunny slope he saw a venerable old man bent over, hard at work. Followed by his courtiers, the king came nearer and saw that the old man was planting year-old seedlings. "What are your doing there?" the king inquired. "I'm planting date trees," replied the old man. The king asked in amazement, "You are already quite old. Why are you planting seedlings when you won't see their foliage, won't rest in their shade, and won't eat their fruit?" The old man looked up and said, "Those who come after us planted, and we were able to harvest. Now we plant so that they who came after us can harvest. ..."

The king likes the answer so much, he gives the man a piece of gold. The old man then smiles and says the trees have already borne fruit and the king gives the man another piece of gold. The old man then complements the king for his just rule of the land and the king gives him more gold, then leaves for fear that he will lose all his wealth to the old man.

I was intrigued that this story was supposed to be about eternal life. Why is it about eternal life, I asked myself? Well, I think it has something to do with the fact that the old man, in his planting date trees, understood the reward for perfect deeds. In planting as he did, even though he was old and would not harvest the dates, his sole concern was to ensure that his deeds bore the quality of perfection. This perfection was the thing that attracted wealth, not the nature of the deed itself. I see him as a man whose deeds, and whose life, were in harmony. The wealth he attracted for this was immediate and eternal.

This reminds me of a pilgrim note, which I place much store by. It's from the memoirs of Ali-Akbar Furutan, and is number 60 in his book of memoirs. It gives four qualities of character that Baha'u'llah loved, and the fourth one is to finish what one starts:

The Blessed Beauty often remarked: "There are four qualities which I love to see manifested in people: first, enthusiasm and courage; second, a face wreathed in smiles and a radiant countenance; third, that they see all things with their own eyes and not through the eyes of others; fourth, the ability to carry a task, once begun, through to the end." The Stories Of Baha'u'llah, Compiled and Edited Ali-Akbar Furutan Translated by Katayoon and Robert Crerar with help from friends George Ronald Publisher, 1986, page 51

I often wondered why Baha'u'llah placed so much importance on finishing what one starts. Now I see it in the light of our deeds and life as an organic unity. Having a lot of unfinished tasks is like having a house full of stuff that has not been disposed of in a thoughtful fashion. In the end, the stuff accumulates and we end up living in a mess, or we throw away stuff that is still useful and should not be in landfill.

The habit of not finishing tasks is like society not taking the time to correctly process waste. Both involve a throw-away attitude. And both problems would be solved if we thought more about what we were doing and why, and believed ourselves to be committed to whatever we chose to do. Cleaning up afterwards is as much about doing a task as preparing for it. The loss to ourselves in not cleaning up afterwards is like the loss when we do not compost. Composting organic matter gives us a new rich soil that we can use for feeding and mulching crops in the following year. I think the same applies to finishing tasks: the clean up provides important resources and nutrients for the task we take up next.

The above might help to illustrate what I mean about seeing our lives in terms of an organic unity. The body of our life is healthy when we see our deeds as distinct organs of that body. These deeds need to be nurtured right through the process, from development, to maturity, to decline. All stages need planning, attention, nurturing, time and resources. For this reason, I have slashed by 90 percent the amount of things I try to do. If the fruit of action is in how we act and not in the nature of the act itself, then it is all gain to me to ensure my deeds are done well, rather than doing a million things and never getting any done properly.

I believe that this is having real benefits for my physical health too, which backs up the point that health is about harmony.

Alison's Oscars

2009-09-26T13:18:00.030+12:00

The other day, I was on Wiki looking through lists of people's favourite movies. I found that the lists didn't reflect my taste very well. Steve counselled me not to take any notice because the lists are meaningless. But I thought, damn it, my taste in movies is just as valid as the mainstream. So I decided I would take the plunge and stick up for my movies, for there must be others out there who like the movies I do. I am therefore going to hold my own Oscars and give awards to my favourite movies, just for fun.

As for my taste in movies - in general, I guess I watch 'mainstream' arthouse movies. I do like movies to challenge me. Of the movies I've chosen for awards, most of them tell stories (often true) that are harrowing. I also like movies that a mainstream audience would likely consider too slow, too boring and too long. I don't watch movies that the NZ censor gives an R16 or higher rating to on account of violence. I still live with my mistakes, for I can never erase the horrible images from my mind. For example, I went to the 1999 film version of Shakespeare's Titus. I didn't see the censor's warning that it had graphic violence and horror scenes. It was an excellent movie - probably deserves an Oscar - but I have to pass on movies like that.

All these movies have won an Oscar because they had such an impact on me I never forgot them. They are what I'd call Alison's classics. You'll see that my Oscars involve awards not traditionally given at Oscars. I've left out movies that are already popular, such as "Out of Africa", "Singing in the Rain" and "American Beauty", which I would also award Oscars too.

Without further ado, then, I'll get down to it. Steve, envelopes please ...

The award for Best Depiction of the Feminist principle 'the personal is political' goes to ... (drum roll)
"Sunshine" (1999). I saw this movie ages ago, so I can't remember it in detail, but I remember being completely taken by it. "It follows three generations of a Jewish family... during the changes in Hungary from the beginning of the 20th century to the period after the 1956 Hungarian Revolution." By following the family through the political changes in the country, it shows how the personal and the political are interlinked. And, in this way, it also shows how the 'enemy' - ie, the fascist etc - is inside us and not the other guy. It also has some harrowing footage of life in a concentration camp. Unpredictable.

The award for Best Depiction of the Culture of Downunder goes to ... (drum roll)
"The Castle" (1997). It's an Australian comedy, so it's tongue in cheek - but Steve and I think that it captures the general laid-back attitude of Downunder culture, which includes Australia and New Zealand. Although there are important differences between the two countries, this movie captures the similarities, such as the continual fascination with picking up bargains. One of our favourite lines is where the father says to his son, who points out that a lectern is for sale in the paper: "It doesn't come up often". But it cleverly winds through the humour a serious message about property rights, including indigenous rights. Playful.

The awards for Best Comedy and Best Screenplay go to ... (drum roll)
"Intolerable Cruelty" (2003). Steve and I both think that this is the funniest movie out. It screened on TV here last week, and the TV reviewer said it wasn't funny at all. But it's a complex little number and you can't possibly take in all the layers in one sitting. First time around, you're focused on the tricky plot; after that, you learn to look out for the hilarious dialogue. We've watched it over and over and always double up laughing; for example, "'Let NOMAN put asunder' - the National Organisation for Matrimonial Attorneys Nationwide"! A scream.

The award for Best Foreign Language Movie goes to ... (drum roll)
"The Wind that Shakes the Barley" (2006). The movie opens up with some young men playing soccer on a field in rural Ireland. They're shouting at each other as they kick the ball around, but you haven't a clue what they're saying. In short, you need the subtitles. This is a harrowing movie about the Irish resistance in the 1920s. It depicts the moral decline of the central character, who makes increasingly morally dubious decisions in the war-like situations he finds himself in. You come away with a real appreciation of what it was like to live with the English running around controlling you and your country. Tragic.

The award for Best Classic Movie goes to ... (drum roll)
"Zulu" (1964). I first saw this one on pay TV many years ago, and was riveted. It's an amazing movie and should have got an Oscar for Best Picture. The images of the Zulu warriors appearing on the horizon and the fear on the soldiers' faces is something you never forget. You feel like you really are there and about to die. I like the fact that the producers weren't too scared to use silence. There are long periods of absolute silence and it creates a very intense eerie atmosphere. The film also gives you real insight into the way that the British army worked back then. Unsurpassed.

The award for Movie with the Best Sex Scene goes to ... (drum roll)
"Atonement" (2007). This is one of my all-time favourite movies - and yes, it does have a stunning sex scene. But that's not all, it's just a great movie all round. As the title suggests, the story is about coming to terms with a wrong one has done, which has had terrible repercussions on the lives of those involved. The movie was directed by one of my favourite directors, Joe Wright, who also did "The Soloist" (which came out this year and deserves an Oscar too for its portrayal of the mentally ill and homeless in LA.) Passionate.

The award for Best Movie that Proves Tom Cruise isn't just a Top Gun goes to ... (drum roll)
"Born on the 4th of July" (1989). I'll admit it - I was one of those who thought Tom Cruise had nothing in him but a top gun, until I saw this movie. I was amazed to see him carry off a moving portrayal of the Vietnam War veteran who was paralysed from fighting in the war. I always knew the veteran hospitals were bad, but nothing could have prepared me for what the movie shows. It's a scandal: sell them the patriot religion and then leave them to rot. Perhaps the thing that moved me most was the symbolism of it all: there was Tom Cruise, one of the real success stories of the American Dream, portraying a man who is mostly a loser in that dream (despite his sacrifices for it, and the charade of hailing him a hero). Intensely human.

The award for Best Movie Depicting Muslim North Africa goes to ... (drum roll)
"The Sheltering Sky" (1990). If you see it, you'll never forget it. Roger Ebert summed it up: it's about "American intellectuals confronted by an immensity of experience they cannot read or understand." The cinematography is extraordinary. Tiny villages of mud houses, initially indistinguishable, appear gradually out of the dust as the camera zooms in. The movie loses you in this vast, North African moonscape, with one of the main characters who finds herself alone and disorientated in the middle of it after her husband dies of typhoid. She winds up in a harem, locked up in a little hut! Out of this world.

The award for Best Romance goes to ... (drum roll)
"Brokeback Mountain" (2005). It was a scandal that this movie didn't win Best Picture at the Oscars, ahead of Crash. What on earth got into those judges? Do I need to tell anyone how wonderful this movie is? New Zealand is a farming country and I felt some affinity to the culture that was depicted. I used to go to rodeos with my family when I was a child, amazingly. The culture is a prison in that it has narrow socially constructed gender roles, for women as well as men, and offers no more than an empty existence. A serious problem for anyone with genuine feeling or depth. A real love story.

The award for Best Movie Depicting Spiritual Themes goes to ... (drum roll)
"As it is in Heaven" (2005). A Swedish movie with English subtitles. In the movie, a conductor teaches a local choir how to sing together. He begins by teaching them that singing is all about listening; that is, listening to the music that already exists and then drawing it down. This process of drawing down the music is like the one we need to focus on in order to enrich our spiritual lives. Uplifting.

The award for Best Holocaust Movie goes to ... (drum roll)
"The Pianist" (2002). This movie shows you what it was like to be Jewish and living in Warsaw when the Nazis took over. You feel the humiliation of having to wear arm bands, and having to walk in gutters because you're not allowed on the footpath. You wonder what they'll do next. Then the Nazis force all the Jews to live in one area, which they separate off with high brick walls (reminiscent of the wall the Israelis use to keep the Palestinians in) and the people can't get out. They starve. The movie is the miraculous tale of survival of the Polish pianist, Władysław Szpilman. The climax is when the German officer, right at the end, goes out of his way to bring him food and gives him his coat to keep him warm. Providential.

The award for Fabulous Arthouse Movie Mistakenly put out by Warner Brothers goes to ... (drum roll)
"The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford" (2007). Here we go again - I didn't go to this movie because I couldn't decide if it was just another Western. And the title! What was a girl to make of that? But I was aware that critics seemed to like it, although some said it was too long. I bought the DVD and was astounded. It's an intimate psychological analysis of the Jesse James gang set in an Andrew Wyeth painting. A literary masterpiece.

Finally, the prestigious award for Best Picture goes to ... (drum roll)
"Fateless" (2005). This is the standout movie, in my view. It's head and shoulders above them all. It's the true story of a young Hungarian boy who was sent to concentration camps at Auschwitz, Buchenwald, and Zeitz. If you ever really wanted to know what it was like to be in a concentration camp, then this is the movie for you. This movie rearranges your head. You'll never see simple things like carrot soup in the same way again, and you'll never ever think you know what it means to be cold, or what it means to be tired. The only reason I saw it was because it happened to screen here on Maori Television, which is like a public broadcaster and shows movies you don't see on the mainstream channels. I wasn't going to watch it, thinking 'yet another depressing holocaust movie', but I'm really glad I did. I sat the whole time with my teeth clenched. You know, I never understood why people made horror movies - I hate them. If you want to see a horror movie, watch this one. Overwhelming.

Special award

The special award for Best Movie Critic goes to ... (drum roll)
New Zealand movie reviewer, Simon Morris. He does a weekly 30-minute slot called "At the Movies" on Radio New Zealand National. Once a programme has aired, it goes up as a podcast on the web site. So you can listen to Simon as well. I like him because he often sees things the way I do, such as this on Quentin Tarentino: "Quentin Tarentino may be a smart postmodern pop artist with an encyclopedic knowledge of every rotten film ever made, but at heart he remains the emotionally stunted adolescent he's always been." This is found in Simon's programme dated 26 August 2009, in which he reviews Tarentino's "Inglourious Basterds". Go Simon!

The embodiment of deeds

2009-09-21T16:39:00.005+12:00

I wrote last time about my new understanding that our deeds, thoughts and words create a spiritual reality and that that reality takes a form in the spiritual world, such as the form of a woman or houri. For me, I like to think of my houri as a garden, because gardens are things that you nurture (or neglect) and, over time, they develop and become fruitful (or wither and languish) and, in this way, are an everlasting source of sustenance. In this way, I now understand Baha'u'llah saying that: "The essence of wealth is love for Me; whoso loveth Me is the possessor of all things, and he that loveth Me not is indeed of the poor and needy." (Tablets p 156)

But I want to address another question about how this system works: what does it mean to say that our deeds take a form, or reflect an image, in the spiritual world? In finding an answer to this question, I discovered that the issue is at the heart of a great deal of Islamic mysticism. My quest has taken me back to Henri Corbin and his writing about the spiritual realm in which these spiritual images appear (for example, in his book "Spiritual body and celestial earth"). I always knew Corbin was famous for his writings on this subject among those interested in Sufism, but I've only just discovered why, as a Baha'i concerned with Baha'i theology and Baha'i mysticism, what Corbin has to say is important for me. In other words, how do I see what Corbin discusses as being related to what Baha'u'llah has to say? Finding that there is a connection has been quite a discovery for me because I've found that, in general, what Baha'u'llah says about mysticism sweeps away the Islamic take on it. That's because Baha'u'llah's revelation brings a fresh meaning to the term 'mysticism', as he explains in Tablet of the Son:

"For if God speaks a word today that comes to be on the lips of all the people, before and after, that word will be new, if you only think about it. Consider the word, "monotheism," about which all the manifestations of the Eternal Truth have spoken in each dispensation, and which all the adherents of the various religions have asserted. Nevertheless, in each dispensation it is an innovation, and its novel character can never be withdrawn from it. God breathes into each word he speaks a new spirit, and the breezes of life from that word waft upon all things outwardly and inwardly." Tablet of the Son, para 9

And this principle applies to the word 'mysticism' too. It is an innovation in the Baha'i revelation.

But I digress. The question is: what does it mean to say that our deeds take a form, or reflect an image, in the spiritual world? For much of the time I have been interested in mysticism - about 15 years - I had never read anything from Baha'u'llah that gave an explanation of images of ourselves appearing in the spiritual realm. The problem was a lack of English translations, I was given to believe. But about three years ago, by the grace of God, a fellow called Mehran Ghasempour was inspired to translate "Tablet of the Right of the People" (Lawh-i Haqqu'n Nas). I thank the Lord for raising him up to do this work, for it has helped me hugely to move forward in my understanding of mysticism.

The tablet came about because someone asked Baha'u'llah the following question: if person A wrongs person B and one person, or both, dies before the wrong is righted, how does God settle the matter in the next world? This is a problem because, as we witness, the world in which the wrong was done - that is, the physical world and its characteristics - ceases to exist for us when we die and, therefore, the means by which the matter could be settled disappears also. Added to this is the following principle: that God has undertaken to settle all matters relating to rights that exist between people. So if someone is wronged, the wrong is guaranteed to be righted by God. God may forgive a wrong done to himself but will settle justly a wrong done to a person. How then is this promise fulfilled in the next world if one or other person dies and the matter cannot be settled in the physical world?

In order to answer this question, Baha'u'llah has to explain how our deeds can 'exist' in the next world so that they can be sorted out; that is, so that right ones are rewarded and evil ones are punished. This takes him into exactly the territory I needed him to go for me to understand how our deeds take on a spiritual form in the spiritual world. Over four short paragraphs, Baha'u'llah gives a basic outline of how it works. The rest of the tablet is taken up with examples to flesh the argument out. For now, I'll deal with what Baha'u'llah says in those four paragraphs. Please bear in mind that the translation has been done by someone for whom English is a second language, so there is some awkward phrasing.

Paragraph 1: "Thus I express to thee that what thou hast seen and heard in this mortal world of limitations, by any name and character and by any form or descriptive attribute, in every one of divine worlds is manifested and witnessed in a manner suitable and proper to each world, which shineth forth and revealeth itself by another name, character, form and descriptive attribute."

This paragraph seems to outline a basic principle, which I'll call the central principle. The central principle states that everything we see and hear in this physical world, no matter what its name, form, character or attributes, has a corresponding name, form, character and set of attributes in every one of the divine worlds; and the features of that thing in the divine worlds is determined by the conditions of those worlds - hence a thing appears in a manner that is suitable and proper to each world. I assume that this principle does not just apply to what we see and hear but to what we experience in this world via all our senses.

What this means - and this is where Corbin comes in in a big way - is that everything we experience takes on a spiritual form or image in each of the worlds of God. I can't overstate how important this principle is - all of mysticism seems to rest on it. I'm just looking now at my garden, and wondering what image it takes in the other worlds of God. Pondering this principle over the last few days caused me to think about the Kitab-i Iqan again. I can see now that all through that book Baha'u'llah is showing us how to look at the participants in religious history - the religious leaders, the prophets, the masses, the martyrs - in symbolic terms. And he teaches us to read some symbols, such as the sun, moon and stars. One could write a whole book on that subject.

In the examples Baha'u'llah gives further on in the tablet to illustrate this principle, he explains that the world of sleep is very like - is the 'brother' of - the world of death - by which, I understand him to mean the world we pass on to when we die. A little further on, he gives the example of the famous dream that Joseph had that illustrated what would happen to him in the future. "Lo! I saw eleven stars and the sun and the moon - I saw them prostrating themselves unto me." (Qur'an 12:4) This dream uses the symbols of the stars, sun and moon, which correspond to Joseph's 11 brothers (the stars), and his father and mother (the sun and moon). Baha'u'llah asks his reader to ponder what is the world in which family members appear as sun, moon and stars, and conversely, what is the world in which sun, moon and stars appear as family members? There is one thing we can say about the world of the sun, moon and stars: it is real; it isn't a product of the chemicals in our brain or a function of our imagination. It is a spiritual reality. (I think this must be the reason that fiction and movies are so popular, because they create a world of images, something we all consiously or unconsciously can relate to - I guess this would be true of all art.)

Corbin famously says we use our "Active (or Creative) Imagination" (that is, Imagination with a capital 'I') to 'see' these images in the spiritual realm - what he calls the 'Imaginal realm'. He gives the word 'imagination' a capital 'I' in order to distinguish it from what we usually mean by the word 'imagination', which is a world of illusion. When I was thinking about this the other day, I was suddenly reminded about this from a hidden word: "Never shall mortal eye recognize the everlasting beauty…" (PHW 10) In other words, to link into the Imaginal realm, on which one will see the 'beauty' of Baha'u'llah, one cannot do so by using one's physical eyes. We have to learn to use the Active Imagination that Corbin talks about in order to see the spiritual image and know how to interpret it.

In paragraph 2 (of the 4 paragraphs I mentioned above), Baha'u'llah says: "This death that thou hast heard of in the world, referreth to the outward appearance and the garment, and not to the truth and the inner essence. Certainly the realities of things, through different appearances and various manifestations, truth after truth, shine forth and reveal themselves in every world. The sages of mature wisdom who have drunk from the mystic choice wine - God requite them - have believed in the embodiment of deeds."

Expanding on the central principle, Baha'u'llah goes on to explain that, when we die, our outer garment dies but not our inner essence and "truth". The realities things - presumably, our essence and truth, plus the reality of our deeds and so forth - appear in each world of God in the form appropriate to them. Then he says that wise people have always believed that our deeds are 'embodied'; that is, they take on a body or form in each of the spiritual worlds. This paragraph seems to take the central principle beyond its initial boundaries; that is, it is not just what we experience via our senses that is embodied in the spiritual realm but also ourselves as a person, for we are a 'thing' in the world, and our deeds, which reflect how we interact with other things in the world. I would argue that the principle also applies to our words and thoughts, which is why it is important that we keep our thoughts pure.

In paragraph 3, Baha'u'llah confirms that each of us is judged according to our deeds: "The All-Glorious saith: 'God will reward them for their attributions!'. The Dawning-Place of revelation, the All-Merciful, hath said that people are recompensed according to their deeds; reward for good and punishment for evil." And in paragraph 4, Baha'u'llah brings his argument together, explaining that our deeds do indeed go with us into the spiritual world so that God can recompense each person according to their deeds.

"Thus it becometh evident that a deed will remain and every attribute will exist until recompense is given according to the deed and attribute itself. Therefore, any deed and any attribute that appeareth from any person hath a form in every world and unveileth itself "that God may reward every soul what he hath earned; verily, God is swift in reckoning."

Here, the central principle seems to be extended again to hold that 'any attribute' from a person is embodied in the spiritual world. This then would include inner things such as aspirations, loves, hates, goals, desires and so on.

Further on in the tablet, Baha'u'llah explains how this process of recompensing people according to their deeds can also take place in the physical world. In a karmic way, things can happen to us as a direct spiritual consequence of our deeds. The example Baha'u'llah gives of this is interesting. He says that, for example, a person may lose their wealth, but this might be an act of kindness on the part of the Lord because wealth is "the garment of fate and afflictions". Moreover, if a robber steals your money, then the only thing the robber has achieved, from a spiritual point of view, is to load themselves up with fate and afflictions. Hence, the recompense for the deed for the robber is hidden in the deed itself.

Garden of good deeds

2009-09-12T16:58:00.009+12:00

In my last entry, Rendering assistance to God, I ended by saying that I'd found a way through my paralysis over the seeming pointlessness of good deeds given God's omnipotence. I had also described in earlier entries the trap in using deeds as snares to manufacture a desired outcome. I languished for months between these two positions until last week when a mixture of questions I'd had for ages all found an answer in one place. It was a great moment!

One of those questions I've long been wondering about is what exactly is the houri who appeared to Baha'u'llah and spoke to him? Some years ago, I read the excellent article "Daena-Den-Din: The Zoroastrian heritage of the 'Maid of Heaven' in the tablets of Baha'u'llah" by Kamran Ekbal (in Moojan Momen (ed): Scripture and Revelation, pp125-169) and this gave me an idea of the relationship between the houri and good deeds. Then, just recently, I finally read the first chapter of Alessandro Bausani's Religion in Iran, and between that and the Ekbal article, I began to see how the houri concept worked, and to my surprise and delight, recognised that it also answered my question about the place of good deeds in our spiritual life.

As the Ekbal article explains, the houri concept that the Baha'is are familiar with has its origins in Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrianism is hugely complex due to the fact that it is ancient - at least 1000 BCE - and therefore added to and altered for millennia until you get the version of today. But both Ekbal and Bausani are clear that the idea of Daena, a houri figure, is fundamental to Zoroastrianism and is found in the earliest extant texts of that religion, the Gathas, which are in the first person and are considered Zoroaster's voice (Ekbal, 134).

The concept of Daena is complex, with several aspects to it that work together to create the whole meaning. I don't feel qualified to attempt a definition but have to for the sake of this blog entry. For me, the way I first got a handle on the concept was when I read the Zoroastrian texts that used it and described how it works. But I'll attempt an explanation first.

Bausani explains that the concept has three meanings, which are all interlinked: religion in the wide sense of revelation, the soul's double, and a maiden (Bausani, pp53-4). My understanding of how these work is that each person creates within themselves, by means of their soul, a spiritual world, energy or garden (however you like to conceptualise it), which is made up of their actions, thoughts, words, conscience and the like. This individual spiritual world, substance, or personality takes on in the spiritual realm a unique form - hence the idea of our soul's double - and in Zoroastrianism, this form is said to be that of a maiden. The idea is that if our deeds, thoughts and words are good, then our maiden double is beautiful, but if our deeds, thoughts and words are evil, then our 'daena' is an ugly old woman. A useful way to look at it is via the concept of revelation - just as Baha'u'llah produced a revelation, which took the form of the houri he describes, we also produce a revelation through the activity of our selves and this also produces the image of a houri or daena unique to us.

I always suspected, but could not argue cogently why, all humans have a 'houri' and not just Baha'u'llah - although Baha'u'llah's houri is The Houri, as John Walbridge once said, and we are all reflections of his archetypal form. It is also consistent with the teaching that ordinary humans are made in God's image, and it also works when you consider statements such as this one in AHW 59, "Thy spirit is My place of revelation; cleanse it for My manifestation."

But here is a classic example from Zoroastrian scripture about how the houri is at work in our lives:

"When the just man's soul passes over that bridge (Chinvat) it becomes as wide as a parasanga (about 6kms), and the just man's soul passes accompanied by the pious Srosh. Then the good works he has accomplished advance towards him in the form of a maiden who is more beautiful and good then any maiden in the world. The just man's soul says: 'Who are you, for in all the world I never saw a more beautiful and better maiden than you?' The form of the maiden answers: 'I am not a maiden, I am your righteous actions, O young man of righteous thought, of righteous words, of righteous actions, of the righteous religion! For when - in the world - you saw someone sacrificing to the demon you, instead, started adoring God; and when you saw someone carrying out violence and robbery and afflicting and despising good men and gathering their substance with evil actions you, instead, avoided treating creatures with violence and robbery… And when you saw people give false judgments and allow themselves to be corrupted with money and commit perjury you, instead, undertook to tell the truth and speak righteously. I am your righteous thoughts, your righteous words, your righteous actions, thought, spoken, done by you. For, although I was already esteemed you made me even more esteemed, and though I was already honored, you made me even more honored, and though I was already splendid, you rendered me still more splendid." (quoted by Bausani, pp52-3)

Perhaps because I am a gardener, I tend to think of my houri as taking the form of a garden. You invest in a garden by planting seeds and seedlings and you nurture it with water, food and sunshine and by keeping weeds away, and gradually you build up a garden that is a source of wealth. It has good loamy soil and feeds you through good times and bad. With this, I now think of Baha'u'llah's houri as taking on the form of the Garden of Ridvan. And this fits with the fact that the Arabic word for garden, janna, also means paradise.

Another useful way of looking at the houri is as a spiritual bank account. You invest in your spiritual account by placing in it good thoughts, words and deeds and, as it sits there over time, it attracts interest and accumulates. After a time, you find you have assets and so you can rely on it to support you later in life and you can use it to 'buy' things you need to achieve your goals in life. My experience also is that the richer your spiritual bank account is, the more Providence seems to work in your favour. Finance people will tell you that money attracts money and I think it works exactly the same way with our houri. I think of a spiritual bank account when I read the passage in Matthew 6 about storing up treasures in heaven.

"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." Matthew 6:19-21

And a little further on in that chapter, Christ tells the disciples not to worry about things like food and clothes because God knows they need those things and will provide them. Instead, he says in verse 33, they should first seek the Kingdom and God's righteousness, and then God will given them what they need.

I hope it is coming clear how these new insights have got me through my impasse. I think now that the purpose of acting in the world isn't to snare an outcome and isn't to help God, who doesn't need help, but to grow a garden, build up a spiritual bank account, or paint a beautiful houri. This asset becomes a spiritual resource from which God provides for me and, if there is enough in the account, God will also use the resource to aid me in serving God and influencing others. Now I believe that this idea was intended when Christ managed to feed the five thousand - he had a huge spiritual garden - an unlimited one, from which he could have feed the whole world.

Rendering assistance to God

2009-09-09T15:00:00.005+12:00

"The defining feature for any religion is its teaching and leadership. These are the pillars that shape its growth." Vahid Ajepuh Oloro, in his article "Baha'i Administrative Institutions"

Sigh ... and the rest is just as bad. But I quote this so that I can keep in mind, and alert my readers to, why I write my blog - so that I might present another interpretation of the Faith, and perhaps play a part in rescuing Baha'u'llah's revelation from that moribund, worldly, formulaic dogma that passes as an understanding of the Faith these days.

All this is a perfect introduction to what I want to talk about. It's central to how I see the revelation and invite others to do so too. Last blog entry, I effectively did a rant about how we use our deeds as a means to manufacture desired outcomes. Baha'u'llah very nicely calls this using our deeds as snares. At the end of that entry, I refer to a small tablet in which Baha'u'llah outlines how we can best aid God. The tablet forms a small part of the larger tablet addressed to the Shah. Baha'u'llah quotes it in its entirety in order to demonstrate to the Shah that he is not interested in sedition. The tablet is found on pages 108-111 of Summons to the Lord of Hosts. The heart of what Baha'u'llah argues in this tablet is captured in this short passage:

"The one true God hath ever regarded the hearts of men as His own, His exclusive possession—and this too but as an expression of His all-surpassing mercy, that haply mortal souls may be purged and sanctified from all that pertaineth to the world of dust and gain admittance into the realms of eternity. For otherwise that ideal King is, in Himself and by Himself, sufficient unto Himself and independent of all things. Neither doth the love of His creatures profit Him, nor can their malice harm Him."

Baha'u'llah argues that rendering assistance to God means to aid in the process of purifying people's hearts of all save God; and, in order to do this, we must purify our own heart first, otherwise we will have no effect. The reason we render God assistance in this way is because God's purpose for us is to "be made worthy recipients of the effulgent splendours of Him Who is the King of all names and attributes". This is God's goal, and so we aid God by achieving this ourselves and then by helping others advance toward this goal too.

As part of his discussion, Baha'u'llah makes the logical point (as in the quote above) that God is independent of all we do. Therefore, our actions do not and cannot aid God. God has no need of us and our hard work, and it is vain to think that what we do is actually helping God, as such. Rather, anything that we do do that 'helps' God has this positive outcome only as a result of grace. Baha'u'llah alludes to this in the passage above, where he says that our service to God in purifying the hearts of people is a service that God has given us out of his mercy.

This tablet about rendering assistance to God had a profound influence on me. For several years, it gnawed away at me until finally it paralysed me. I couldn't get up in the morning and settle myself to a task because I kept thinking that it was pointless. However, I never let go of what Baha'u'llah did identify as important - purifying one's heart - but I never felt like I did a very good job at that either. The last couple of years have been difficult ones for me because of this theological issue.

But in the past wee while, I've starting making headway with this impasse and have begun to see a way through. I will outline this new understanding in the next entry.

Using our deeds as snares

2009-08-27T15:15:00.011+12:00

In the 1990s, Baha'i artist, Sonja van Kerkhoff, created a beautiful postcard, which you can see pictured in the graphic. It draws on a quote from paragraph 36 of the Kitab-i Aqdas: "Make not your deeds as snares wherewith to entrap the object of your aspiration."

I got to thinking about this quote again when Steve and I were discussing Peter Khan's talk, "Reflections on the Ridvan 2009 message", which I discussed in my previous blog entry. Steve made the interesting comment that, if Peter's talk is anything to go by, what motivates the House is an overwhelming desire to save the world.

Peter spends a large portion of the talk outlining how bad the state of the world is and then ends with his appeal for the Baha'is to follow the House. Why? Because that is the only way, he argues, that the world can be saved. It's as if the Baha'is - and particularly the House of Justice because it leads the Baha'i community - have this crushing burden on their shoulders, given them by Baha'u'llah via his call for Baha'is to spread the Word and thereby transform humanity.

This led me to see things in a new light. There is the House of Justice, at the head of the Baha'i community, charged with this monumental task, to pull humanity back from the brink and turn people's heads in the direction of the new manifestation. I expect the House of Justice members must feel the weight of this responsibility exceedingly; heaven knows, if I was in their shoes, I would. And I sense they believe that the extent to which humanity does heed their call and convert is the measure of how successful the Baha'is have been in carrying out this divinely-appointed task. It is therefore imperative that humanity is somehow made to listen, for anything else is failure - failure to Baha'u'llah - and that is unthinkable.

This explains to me why the House of Justice has come up with measures and techniques within its Five Year Plan that, to my mind, are manipulative and unacceptable in a Baha'i context. Basically, if you're desperate, you end up taking steps that, without the pressure, you wouldn't condone. The pressure starts to affect the way you see things; for example, you justify door knocking even though the Guardian said it was undignified, and you try to micromanage and control the growth process, which enables you to count 'successes' and convince yourself that all is going well - all this instead of letting a thousand flowers bloom in the realms of the spirit.

However, the Baha'i rhetoric is that the Baha'is are out to save humanity for its own sake; after all, things are so bad, anyone with the remedy has a duty to offer it to anyone who will listen. But, in any case, humanity has a difficult path to navigate to realise its new potential and pain along the way can't be helped. Finally, success in the fullness of time is assured with the establishment of the Bahai religion worldwide. Therefore, the idea of 'failure' doesn't really apply. We just box on regardless and Baha'u'llah will do the rest.

One reason I question the sincerity of the rhetoric is that I was reared in the Baha'i community for 20 years before I was expelled from it. I am a creature of its socialisation as much as the next believer, and I have spent the past decade analysing and disinfecting myself from the assumptions that were instilled into me. One of those assumptions was that by participating with all my heart in the activities laid out for me by the administration, I would save the world.

In my twenties, when I was a solo mother, I spent all the spare time I could find in Baha'i activities, to the detriment of my daughter, I can see now, but I believed I was working for God. At one time, I was chair, secretary and treasurer of the local assembly all at once! (Not for long, I admit - it was just over summer holidays.) We had meetings, endless meetings and we did some teaching as well. I got out on the street and even knocked on doors. After about five years of this, I had a near breakdown. The phone rang about 30 times a day, with members of the community wanting information or to organise events. I found myself in the ironic position where I would pour my heart out to a neighbour, who was not a Baha'i but knew some believers, about how overworked I was and the lack of support I got. Eventually, I resigned from the assembly. I couldn't have attended another meeting if I had wanted to, I was so exhausted. I wasn't the only one; there was talk back then of believers experiencing burnout and attempts to prevent it, but these measures never got to the heart of the issue.

When I look at the activities the Baha'is are expected to participate in today, as a part of their commitment to the Five Year Plan, I can see that nothing has changed. There is no limit to what you can do, and to what you are expected to do. There is still this assumption that heaps of meetings and endless activity will somehow save the day. Even after I was expelled from the community, I kept on believing this; I would put in long hours and make commitments, thinking this was the way to go. But, freed from community pressures, I began to re-examine it.

The first flicker of a new horizon came when I realised that the more busy I was, the less I could pray and meditate. The busyness occupied my mind and soul and got in the way of good devotional concentration. I always remember a woman getting up at a Baha'i conference and saying: "If you're too busy to pray, then you're more busy than God meant you to be". I started to question my restless activity; if it got in the way of prayer, then something was out of balance. Eventually, I began to see just how much I was caught up in what I was doing, as if that was all that mattered.

I believe this is using deeds as snares. You get into thinking that your actions are the things that will result in your achieving the goal. The deed becomes the snare that will hook in the outcome. But this thinking is erroneous. Of course, our deeds towards a goal are important, but they are not primarily the way to serve God and help humanity. It's logical: God is independent of everything in creation, including our deeds. Our deeds could be all to hell, and the whole of humanity might still have salvation, if the Lord willed it. The Guardian outlined the principle for us in this famous passage, which I don't see quoted these days:

"Not by the force of numbers, not by the mere exposition of a set of new and noble principles, not by an organized campaign of teaching - no matter how worldwide and elaborate in its character - not even by the staunchness of our faith or the exaltation of our enthusiasm, can we ultimately hope to vindicate in the eyes of a critical and sceptical age the supreme claim of the Abha Revelation. One thing and only one thing will unfailingly and alone secure the undoubted triumph of this sacred Cause, namely, the extent to which our own inner life and private character mirror forth in their manifold aspects the splendor of those eternal principles proclaimed by Baha'u'llah." (Baha'i Administration, p. 66)

You see? Not by an organised campaign of teaching, no matter how worldwide and elaborate - so not by the Five Year Plan. One thing and only one thing - the extent to which our personal lives reflect the light of the principles of the revelation. What matters most is what is in our hearts. Baha'u'llah puts it succinctly in this Hidden Word:

"Sorrow not save that thou art far from Us. Rejoice not save that thou art drawing near and returning unto Us." (AHW 35)

This is what is primarily important - our personal relationship with Baha'u'llah. I think what believers don't understand is how this bond with Baha'u'llah is effective in saving the world. We focus on deeds because we think these are proof that we are actually doing something. But my understanding is that Baha'u'llah doesn't see things that way. He gave us a small tablet in which he outlines how we can best aid God. I'll discuss it in my next entry. I'll stop here for now, for this is getting long enough.

He is God, not the House

2009-08-09T10:57:00.007+12:00

On 1 August, a talk by Peter Khan, member of the House of Justice, appeared on the blog "Reflections on teaching the Baha'i Faith". The talk is entitled "Reflections on the Ridvan 2009 message" and was apparently given on 3 July 2009. Peter devotes the talk to two issues he labels: the significance of Baha'i activity, and the question of change in religion.

In the first section, Peter dwells at length on what he argues are "two processes at work in the world today, a process of decline in the quality of life, and a growth in positive elements...". Relying on passages from the Guardian, he identifies the 'correct' Baha'i response to the declining process - that it is inevitable and that it will be severe and protracted, and end in "barbarism, chaos, and ultimate extinction" (World Order, p187). Peter then explains the role of religion in all this: that the process is caused by the decline in religion. He quotes Baha'u'llah in support: "Should the lamp of religion be obscured, chaos and confusion will ensue..." (Tablets, p125).

Peter explains that the purpose of the Ridvan message, and indeed that of Baha'u'llah, is to free the world from this oppressive downward spiral, by spreading the news of Baha'u'llah's coming. He gives several examples of this oppression: the rise of religious extremism and authoritarianism in religious leaders; the fomenting of hatred and division in the world; the search for instant solutions; indulging in extreme behaviour such as with drugs; and the worship of idols, as instanced in Michael Jackson's death. He argues that the answer is not to get depressed but to devote oneself to spreading the Faith, as stated in the 2009 Ridvan message. What the Baha'is are doing is building a new world civilisation. The civilisation we exist in today is like the Roman Empire, which took 400 years to decline and fall. He outlines what he believes are the essential features of this new civilisation - individual and community worship; application of divine teachings to daily life; altruism and the transmission of values to new generations - and argues that these are all met by the "elements of the core activities of the Five Year Plan".

The second section of the talk is a defence of how change in religion is legitimate, based on the fact that religions must evolve. This changing process produces division because some believers want change and others don't. This division has appeared in response to the Five Year Plan framework that the House of Justice has developed - "...the House of Justice in 1996 began a process of quite significant change and that change is a test to some sincere and devoted believers" - but if the believers would understand that change is natural, they will go along with what the House asks of them. In this spirit, Peter ends with a general, rousing appeal:

"The solution is no more and no less than unreserved acceptance of whatever the central authority of the Cause, in this case the Universal House of Justice decrees. If we would hold to that... we are safe. Nothing can trouble us, we are in an impregnable stronghold, and we would become part of this massive movement of humanity to rescue the world from the perilous disorder, the intense suffering of the declining process and to usher in the ordained new world civilization in the Golden Age of the Cause."

So that's it: the world is in dire straits and the answer is to do what the House tells you to. This is what will "rescue the world from perilous disorder". I was shocked mightly when I read this passage, particularly by the language Peter uses, for it appears to conflate the House of Justice with Baha'u'llah. The concepts of being safe and in a stronghold are used in the Arabic Hidden Words; they relate to the manifestation, not the House of Justice.

"9. O son of being! My love is My stronghold; he that entereth therein is safe and secure, and he that turneth away shall surely stray and perish."

It astonishes me that Peter Khan would openly make such a claim for the House of Justice. He refers to idols in his speech but seems completely unaware of the idolatrous nature of this claim. Only a power that transcends physical existence can provide safety and act as a stronghold, for all else is subject to the contingencies of physical existence. The House of Justice is as powerless as everyone else is.

To illustrate this, I challenge Peter Khan to answer the following question, which Baha'u'llah asks of another, with respect to the House of Justice:

"Say: O people! We shall put to you a question in all truthfulness, taking God for a witness between you and Us. He, verily, is the Defender of the righteous. Appear, then, before His Throne of glory and make reply with justice and fair-mindedness. Is it God Who is potent to achieve His purpose, or is it ye who enjoy such authority? Is it He Who is truly unconstrained, as ye imply when ye say that He doeth what He pleaseth and shall not be asked of His doings, or is it ye who wield such power, and who merely make such assertions out of blind imitation, as did your forebears at the appearance of every other Messenger of God?" Suriy-i-Haykal para 58

This is my question to Peter Khan before the Throne of glory: "Is it God Who is potent to achieve His purpose, or is it [the House of Justice] that enjoy[s] such authority? Is it He Who is truly unconstrained, as ye imply when ye say that He doeth what He pleaseth and shall not be asked of His doings, or is it [the House of Justice] who wield[s] such power, and who merely make[s] such assertions out of blind imitation, as did your forebears at the appearance of every other Messenger of God?" That is my question to Peter Khan. If you believe, as you claim, that God does as He pleases and is unconstrained, then why don't you say to the believers that the answer is to turn to God/Baha'u'llah? Why don't you remind them that God is their safety and stronghold, the healer of all their ills? Does the House of Justice have the power to "quickeneth the world of being and reneweth the temples of all created things", or is that the power of the Word of God? Is the House really the central authority of the Cause or is it Baha'u'llah?

Peter appears to have missed the central point in the Baha'i concept that today is the Day of God. It means that today is the appearance of the principle that He is God, and the consquences are that anyone who comes in cooee of that station does so at their very grave peril. It's Peter's job to tell the believers "to put thy trust in Me" - that is, Baha'u'llah - "and not in thyself" - that is, not in the House of Justice. Why? Because "I desire to be loved alone and above all that is" (AHW 8), including the community's central administrative authority.

"Say: This is the Day of God, the Day on which naught shall be mentioned save His own Self, the omnipotent Protector of all worlds." (Kitab-i-Aqdas, para 167)

The irony in Baha'i rights

2009-07-30T11:00:00.011+12:00

Steve pointed out a while back that Wendi Momen had put up on her blog, Wendi's Wanders, a list of Baha'i rights. The entry in question is called "Freedom and Rights: Baha'i Rights Day". She tells us that 11 July has been designated "Baha'i Rights Day", which is when "bloggers and tweeters offer a thought on the rights of Baha’is". Great idea! It was conceived by the Muslim Network for Baha'i Rights and Iran Press Watch. There is even a website devoted to the day (warning: if you have the sound up on your computer, a loud noise will come out at you the second you access the site).

As I said, Wendi's contribution to this topic was to provide a list of Baha'i rights. The list includes these rights, which are problematic within the Baha'i community as much as they are outside it:
Freedom of conscience
Freedom of thought
Freedom of speech
Freedom of expression
Freedom to have and express one’s own opinion
Freedom to criticise
Freedom of the press
Freedom of investigation.
Her brief discussion on these freedoms leaves the reader with the impression that the idea of Baha'i rights is sort of new - she searches the writings to come up with her list. And the whole idea of having a Baha'i Rights Day has been conceived in the context of the upsurge in the persecution of the Baha'is in Iran.

So I thought that Wendi and others with an interest in this issue would be very pleased to know that an important paper on this topic was written a full decade ago. Back in 1999, Juan Cole wrote an article exploring Baha'i scripture for its attitude to the concept of human rights. The paper is called "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Baha'i Scriptures" and is up on the H-Baha'i site. Here is the opening paragraph:

"The conception of human rights arose as part of the project of modernity, and has been problematic for many religious traditions. I will argue that for important historical reasons, Baha'u'llah (the Prophet-Founder of the Baha'i Faith, 1817-1892) and the religion's subsequent holy figures all had an unusual commitment to the governmental guarantee of human rights. This is not to say that there are no conflicts between some strains of secular human rights thought and the values of Baha'i texts, only that the scriptures of the Baha'i Faith give support to the conception of human rights in a way that, if implemented, would minimize such conflicts. I will return to the question of why this should have been below. I should warn the reader that I am here concerned with the texts and ideals of the Baha’i holy figures rather than with later institutions or actual contemporary practice. One reason for this focus is that little thoroughgoing writing on these textual ideals has been produced, and in a scriptural religion such foundational work is key."

Here we come to the irony in the knotty issue of Baha'i rights. Why isn't Juan's paper quoted by those talking about this issue? Why didn't Wendi mention it? Does she know about it? If she does, why not mention it? If not, why would she not be aware of such a key paper on this topic? The comments on her site suggest that Baha'is generally have absolutely no idea that such a paper exists. These may seem like irrelevant questions, but actually they take us directly to the heart of why the issue of Baha'i rights is problematic.

Wendi Momen has what we might call a conflict of interest here. She is married to Moojan Momen and he has written an article for Religion, a prestigious academic journal, arguing strenuously that Juan Cole is an apostate of the Baha'i Faith! In the following passage from the article, Moojan outlines his understanding that Juan Cole was a member of a secret dissident group, who was confronted by a Baha'i counsellor about the fact that he was "causing disunity in the Baha'i community and ... in breach of the spirit of the Baha'i doctrine of the Covenant."

"The revelation of the existence of a secret dissident group with political aims initiated action by the Counsellors and their Auxiliary Boards. This was probably an unprecedented situation for them and no doubt they were uncertain how to proceed. They appear to have decided to ask one of their members, who had himself participated on Talisman, to meet face-to-face with a number of the marginal Baha'is whose comments on Talisman had caused most concern and to indicate to them that they were causing disunity in the Baha'i community and were in breach of the spirit of the Baha'i doctrine of the Covenant. One of the marginal Baha'is approached in this manner regarded the statements made to him as a threat of declaring him a "covenant-breaker" and decided to tender his resignation from the Baha'i Faith in May 1996. This individual was Juan Cole, a professor of Middle Eastern history at University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who had been a core Baha'i for 25 years, during which time he travelled to the Middle East and West Africa to propagate the religion and written in support of his religion. In the fall-out from the Talisman episode and Cole's resignation, there was a small number of further resignations of marginal Baha'is over the next few years." Marginality and Apostasy in the Baha'i Community

This paragraph is just lovely; it tells us exactly what the Baha'i authorities think of Juan Cole. And it isn't good! You can find out more on Juan Cole's misdemeanours further on in the article. One was to include "a number of apostate issues in the text of a book on Baha'u'llah that he had written." (The book referred to here is "Modernity and the Millennium", an academic work Juan published in 1998.) No wonder then that you don't find Wendi quoting from scholarship done by Juan Cole. The fact is that Juan's expressed opinions were so unacceptable to Baha'i authorities that they saw him (quite sincerely, I'm sure) in this negative light of dissidence and apostacy, and ultimately have succeeded in forcing him and his scholarship into a category equivalent to that of religious leper.

This exposes the irony of Wendi's message on Baha'i rights and her call for Baha'i freedoms. The message exists within a milieu in which those freedoms are already denied to fellow Baha'is. The very fact that Juan and his Baha'i scholarship - which is considerable and significant - is invisible to mainstream Baha'is is glaring proof that, when push comes to shove, Baha'is do not have rights to conscience, speech, criticism and investigation when their views are disliked by Baha'i authorities.

In the Tablet of the Uncompounded Reality, Baha'u'llah says: "O Husyan! This wronged one declares: words need deeds. Words without deeds are as bees without honey or as trees without fruit." In my view, Wendi's words are pretty patterns on a screen of light. The real business of human rights, when taken seriously, is a gruelling challenge. Look at it from the perspective of the religious authorities in Iran, for example: Baha'is demand the right to religious freedoms from them, when those authorities believe with every fibre of their souls that Baha'u'llah is a heretic and that Muhammad is the Seal of the Prophets. If Baha'is expect the Iranian authorities to swallow all that, then the least the Baha'i authorities can do is live with challenging comments that Juan Cole and others make within Baha'i discourse. In the context of religious freedoms, this is what constitutes "deeds".

History and the Iqan

2009-07-19T16:04:00.009+12:00

I finished reading the Iqan for the umteenth time a few weeks back. When I first read it three decades ago, I couldn't understand a word of it. Now when I read it, mostly I see that Baha'u'llah is describing the Baha'is. It rolls through my mind that when the Baha'is read the Iqan – if they ever do – they think it refers to the Muslims, Christians and Jews – after all, those are the people Baha'u'llah actually names, isn't it? And for ages, I read the Iqan like that too. But now, I recognise that Baha'u'llah is pointing the finger at the Baha'is as much as he is the people of other Books.

The Iqan gives us a cosmic history of religion. It tells us the history of religion from the point of view of God. And, from that vantage point, it explains to us what that history is from two points of view: from the point of view of those in the spiritual world and from the point of view of those in the physical world. To take a simple example, Christ was crucified, but how was that physical event interpreted by God and those in the highest Kingdom? Baha'u'llah tells us that during Christ's interrogation, he tried to open the eyes of onlookers to the spiritual reality before them by saying "Beholdest thou not the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power and might?" Baha'u'llah explains:

"Finally, an accursed of God arose and, approaching Jesus, adjured Him saying: 'Didst thou not claim to be the Divine Messiah? Didst thou not say, "I am the King of Kings, My word is the Word of God, and I am the breaker of the Sabbath day?"' Thereupon Jesus lifted up His head and said: 'Beholdest thou not the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power and might?' These were His words, and yet consider how to outward seeming He was devoid of all power except that inner power which was of God and which had encompassed all that is in heaven and on earth.' (Baha'u'llah: The Kitab-i-Iqan, Page: 133)

And so the point Baha'u'llah is making is that although in the physical world Christ was being interrogated and his life was in danger, the spiritual reality was that he wielded unlimited power. He just chose not to use it. There were two narratives going on, which were the opposite of each other. In the physical narrative, Christ was powerless; in the spiritual narrative, Christ was all-powerful. And throughout the Iqan, Baha'u'llah is telling us this double story. We tell a story about past events in this world – we call it history - but there is a complementary cosmic story told in the highest Kingdom and it is quite different.

Like it or lump it, the Baha'is are a part of the cosmic history that Baha'u'llah has introduced to humanity in the Iqan. Baha'u'llah discusses in the Iqan how this cosmic history begins in the beginning that has no beginning and ends in the end that has no end. The Baha'is don't think of the Baha'i revelation as being a part of it. But if that was the case, then cosmic history would have to end with the appearance of the Bab. The Baha'i revelation is a part of cosmic history and the consequences of that are a complex issue indeed.

Perhaps I haven't quite got the Baha'i position right here. Baha'is are willing to see themselves as a part of cosmic history, but only on the right side of it. They are not willing to see themselves as the baddies. The baddies who persecute the manifestations are the Muslims, Christians and Jews – but not the Baha'is. Baha'is are the victims; they are on the side of the manifestations; they are the ones who suffer and are martyred for the manifestations who appear in the world unrecognised. The logical problem with this assumption is that Jews, Christians and Muslims have all suffered and been martyred in the Cause of new manifestations. There were Jewish, Christian and Muslim martyrs in previous Days of Resurrection when God renewed his religion. But those people of the Book ended up persecuting future manifestations. This is one of the central themes of the cosmic story that Baha'u'llah tells, that just because you call yourself Jewish, Christian, or Muslim doesn't mean you have not persecuted God, doesn't mean you are on the side of right. Why do Baha'is imagine themselves to be immune from this cycle?

The answer is infallibility. If the House of Justice is infallible, it will not persecute the next manifestation. The effect of this assumption of infallibility is to rule the Baha'is out of the cosmic story as persecutors and allow only for them to be the persecuted. In the Baha'i world view, only Jews, Christians and Muslims can be on the wrong side of cosmic history. I suggest that this highly selective and self-serving reading of the Iqan is one important reason why the Baha'is do not take a lot of notice of the Iqan. The book makes statements that leave Baha'is uncomfortable; for example:

"Likewise, in the verse concerning the 'Spirit,' He saith: 'And they will ask Thee of the Spirit. Say, "the Spirit proceedeth at My Lord's command."'[Qur'an 17:85] As soon as Muhammad's answer was given, they all clamorously protested, saying: 'Lo! an ignorant man who knoweth not what the Spirit is, calleth Himself the Revealer of divine Knowledge!' And now behold the divines of the age who, because of their being honoured by His name, and finding that their fathers have acknowledged His Revelation, have blindly submitted to His truth. Observe, were this people today to receive such answers in reply to such questionings, they would unhesitatingly reject and denounce them - nay, they would again utter the self-same cavils, even as they have uttered them in this day." (Baha'u'llah: The Kitab-i-Iqan, Page: 183)

What would the Baha'is of today say to a person who said about the spirit that it proceeds at the Lord's command? Well, they might say that the spirit proceeds at the House of Justice's command! And they'd denounce the person for laying claim to any knowledge or experience of the spirit independent of the House of Justice, for all spirit is confined to that institution and its global teaching campaign - in the same way, for example, that bringing ourselves to account each day is asking ourselves what we're doing to support those two things.

But in any case, the point in the quote from the Iqan is that the divines were believers because their ancestors were believers and, therefore, only blindly obeyed their religion, despite being considered experts in the manifestation they claimed to adhere to. Why can't the Baha'is be guilty of this? Why can't this be true of those who are held up as leaders in the Baha'i community? This is an example of why a close reading of the Iqan is an awkward thing for Baha'is, why they don't do it and, when they do, they talk in general terms and point the finger at members of previous religions, but never apply the principles and lessons in the book to themselves.

But much as the Baha'is like to think of themselves as paragons of virtue, this myth cannot go on forever. The cosmic story that Baha'u'llah outlines in the Iqan is higher than any of us on this earth, including the House of Justice, and it will separate those who truly believe from those who blindly submit. One of the reasons I am bringing this subject up is that, to my mind, the Baha'i community is completely lost. The global campaign that the House of Justice is running, and that sporned 40 regional conferences, is an exercise in hysteria, vain imaginings and idle fancies. The Baha'i community has lost its way. And the reason this has happened is because of the infallibility fallacy.

I suggest that a good way to understand what's happened to the community is to see it in the context Baha'u'llah lays out for us in the Iqan. He tells us that manifestations come, that a few will believe but most, following their religious leaders, will not believe and will persecute. We also know that the followers of that same religion will play out the same game 1000 years later when the next manifestion comes. The Baha'is are no different. It took less than 20 years for the Babis to go off the rails, why do the Baha'is imagine themselves to be still on track 100 or so years later? I think it's time to start telling ourselves different stories – not stories about how it'll turn out all right on the night because the House of Justice is infallible, but stories about how we're doing as a community against the measures Baha'u'llah gives us in the Iqan such as:
-- Have we blindly submitted to our religious leaders instead of reading scripture for ourselves and coming to our own understanding of it?
-- Do we take seriously the imperative requirement that we have a pure heart, as outlined in the tablet of the true seeker?

Baha'is are indoctrinated to believe that their history is encapsulated in the Dawn-breakers. And although some aspect of Baha'i history is told there, we are also a part of a much larger history that Baha'u'llah outlines in the Iqan. We need to widen our horizons and see ourselves as part of a cosmic story that stretches over revelations. Each community will ultimately become divided as each new manifestation appears. We cannot afford to imagine that just because we call ourselves 'Baha'is' we are on the side of right, that we would not persecute a person who one day came among us and tried to make new laws that overrode those of Baha'u'llah. What would you do to such a person? One day such a person will come – although not in our lifetimes – but what would you think of him/her? Would you investigate openly for yourself, or take the easy road and just follow those who told you s/he was a heretic?