For us and against us

I am reading the Gospel of Luke for the first time. I've read the Gospels of Matthew and John, but this is my first journey into Luke. Whenever I get submerged in one of the Gospels, I marvel at the things Jesus said. What a guy! He's pure magic. He had snappy answers for everyone. Very impressive and a joy to read (except for the crucifixion).
One passage I felt compelled to mention was Luke 9:49-50:

49 "Master," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us." (New International Version)

I had to laugh. Jesus had annointed the disciples so that they could do what he had been doing: going around healing people and driving out demons. So there's the disciples going around the towns doing exactly that, and what do they find? A guy doing the same thing as them only without any authority from Jesus! What a cheek! The disciples were none too happy about finding this pretender at work, so they tried to stop him. After all, he wasn't one of them.
This has parallels with the situation today where the administration isn't happy about the unenrolled Baha'is calling themselves Baha'is and teaching the Faith. After all, they're not one of them! What a cheek! Teaching the Faith without any authority from the administration, not even a membership card!
What did Jesus say in reply?

50"Do not stop him," Jesus said, "for whoever is not against you is for you." (New International Version)

What a reply! First of all, Jesus didn't mind that this guy was driving out demons in his name without his express permission. Secondly, he tells the disciples that the principle is: to assume the guy is on their side, given that he shows no signs of being against them. Gee, that would be nice, if the administration were to heed Jesus' advice and assume that I was for them. I'm certainly not against them. It's not my fault I have to work for the Cause independently of them. It still baffles me that they'd prefer that I just let Baha'u'llah go. I don't think Jesus would have wanted that guy to let him go.
In any case, this got me thinking about George Bush and his silly comment about everyone who was not for him being against him. After reading Luke 9:50, I thought Bush had misquoted Jesus. But I discovered that, a bit further on in chapter 11, Jesus actually says that as well:

23"He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me, scatters." (New International Version)

That got me thinking. Here, on the face of it, Jesus has said the opposite to what he said above. It's just as well I'm not a literalist; for otherwise this would be a nightmare to sort out. My commentary on the Bible says that verse 9:50 is a warning against intolerance and that verse 11:23 makes the point that it is impossible to be neutral in the conflict between good and evil. That strikes me as a sound understanding of the difference between the two passages.
I assume George Bush thought he was working on the second principle and that he was on the side of good and everyone not on his side was on the side of evil. But I can see how easy it is to confuse the two principles. If you're intolerant, you're going to assume that people are against you when they're not and you're going to justify this on the basis that anyone seemingly not for you is against you.
Baha'u'llah was asked why he didn't oppose Azal earlier than he did. In reply, Baha'u'llah gave a similar answer to the one Jesus gave in 9:50: that God judges people on outward appearances and considers a person on God's side unless they openly rise in opposition:

"Salman, the Absolute Truth has always judged the people according to outward appearances, and has commanded all the prophets and messengers to do the same. It is impermissible to do otherwise. For instance, consider a person who is at this moment a believer and a monotheist, such that the sun of divine unity is refulgent within him. He affirms and recognizes all the divine names and attributes and whatever the preexistent Beauty testifies to, he bears witness to that, for himself and by himself. In this station all descriptions are true and current in regard to him. Rather, no one is capable of describing him as he really is save God. All these descriptions refer to the effulgence that shone upon him from the sovereign of manifestation. In this station, should any of the people oppose him, they would be opposing God himself. For in him nothing can be seen save the divine effulgences, as long as he remains in this station. Should a bad word be said about him, the speaker would be a liar. After he rises in opposition, however, that effulgence that had been the basis for describing him, and all the other related attributes, depart to their own habitation. Now that individual is not the same person, for those attributes do not subsist in him. If you look with sharp eyes you will notice that not even his clothes are the same. For a believer, while he is believing in and affirming God, might be wearing clothes of cotton, but in God's eyes they are of heavenly silk. But when he rises in opposition, they are transformed into the flaming tar of Gehenna. At this point, should anyone praise such an individual, he would be a liar and would be mentioned by God as among the people of hellfire." Commentary on a Verse of Rumi paragraph 6

Although it is also true that one can't be neutral in the conflict between good and evil, I think the principle above is the one we are expected to apply in our everyday dealings with people. We have to assume well of others unless they give us good reason not to. In which case, I think justice requires the administration to cut me and other unenrolled Baha'is some slack and start seeing us as workers in one Cause.

Newspaper article mentions my expulsion

In mid-August last year, I received an email out of the blue from a journalist from the New Zealand Press Association (usually referred to as the NZPA). In the message, he said that he would be writing a feature article on the Baha'is in New Zealand and related topics. He asked if he could talk to me to find out my opinions. I wrote and agreed to be interviewed. Without realising it, I assumed that the journalist - his name was Reg Ponniah - had already spoken to the NSA or its media people. I didn't know what had led him to me, but assumed it was my website.
As it turned out, when Reg and I got talking, I found out that he had not yet spoken to NSA! He contacted me first because he'd been looking on the Internet for information about "Baha'i" and "New Zealand" and my name persistently came up. He said he'd been inspired to write the article in the wake of the hostilities between Israel and Lebanon, in which the Baha'i gardens had been a target. Reg didn't understand that I was not involved with the administration of the faith. So the interview began with my explaining to him how the administration worked and what it meant that I was 'disenrolled'. I also made it clear that I was a believer and gave him my views on my disenrollment and the state of the Baha'i community. It all went very well. Reg said he'd talk to NSA and then get back to me.
I didn't hear from him again, but his article appeared in Wellington's Dominion Post on January 4 2007, headed "Isles of calm in a hateful world". For copyright reasons, I can't quote the whole article. The angle of it is the persecution of the Baha'is. It describes the New Zealand Baha'i community as "thriving and vibrant" and says that its "followers number about 4000 in New Zealand". The 2006 census puts it at 2772 and declining. See Steve's figures on Baha'is Online. Here's the passage that refers to my disenrollment.

"Ms Mahon [NSA secretary] said the Baha'i community was shown on Triangle TV in Auckland recently educating the public about the faith.

"Ours is a unifying message. We accept all religions of all peoples." Baha'is hoped to bring down religious and racial prejudices.

The religion is not without its detractors, however. A long-time Baha'i member said she was unceremoniously kicked out of the faith without any explanation.

Alison Marshall, a lawyer in Dunedin and member of the Baha'i faith for 20 years, said she was "disenrolled" by the National Spiritual Assembly, the NZ Baha'i movement's administrative body, without any satisfactory reason.

But Ms Mahon said Ms Marshall had indicated by her articles on the Internet that her beliefs were not aligned with Baha'i principles. "There are certain requirements followers are obliged to accept. She was not prepared to do that."

Ms Marshall said she became a Baha'i in New Zealand in 1980. "For the next 20 years, I was a loyal and active member of the religion, until 2000." During that time she has had differences with the way the administration was run.

When she was expelled as a member, Ms Marshall took the Baha'is to court. However, the court decided there was no case to answer and that the Baha'i religion was entitled to make its ruling on her membership.

Three people had been expelled from the movement in the past decade: a Canadian in 1997, Ms Marshall in 2000 and another New Zealander last year.

Ms Mahon said every faith had its dissenters."

Inner and outer unity

I know of a couple of places where Baha'u'llah mentions the concept of a person being inwardly and outwardly united.

"No two men can be found who may be said to be outwardly and inwardly united. The evidences of discord and malice are apparent everywhere, though all were made for harmony and union." Gleanings, CXII

"Perhaps they [the divine friends] will visit the illumined beauty of the pure, radiant and sanctified friend in the land of love, detachment, amiability and exaltation. Thus would they receive the lights dawning from the morn of his brow and the effulgence of the perspicuous day, to at least the extent that they would be enabled to unite their inner and outer selves... Now, they must put forth their utmost effort and give their unswerving attention, so that their inward secrets not be contrary to their overt behavior, nor their outward deeds at variance with their inner mysteries." Tablet of the Holy Mariner - Persian section

In Tablet of the Son, Baha'u'llah explains that what's unique to the Baha'i revelation is the appearance of 'virtue'. Yes, virtue has appeared before in previous dispensations, but in this dispensation, it has been given a new importance:

"Note that what appeared was virtues, of which all remained ignorant. It would be the indisputable truth to say that all of these virtues were hidden and concealed in the scriptures and that in the dispensation of the Point of the Bayan, the veiled faces of meaning came out from behind the curtain in the chambers of the divine verses. And if it were said that what went before was a concise mention, whereas thereafter came one who clarified and spoke in detail, that would be the truth, in which there is not doubt. If it were said that what became manifest in the new revelation had not been apparent in previous dispensations - though all are wondrous and new - this saying is also correct and complete." Tablet of the Son, para 8

Other places where I've seen Baha'u'llh underlining this theme about virtue is in the Hidden Words:

"O MY FRIENDS! Quench ye the lamp of error, and kindle within your hearts the everlasting torch of divine guidance. For ere long the assayers of mankind shall, in the holy presence of the Adored, accept naught but purest virtue and deeds of stainless holiness." Persian Hidden Words, no 35

"O CHILDREN OF ADAM! Holy words and pure and goodly deeds ascend unto the heaven of celestial glory. Strive that your deeds may be cleansed from the dust of self and hypocrisy and find favor at the court of glory; for ere long the assayers of mankind shall, in the holy presence of the Adored One, accept naught but absolute virtue and deeds of stainless purity. This is the day-star of wisdom and of divine mystery that hath shone above the horizon of the divine will. Blessed are they that turn thereunto." Persian Hidden Words, no 69

And let's not forget the all-important first passage of the Aqdas, which states that our deeds must be consistent with our claims to faith:

"The first duty prescribed by God for His servants is the recognition of Him Who is the Dayspring of His Revelation and the Fountain of His laws, Who representeth the Godhead in both the Kingdom of His Cause and the world of creation. Whoso achieveth this duty hath attained unto all good; and whoso is deprived thereof hath gone astray, though he be the author of every righteous deed. It behoveth everyone who reacheth this most sublime station, this summit of transcendent glory, to observe every ordinance of Him Who is the Desire of the world. These twin duties are inseparable. Neither is acceptable without the other. Thus hath it been decreed by Him Who is the Source of Divine inspiration."

My understanding of the above quotes is this: that in the Baha'i revelation, the unity of our inner and outer selves is crucial. Hypocrisy is rejected and those who are motivated by it will find themselves powerless to achieve their purposes. There is no excuse any more, we must truly purify our inner and outer selves of all but God.
Why am I mentioning this? When the US was planning to invade Iraq, I argued that the whole thing was folly because George Bush and his allies were hypocrites. They talked about democracy, freedom and so on, but only thought of these universal goods for the people in their own priviledged countries. They didn't act with the principle of the oneness of humanity in their hearts. And I believe from the above quotes that Baha'u'llah has rendered hypocrites powerless in this Day. No matter what resources they throw at it, they can't achieve their purpose.
The principle of inner and outer unity also came to my mind in a related context - the business of the gunman who shot the students and staff at Virginia Tech University. The details that have surfaced about the gunman show that, on the inside, the guy had an inner life dominated by violence. And it's clear to everyone that this inner life lead to him killing people. But, as a society, we tend to downplay the importance of our inner lives and their effect on our outer lives. We allow violent video games, violent movies, and images of violent crime and war to flood our lives and yet reject the idea this might have any impact on our outer lives. In general, people would be hard pressed to take seriously Baha'u'llah's call to purify our inner selves of all that stuff.
The Virginia massacre also got me thinking about the way the 'war on terror' has been conceptualised. What is the source of terror? Generally, it is thought to be people who 'hate our freedoms', or who have genuine grievances against the West, or who have a different cultural and religious background to those in the West and feel their own way of life is threatened. Critics have pointed out that the US is a terrorist state. Those on the receiving end of the Iraq invasion couldn't help but be terrified. After all, it was called 'shock and awe' for a reason. But it seems to me that the source of terror isn't a group of people from any particular religion or culture; it's our inner selves. That's the source of terror. If we don't have inner selves dominated by feelings of hatred and images of violence, then we won't kill people.
What struck me about the video footage of the gunman - and it was no doubt not lost on anyone else - was the amount he'd learned from terrorist groups that had filmed murder of hostages and posted it on the Internet. Authorities appear to have rejected the idea that the massacre was a terrorist attack, but is that the right conclusion? The gunman is as much a terrorist as anyone blowing things up in Baghdad. A 'terrorist' is a universal phenomenon; it's any person with a sense of grievance and an inner life crazy enough to inspire massacre. What's to stop people everywhere with a grievance from rising up and causing havoc?
If we want to 'save' ourselves from 'terrorists', then we need to focus on the principle Baha'u'llah has set for us. We need to start by cleaning up our own inner lives, not by accusing others of being evil and assuming ourselves to be lily white. And we need to create a society with citizens that don't ever think about violent things.
Happy Ridvan!

The view around another corner

It's my birthday today; I'm 48. What has Baha'u'llah given me for my birthday? The view around another corner.
I've been grappling with the issue of appropriate speech for a few years now. But today I felt I had the issue reconciled within me. I've done alot of changing over the past few years and this has caused me to look at the way I've spoken about issues concerning the Faith and the community. With my new view on things, I came to feel that I needed to moderate my speech when I spoke on these issues. In addition, I came to feel that the issues that used to consume me, such as infallibility and women on the House, didn't matter as much as I thought they did. And so I stopped talking about these issues for two to three years. But things have changed again - hence the new view.
One principle that is fundamental to speech is this one: to speak with words that are like milk. Baha'u'llah says this in a couple of places; for example:

"Among the helpers of God is discourse. In this greatest of dispensations, deeds and ethics are the armies of God and are busy aiding him. If discourse is delivered in a measured fashion, it is a divine mercy. If it goes to excess, it becomes destructive. In the tablets, we have advised all to employ a sort of discourse that has the characteristics of milk hidden within it, and to nurture the children of the world with it so that they might be brought to the age of maturity. In every station, discourse becomes apparent by virtue of some quality and shines because of some impact. The scent of good or bad wafts from it." Baha'u'llah, Tablet of Unity

After meditating on this principle over the last few years, I decided that I needed to pull my head in as regards my speech. As a result, I have toned myself right down and tried to avoid exchanges that I know will get me going and cause me to say something I'll regret. I've also stopped feeling compelled to engage with people who disagree with me. I just can't be bothered anymore. If a person has another view than me, then that's fine by me. I notice that others can't stop attacking or engaging those who disagree with them. Being able to leave people alone is a detachment state that takes some working on.
But Baha'u'llah also says in the quote above that discourse is a thing that aids God. So, it isn't necessary to fall completely silent about things. We each have a unique perspective and it's right for us to share that, so long as it is done appropriately. I often think about the way Baha'u'llah did things. In the Iqan, you hear the way he used to talk to those who'd come to visit and share their interpretations on the Qur'an. More often than not, their understandings were very sad indeed. But Baha'u'llah would patiently say something like: "Have you considered looking at it this way?" But in his writings, sometimes Baha'u'llah didn't speak with works like milk! In any case, I feel that so long as one's view is delivered in a measured and rational way and backed up with the writings, then there can be no harm in it, even if others disagree with it and think you have no right to say it.

Taqlid

This entry was originally posted on my blog on May 20, 2005.

Baquia has an excellent piece on his blog called Ruhi Redux. It is a short analysis of what's wrong with Ruhi and it has a link to Tony Lee’s compelling essay, The Ruhi Problem, on the subject.

One of the points Baquia makes is that the thrust of Ruhi is 'taqlid' , which he defines as "blind and unquestioning imitation in action or belief". Taqlid is a big part of Shi'ism. Believers are expected to find a religious leader who they respect and is suitably qualified and then imitate that person's religious belief and action. This is necessary because ordinary people lack the necessary education to figure that stuff out for themselves. Baquia refers to the fact that there are explicit texts that condemn taqlid, but he does not quote any.

That got me thinking that I should post here a section from an old Talisman message by Juan Cole. In it, he pulls together a number of quotes in which Baha’u'llah condemns taqlid. I think this mini compilation is informative because Juan includes with the English the relevant phrases from the original in brackets. The result gives someone like me, who can't read the orginal, an understanding of the context for the ban on blind obedience and a better understanding of what it means. When it comes to our religious beliefs, we are not to imitate anyone - not religious authority or any 'forefather' in any form. If we do, our belief will amount to no more than an attachment to names, where we align ourselves with the name 'Baha' all the while denying its reality. To avoid this, we have to see that reality with our own eyes.

"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." Baha’u'llah: The Surah of Sacrifice (Suratu’dh-Dhibh)

Alison

————–

Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 00:40:18 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole
To: talisman@i…
Subject: conscience, blind obedience, and Luther

...

2) With regard to the principle of blind obedience (taqlid) of religious authority, Baha’u'llah abrogated it. He did not abrogate it in Islam only to re-institute it in the Baha’i Faith in an even more Draconian form.

Seven Valleys, p. 5: "It is incumbent on these servants that they cleanse the heart–which is the wellspring of divine treasures–from every marking, and that they turn away from imitation (taqlid), which is following the traces of their forefathers and sires, and shut the door of friendliness and enmity upon all the people of the earth."

Gleanings LXXV: "Tear asunder, in My Name, the veils that have grievously blinded your vision, and, through the power born of your belief in the unity of God, scatter the idols of vain imitation (asnam-i taqlid)."

Gleanings p. 166: "Such men have been, and will continue to remain, the victims of blind imitation (ahl-i taqlid)."

Iqan pp. 73-74: "Consider how men have for generations been blindly imitating their fathers (bar taqlid-i aba')."

Iqan, p. 183: "Muslim divines have "blindly submitted" (taqlidan) to the truth of Muhammad, but would reject the Bab even if he gave the same answers as the former."

Iqan p. 155: "He would have preferred to suffer death than violate one letter of those superstitious forms (umur-i taqlidiyyih) and manners current amongst his people."

Baha’u'llah clearly insisted that individuals make up their own minds about religious issues, in an impartial and fair-minded way, unswayed by authorities such as their forebears or ecclesiastical figures.

...

cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan

Witches and dyslexia

I've mentioned in passing in previous messages that I am dyslexic to some extent - enough to make me different, that's for sure! I haven't been tested scientifically, but I am a slow reader and, after looking into it a bit, I have other characteristics as well. I can see now that being dyslexic has shaped the passage of my whole life so far, including my experience as a Baha'i.

It came to my attention particularly last year, when Tom West, the author of the book "In the Mind's Eye", was visiting New Zealand and was interviewed on national radio. When I heard him talking about how dyslexic people tend to think, I was amazed and I discovered why I had spent my life struggling to 'fit in' and why I never was able to do post-graduate work at university. It was around 1999 when I discovered to my astonishment that it wasn't that I was stupid and everyone else intelligent, but that I was able to see things that others didn't see. Various things were obvious to me, but others never saw them, and so I thought what I saw was wrong (and, often, bad, I was told) and that I was missing what was plain to them. Getting on the Internet discussion lists was what woke me up. Finally, I met a few others who could see what I saw - so I wasn't stupid, for society said these people were smart - but most people didn't see what we saw.

I haven't yet read the book "In the Mind's Eye" - it takes a while for me to read a book! But I found a short essay on the Internet that's been helpful. It's called "Dyslexic Gifts" by Melanie Jameson. She says that dyslexia is a "difference in learning" but is usually thought of as a "learning disability". The brains of dyslexic people simply work differently to others, resulting in dysfunction in some areas and enhanced function in others. She lists 10 characteristics of the dyslexic mind, which she draws from her experience working in the education field.

"1. The fresh originality of an open-minded approach that is not limited by preconceptions...
2. A holistic (all-round) view rather than an analytical step-by-step approach...
3. An awareness of unexpected links, cross-curricular associations and unexpected applications...
4. Creative thinking and lateral problem solving skills...
5. Good powers of visualisation including visualising in 3D...
6. A range of artistic talents...
7. Excellent visuo-spatial skills...
8. An intuitive untaught understanding of how things work...
9. Well developed practical skills in a range of areas without any study of underlying theory...
10. Despite the fact that dyslexic people are generally restricted to their individual learning style and may be unable to mentally engage with a task without a personal link with the subject, this often results in a more intense, subjective and creative outcome."

I don't have all of these characteristics. The ideas that are important to me are: an original approach, the holistic view, seeing unexpected links, creative thinking, visualisation (of the whole of a system, but not in 3D), intuitive understanding in some situations, being unable to engage in a task unless it has a personal link to me, which results in an intense, subjective and creative outcome (my blog is an excellent example of that).

Melanie goes on in the short essay to say some key things about dyslexics, which were crucial for me: "the lack of confidence due to past humiliations which is such a pervasive feature of dyslexia; many dyslexic people have difficulty accepting that their work is good and have a real fear that they cannot handle success." I've already mentioned how I spent 30 years convinced that I was stupid. As for success, I live a very quiet life, in which I keep outside stimulation controlled. I am (or, at least, was) 'noisy' on the Internet because I could control the reaction to what I said by staying off the computer. These days I can't cope even with the discussion lists, so I write a blog where no one can write comments.

Melanie goes on:

"Tom West refers to the type of mind which is good at creating new knowledge but weak at retaining 'old knowledge'. In fact it is this acquiring and retaining of 'old knowledge' that has been the stumbling block for so many gifted dyslexic people often denying them access to higher education. Because reading is laborious and still not an automatic process, dyslexic students frequently fail to demonstrate that they are sufficiently conversant with the full range of research, theoretical approaches and the relevant historical background... Sometimes a tutor will have great difficulty assessing a piece of work which reveals true talent but does not conform to marking criteria; perhaps the ultimate example of this is an engineering student who designed a revolutionary new racing car engine but could not convey this understanding and insight in written form in his final examinations."

This is why I haven't done post-graduate work at university. But it goes further than that, right to the heart of my religious experience as a Baha'i. My understanding of what the Faith is is based on a visualisation of a transcendent schema. This has developed out of my reading of the writings and my dyslexic characteristics of holistic visualisaion, seeing the system behind things, making creative links and so on. These days, the whole of my religious experience is embedded in this sacred, colourful, dream world.

To me, all else is 'old knowledge': almost all the secondary literature written about the Faith and the religious experience of most Baha'is, which is embedded in a community and administration milieu. Like the engineer who invented a new car from whole cloth and couldn't explain it from accepted principles, I cannot describe or explain my religious experience working from the principles that most Baha'is hold as key to their understanding of what consitutes the Faith. To me, those principles are 'old knowledge' and you can't logically get from there to where I am - you have to be prepared to see with new eyes.

Now, it isn't surprising that my view of the Faith, which is almost universally misunderstood, is seen as a threat by mainstream Baha'is. I feel like I play the role of 'the witch' in ancient times. The opinions held about me are based on ignorance, superstition and fear. But in future more will be understood about dyslexia and how it enables people to think in new ways, and the Baha'i community will gradually become more tolerant of its members thinking outside the square.

One important fruit of the skills dyslexia gives me is my upcoming website. I hope to launch it sometime in April. To me, it is a product of my holistic view of the Faith; I want it to be a completely new way 'into' the Faith for people and a new way of seeing and experiencing it. Usually, when people learn about the Faith, it comes to them through the community/administration filter that Baha'is wear. My new website will give people the opportunity to learn about the Faith without that filter. Baha'u'llah is the most stunning beauty ever created. It would be a thrill for me if people were able to see that beauty directly in their early encounters with his writings.

The Eden dream

"Myriads of mystic tongues find utterance in one speech, and myriads of hidden mysteries are revealed in a single melody" (PHW 16)

Warning, folks: I've got only one thing to say - same thing as last time - and I'm going to say it again.

Last year, I read closely for the first time Abdu'l-Baha's interpretation of the Adam and Eve story in Some Answered Questions (chapter 30). Adam was sent out of the garden of Eden because his soul, Eve, became attached to this world and lost touch with the spiritual realm. The snake is the symbol of attachment to this world. It's the same idea as the one I mentioned in my last post, about the bird whose wings get weighed down by the dust and clay of this world and can fly no more.

Yesterday, I saw all this in a new light. As I said in my last post, I've been getting a glimpse of a new groove lately. Perhaps the idea that best conveys it is that, increasingly, I experience life as if it is a dream. It's like living in a movie with great cinematography. You float through the swirling colours and images of the film and glide around like it's a dream. However, usually when you get out of the theatre with this lovely glow all around, you are struck by the harsh reality of the physical world. In the new groove, that doesn't happen because life is the movie and only attachment brings you down with a thump.

I know that, partly, this new dream world came out of my repetiton of the Greatest Name 95 times everyday. When you begin, "God is All-Glorious" is only a phrase you struggle to focus on. After a few years, it gradually turns into a reality that blossoms out of the "syllables and sounds" as they unfold each day. You have a sense of "God is All-Glorious" ruling heaven and earth and generating the reality in which you are steeped. As you become increasingly linked to the Power that generates the substratum of your total experience, you see the world less and less as a solid reality. You see it more as a provisional reality, much like the words on the computer screen, which depict a reality but which are just written in light and have no actual substance. That's where the dream state comes from, the knowledge that "the world of limitations" is provisional in nature - it's contingent and being created moment by moment by the All-Glorious.

And so it was that I was drifting around my dream yesterday, when suddenly I thought: surely, this is the experience that the garden of Eden sybolism alludes to.

I've grown to love some fast prayers. Now, I interpret most of what Baha'u'llah says in terms of my new dream state. For example, I hear him say for me: "cast me not away from the gate of city of Thy presence". I interpret "the city of Thy presence" to be my dream state of beauty. "Cast me not away" because I only experience it with his permission. Just as with any dream, it can disappear in a split second. "To disappoint not the hopes I have set on the manifestations of thy grace amidst thy creatures." Again, Baha'u'llah has me beseeching him to open and keep open the rain of his grace, which lifts me up to his city. Then comes the gorgeous names in which Baha'u'llah generates his golden-weather reality: "the Most Holy, the Most Luminous, the Most Mighty, the Most Great, the Most Exalted, the Most Glorious" and I imagine the robe to which all cling to be like the white clouds in the sky that stretch across the horizon of creation.

And Baha'u'llah has me beseech him: "by Thy hair, which moveth across Thy face, even as Thy most exalted Pen moveth across the pages of Thy tablets, shedding the musk of hidden meanings over the kingdom of creaton." I can see Baha'u'llah moving some hair off his face - like the Houri does - and as he does, an invisible fragrance of meaning sweeps over the land and catches me in its breeze, and a new image in my dream is generated.

I could go on forever like this. The prayers are full of this stuff. Why? Because that's all they're about and all they're for. They're designed to sweep us off our feet and take us away.

"Windflowers, my father told me not to go near them, he feared them always,
Said they carried him away.
Windflowers, I couldn't wait to touch them, to smell them, I held them closely.
Now I cannot break away."
("Windflowers" by Seals and Crofts)

My father feared them; and he was wrong. Steve and I watched a documentary last night about the war for land in Australia. The hour-long programme amounted to a retelling of the appalling violent and mind-numbing injustices done to the Australian Aboriginal people by many (not all) settlers. Once the Aborginal people had been crushed and almost wiped out, those that remained alive became a problem for the Australian government. Their society had been destroyed and they lived in slavery, poverty and depravity. At this point, the focus of the documentary changed: it was no longer about how to crush the "blacks" but about how to 'fix' them. The Australian government went through many fads, inspired by Darwin, eugenics and the like, trying to find the solution that would 'fix' the "blacks". The problem is still with the government today. What stayed with me was this 'fixing' attitude. You see it today with governments trying to 'fix' the Middle East (after exploiting and destroying it for its own good).

My experience is that things can't be 'fixed' (especially not by those who act from prejudice and greed); they can only be dreamt into health through love. In finding Baha'u'llah and learning how to dream his dream, I have learned to overcome my depression and have lost a lot of my impatience and anger. When Baha'u'llah says that He is the only answer, I think what he's saying is that the world can't be 'fixed' so much as only be 'dreamt' to health through participation in His Reality. In it, each of us finds wholeness and oneness. Nothing can be 'fixed' without it.