| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kent Johnson
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 3:21 am Post subject: Interpretations |
 |
|
Examples of differing interpretations. Right now, in the Covenant thread,
there is a good example.
Baha'u'llah's "Book of the Covenant" says many things. Of those things in
the Book of the Covenant 'Abdu'l-Baha and the Guardian have singled out and
aspect that is unique and especially important. I wish to point out that
just because any things in the Book of the Covenant are unique and
especially important that does not mean that other things in the Book of the
Covenant are not unique or especially important.
So, A is true, B is true, C is true and D is true. Now D is unique and
especially important, but let's not forget A, B, and C, okay?
In the greater scheme of things, after D has been firmly established, the
most important part of the Book of the Covenant is A, although it is not
unique.
Even if the whole world says "The Book of the Covenant says D" those of us
who have read that book know that it also says A, B, and C.
--Kent |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Foucaultian
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 3:21 am Post subject: Re: Interpretations |
|
|
It is inevitable that people will have differening understandings.
Once a person has accepted Revelation of Baha'u'llah, the
authoritative interpretations of `Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi, and
the legislative elucidations of the Universal House of Justice, one is
free to understand those texts as one pleases - or even to suggest
*additional* interpretations.
As `Abdu'l-Baha wrote, after interpreting the story of Adam and Eve:
"This is one of the meanings of the biblical story of Adam. Reflect
until you discover the others."
http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/SAQ/saq-30.html
The most important principle here, IMO, is to suggest one's own
understandings humbly, without attempting to impose them on others,
and without challenging the authorities of Baha'u'llah, `Abdu'l-Baha,
Shoghi Effendi, and the Universal House of Justice.
Mark Foster |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Foucaultian
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 2:38 pm Post subject: Re: Interpretations |
|
|
On May 26, 5:34 am, "Kent Johnson" <k...@compx2.com> wrote:
| Quote: | I don't believe it takes much "interpretation" to say the Covenant of
Baha'u'llah is not merely a contract of succession. Only if we can't read
it for ourselves.
|
The eternal Covenant, as I understand it, is the promise that God will
not leave us alone. It is a guarantee of the provision of continuing
divine guidance.
| Quote: | How does one impose an understanding?
|
By insisting on one's own understandings, as if they were
authoritative.
| Quote: | The point here, in my opinion, is that the focus of the Covenant has for so
long been the Covenant Breakers that we have lost any notion of
independently investigating what our part in His Covenant should be. We
need to do our parts, and that is so much more than signing a card. And the
rewards for doing our parts are much more than just voting rights.
|
Not dwelling on, but understanding, the phenomenon of Covenant-
breaking can, IMO, be a useful reminder to keep an eye on our own
metaphorical "satans" (or insistent selves).
Mark Foster |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kent Johnson
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 3:34 pm Post subject: Re: Interpretations |
|
|
Hi Mark,
| Quote: | ...one is
free to understand those texts as one pleases - or even to suggest
*additional* interpretations.
|
The Book of the Covenant says:
"Every receptive soul who hath in this Day inhaled the fragrance of His
garment and hath, with a pure heart, set his face towards the all-glorious
Horizon is reckoned among the people of Baha in the Crimson Book."
I don't believe it takes much "interpretation" to say the Covenant of
Baha'u'llah is not merely a contract of succession. Only if we can't read
it for ourselves.
| Quote: | The most important principle here, IMO, is to suggest one's own
understandings humbly, without attempting to impose them on others,
and without challenging the authorities of Baha'u'llah, `Abdu'l-Baha,
Shoghi Effendi, and the Universal House of Justice.
|
How does one impose an understanding?
And certainly to accept the clear words of Baha'u'llah would not challenge
the earthy vestiges of His religion. I pray to God that should never be the
case.
The point here, in my opinion, is that the focus of the Covenant has for so
long been the Covenant Breakers that we have lost any notion of
independently investigating what our part in His Covenant should be. We
need to do our parts, and that is so much more than signing a card. And the
rewards for doing our parts are much more than just voting rights.
--Kent
"Foucaultian" <drfosternotfromgloucester@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5sadnXZ_iffe3afVnZ2dnUVZ_qfinZ2d@giganews.com...
| Quote: | It is inevitable that people will have differening understandings.
Once a person has accepted Revelation of Baha'u'llah, the
authoritative interpretations of `Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi, and
the legislative elucidations of the Universal House of Justice, one is
free to understand those texts as one pleases - or even to suggest
*additional* interpretations.
As `Abdu'l-Baha wrote, after interpreting the story of Adam and Eve:
"This is one of the meanings of the biblical story of Adam. Reflect
until you discover the others."
http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/SAQ/saq-30.html
The most important principle here, IMO, is to suggest one's own
understandings humbly, without attempting to impose them on others,
and without challenging the authorities of Baha'u'llah, `Abdu'l-Baha,
Shoghi Effendi, and the Universal House of Justice.
Mark Foster
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kent Johnson
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 8:36 pm Post subject: Re: Interpretations |
|
|
Hi Mark,
You: "....as I understand it..."
Well, I certainly can't find any reason your understanding should be
reasonable, shared with anyone else, or even explained. I just thought I
would ask.
| Quote: | ...insisting on one's own understandings, as if they were
authoritative.
|
No one's understanding is authoritative according to the principle of
independent investigation of truth. Only the Writings are authoritative,
and as you and Susan point out, only some of them.
It just seems to me that a document named by Baha'u'llah the "Covenant"
which bequeaths, exhorts, commands, forbids both His specifically named
family and His heirs, His trustess, and the people of Baha might, to the
uninitiated, be considered, at least partially, His Covenant.
Please correct me if you see fault to my reasoning. But I certainly respect
your right to reject my reasoning without providing your own.
--Kent
"Foucaultian" <drfosternotfromgloucester@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:msKdne7QQLheT6fVnZ2dnUVZ_siknZ2d@giganews.com...
| Quote: | On May 26, 5:34 am, "Kent Johnson" <k...@compx2.com> wrote:
I don't believe it takes much "interpretation" to say the Covenant of
Baha'u'llah is not merely a contract of succession. Only if we can't
read
it for ourselves.
The eternal Covenant, as I understand it, is the promise that God will
not leave us alone. It is a guarantee of the provision of continuing
divine guidance.
How does one impose an understanding?
By insisting on one's own understandings, as if they were
authoritative.
The point here, in my opinion, is that the focus of the Covenant has for
so
long been the Covenant Breakers that we have lost any notion of
independently investigating what our part in His Covenant should be. We
need to do our parts, and that is so much more than signing a card. And
the
rewards for doing our parts are much more than just voting rights.
Not dwelling on, but understanding, the phenomenon of Covenant-
breaking can, IMO, be a useful reminder to keep an eye on our own
metaphorical "satans" (or insistent selves).
Mark Foster
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Mark Foster
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 5:26 am Post subject: Re: Interpretations |
|
|
Kent Johnson wrote:
| Quote: | No one's understanding is authoritative according to the principle of
independent investigation of truth. Only the Writings are authoritative,
and as you and Susan point out, only some of them.
|
Well, translations of `Abdu'l-Baha's talks, without the Persian
originals, cannot be verified. That is what distinguishes Some Answered
Questions, for instance, from *some* of the talks in The Promulgation of
Universal Peace. There is a Persian original.
| Quote: | It just seems to me that a document named by Baha'u'llah the "Covenant"
which bequeaths, exhorts, commands, forbids both His specifically named
family and His heirs, His trustess, and the people of Baha might, to the
uninitiated, be considered, at least partially, His Covenant.
|
I agreed with you that most of the passages you cited related to the
Eternal Covenant.
| Quote: | Please correct me if you see fault to my reasoning. But I certainly respect
your right to reject my reasoning without providing your own.
|
I am not sure what you mean. Reasoning about what?
Mark Foster |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kent Johnson
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 4:50 pm Post subject: Re: Interpretations |
|
|
Hi Mark,
| Quote: | I am not sure what you mean. Reasoning about what?
|
About the difference between the Greater and Lesser Covenants. I believe
you now call the Greater Covenant the "Eternal Covenant" and that seems to
be your own unique interpretation of Baha'i scripture. I am wondering about
the reasoning you use to support such an interpretation.
--Kent
"Mark Foster" <drfosternotfromgloucester@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:StGdnVelG63h9KbVnZ2dnUVZ_h3inZ2d@giganews.com...
| Quote: | Kent Johnson wrote:
No one's understanding is authoritative according to the principle of
independent investigation of truth. Only the Writings are authoritative,
and as you and Susan point out, only some of them.
Well, translations of `Abdu'l-Baha's talks, without the Persian originals,
cannot be verified. That is what distinguishes Some Answered Questions,
for instance, from *some* of the talks in The Promulgation of Universal
Peace. There is a Persian original.
It just seems to me that a document named by Baha'u'llah the "Covenant"
which bequeaths, exhorts, commands, forbids both His specifically named
family and His heirs, His trustess, and the people of Baha might, to the
uninitiated, be considered, at least partially, His Covenant.
I agreed with you that most of the passages you cited related to the
Eternal Covenant.
Please correct me if you see fault to my reasoning. But I certainly
respect
your right to reject my reasoning without providing your own.
I am not sure what you mean. Reasoning about what?
Mark Foster
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kent Johnson
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 4:50 pm Post subject: Re: Interpretations |
|
|
Hi Mark,
| Quote: | I am not sure what you mean. Reasoning about what?
|
About the difference between the Greater and Lesser Covenants. I believe
you now call the Greater Covenant the "Eternal Covenant" and that seems to
be your own unique interpretation of Baha'i scripture. I am wondering about
the reasoning you use to support such an interpretation.
--Kent
"Mark Foster" <drfosternotfromgloucester@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:StGdnVelG63h9KbVnZ2dnUVZ_h3inZ2d@giganews.com...
| Quote: | Kent Johnson wrote:
No one's understanding is authoritative according to the principle of
independent investigation of truth. Only the Writings are authoritative,
and as you and Susan point out, only some of them.
Well, translations of `Abdu'l-Baha's talks, without the Persian originals,
cannot be verified. That is what distinguishes Some Answered Questions,
for instance, from *some* of the talks in The Promulgation of Universal
Peace. There is a Persian original.
It just seems to me that a document named by Baha'u'llah the "Covenant"
which bequeaths, exhorts, commands, forbids both His specifically named
family and His heirs, His trustess, and the people of Baha might, to the
uninitiated, be considered, at least partially, His Covenant.
I agreed with you that most of the passages you cited related to the
Eternal Covenant.
Please correct me if you see fault to my reasoning. But I certainly
respect
your right to reject my reasoning without providing your own.
I am not sure what you mean. Reasoning about what?
Mark Foster
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Foucaultian
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 6:13 pm Post subject: Re: Interpretations |
|
|
On May 27, 6:50 am, "Kent Johnson" <k...@compx2.com> wrote:
| Quote: | About the difference between the Greater and Lesser Covenants. I believe
you now call the Greater Covenant the "Eternal Covenant" and that seems to
be your own unique interpretation of Baha'i scripture. I am wondering about
the reasoning you use to support such an interpretation.
|
Hi, Kent:
No, I call the Covenant the Eternal (or Ancient) Covenant. The Greater
and Lesser Covenants are, IMO, forms of the Eternal Covenant.
Mark Foster |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Suzanne
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 9:06 pm Post subject: Re: Interpretations |
|
|
Kent wrote:
| Quote: |
About the difference between the Greater and Lesser Covenants. I believe
you now call the Greater Covenant the "Eternal Covenant" and that seems to
be your own unique interpretation of Baha'i scripture. I am wondering abo
ut
the reasoning you use to support such an interpretation.
|
Dear Kent,
The term "Eternal Covenant" isn't unique to Mark. Here's a passage
where 'Abdu'l-Baha uses the term, "the Eternal Covenant":
"God's summons was proclaimed, the table of the Eternal Covenant was
readied, the cup of the Testament was passed from hand to hand, the
universal invitation was sent forth. "
(`Abdu'l-Baha: Selections ... `Abdu'l-Baha, Page: 8)
And in Mr. Taherzadeh's book, The Covenant of Baha'u'llah, sets forth
a similar interpretation of the Eternal Covenant as Mark:
"This eternal Covenant of God with man encompasses several
distinguishable forms. The Bahá'í scholar George Townshend, for
instance, has identified seven types of covenant as being subsidiaries
of the eternal Covenant. He outlines them as follows:
"1. The ... Covenant, beginning with Adam and closing with
Bahá'u'lláh, between God and the whole human race.
2. Between God and each Messenger, assigning His Mission.
3. Between a Messenger and the faithful: Covenant of the next (or of a
later) Manifestation.
4. Between the Messenger and the faithful: Ethical Covenant of faith
and obedience.
5. Between the Messenger and the faithful: Covenant of immediate
Successor. 4
6. Between the Messenger and a disciple.
7. Between the immediate Successor (e.g. the Centre of the Covenant)
and the faithful: i. Covenant of continuing succession ii. Ethical
Covenant" [I-2]
(Adib Taherzadeh, The Covenant of Baha'u'llah, p. 3)
Best wishes,
Suzanne |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Foucaultian
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 8:27 am Post subject: Re: Interpretations |
|
|
About 20 years ago, I came up with a list of eight forms of the
eternal Covenant. I don't have the sources readily available, so I
will post the list without substantiation. It reads pretty
straightforward to me.
1. The Greater Covenant between God and His Prophets
2. The Specific Greater Covenant regarding the Bab
3. The Specific Greater Covenant regarding Baha'u'llah
4. The Greater Covenant regarding Obedience to the Prophet
5. The Greater Covenant regarding the Succession of Prophets
6. The Lesser Covenant establishing Successorship
7. The Specific Lesser Covenant regarding `Abdu'l-Baha
8. The Specific Lesser Covenant regarding the Guardianship and the
Universal House of Justice
Mark Foster |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
mike3
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 9:06 am Post subject: Re: Interpretations |
|
|
On May 25, 6:49 pm, Foucaultian <drfosternotfromglouces...@gmail.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | It is inevitable that people will have differening understandings.
Once a person has accepted Revelation of Baha'u'llah, the
authoritative interpretations of `Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi, and
the legislative elucidations of the Universal House of Justice, one is
free to understand those texts as one pleases - or even to suggest
*additional* interpretations.
As `Abdu'l-Baha wrote, after interpreting the story of Adam and Eve:
"This is one of the meanings of the biblical story of Adam. Reflect
until you discover the others."http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/SAQ/saq
-30.html
|
I'm curious about something said there. It also says:
"... this story of Adam and Eve who ate from the tree, and their
expulsion from Paradise, must be thought of simply as a symbol. It
contains divine mysteries and universal meanings, and it is capable of
marvelous explanations. *Only those who are initiated into mysteries,
and those who are near the Court of the All-Powerful, are aware of
these secrets.* Hence these verses of the Bible have numerous
meanings. " (emphasis mine)
What does this part in asterisks (*) have to do with? It would make it
sound that mere "reflection" on this is not enough -- that one must
have
these further things, special "initation" into "mysteries" to find
out. What
does that mean, exactly? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Poststructuralist
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 8:47 pm Post subject: Re: Interpretations |
|
|
On Jul 1, 4:06 am, mike3 <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | What does this part in asterisks (*) have to do with? It would make it
sound that mere "reflection" on this is not enough -- that one must
have these further things, special "initation" into "mysteries" to find
out. What does that mean, exactly?
|
IMO, it is another way of saying conforming to God's Will and becoming
deepened, i.e., reflecting upon and studying the Sacred Texts.
Mark Foster |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Susan Maneck
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 1:40 am Post subject: Re: Interpretations |
|
|
| Quote: | What does this part in asterisks (*) have to do with? It would make it
sound that mere "reflection" on this is not enough -- that one must
have
these further things, special "initation" into "mysteries" to find
out. What
does that mean, exactly?
|
Dear Mike,
Not mysteries necessarily, just that Abfdu'l-Baha's interpretation
here is not an exclusive one.
warmest, Susan
> |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kent Johnson
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:53 am Post subject: Re: Interpretations |
|
|
Baha'u'llah tells us that religious truth has more than one meaning.
Sometimes He gives us more than one meaning for the same story.
It seems to me that special "initation" into "mysteries" is what happens
when we discover our own new meanings to His words. I encourage such
investigation, and I often complain that Baha'is often seem to discourage
it.
--Kent
"mike3" <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:x6udndYX2fa7__fVnZ2dnUVZ_rfinZ2d@giganews.com...
On May 25, 6:49 pm, Foucaultian <drfosternotfromglouces...@gmail.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | It is inevitable that people will have differening understandings.
Once a person has accepted Revelation of Baha'u'llah, the
authoritative interpretations of `Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi, and
the legislative elucidations of the Universal House of Justice, one is
free to understand those texts as one pleases - or even to suggest
*additional* interpretations.
As `Abdu'l-Baha wrote, after interpreting the story of Adam and Eve:
"This is one of the meanings of the biblical story of Adam. Reflect
until you discover the others."http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/SAQ/saq
-30.html
|
I'm curious about something said there. It also says:
"... this story of Adam and Eve who ate from the tree, and their
expulsion from Paradise, must be thought of simply as a symbol. It
contains divine mysteries and universal meanings, and it is capable of
marvelous explanations. *Only those who are initiated into mysteries,
and those who are near the Court of the All-Powerful, are aware of
these secrets.* Hence these verses of the Bible have numerous
meanings. " (emphasis mine)
What does this part in asterisks (*) have to do with? It would make it
sound that mere "reflection" on this is not enough -- that one must
have
these further things, special "initation" into "mysteries" to find
out. What
does that mean, exactly? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
