| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Poststructuralist
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 10:44 pm Post subject: Re: The belief, not the person |
 |
|
Kent Johnson wrote:
| Quote: | But specifically we are talking about who 'Abdu'l-Baha
asked to be Baha'i, and that is the issue I would like to
address.
|
I posted this message to the Baha'i Studies listserv three years ago:
The following is taken from chapter 5 of Baha'u'llah and the New Era,
which (along with chapters 1 and 2) was corrected by `Abdu'l-Baha. (Only
part of chapter 3 was corrected by Him.) Note `Abdu'l-Baha's very broad
definitions of being a Baha'i.
-------
"When asked on one occasion: 'What is a Baha'i' `Abdu'l-Baha replied:
'To be a Baha'i simply means to love all the world; to love humanity and
try to serve it; to work for universal peace and universal brotherhood.'
On another occasion He defined a Baha'i as "one endowed with all the
perfections of man in activity." In one of His London talks He said that
a man may be a Baha'i even if He has never heard the name of
Baha'u'llah. He added: --
"'The man who lives the life according to the teachings of Baha'u'llah
is already a Baha'i. On the other hand, a man may call himself a Baha'i
for fifty years, and if he does not live the life he is not a Baha'i. An
ugly man may call himself handsome, but he deceives no one, and a black
man may call himself white, yet he deceives no one, not even himself.'
"'One who does not know God's Messengers, however, is like a plant
growing in the shade. Although it knows not the sun, it is,
nevertheless, absolutely dependent on it. The great Prophets are spirits
suns, and Baha'u'llah is the sun of this "day" in which we live. The
suns of former days have warmed and vivified the world, and had those
suns not shone, the earth would not be cold and dead, but it is the
sunshine of today that alone can ripen the fruits which the suns of
former days have kissed into life.'"
-------
My point in posting this excerpt from Esslemont's book is to suggest
that "Baha'i," as a word or label, has been given more than one
definition in the history of the Baha'i Faith. One of those definitions,
which was sometimes employed by `Abdu'l-Baha, was broad and
encompassing. Another, which was used by Shoghi Effendi, the House of
Justice, and also, on occasion, `Abdu'l-Baha, is more institutional and
communal.
Speaking as an individual Baha'i, *not* as a sociologist, I do not feel
that, using `Abdu'l-Baha's broad definition, we can, or should, *ever*
discourage people from having, or expressing, a Baha'i identity,
irrespective of whether they are members of the Baha'i International
Community. Personally, I would like to see more of this self-definition
among people not members of the Baha'i International Community.
I also wonder whether statements such as the following, aside from any
hyperbole, might be referring to `Abdu'l-Baha's broad definition of a
Baha'i or believer:
"When the victory arriveth, every man shall profess himself as believer
and shall hasten to the shelter of God's Faith. Happy are they who in
the days of world-encompassing trials have stood fast in the Cause and
refused to swerve from its truth."
-- Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p.319
--
Regards, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. * http://www.markfoster.net
"... the modern challenge is how to live with uncertainty. The
basic fault lines today are not between people with different
beliefs but between people who hold these beliefs with an
element of uncertainty and people who hold these beliefs with
a pretense of certitude." — Peter L. Berger, sociologist |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Susan Maneck
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 11:01 pm Post subject: Re: The belief, not the person |
|
|
| Quote: | It seems you are saying that when 'Abdu'l-Baha says in various places in
various words in PUP or Paris Talks "Be a Baha'i" you discount that
statement to some extent, do you not?
|
Dear Kent,
My position is that it cannot be used to negate this statement from
the Guardian, which is how a number of ex-Baha'is on the internet are
trying to use it:
I would only venture to state very briefly and as adequately as
present circumstances permit the principal factors that must be taken
into consideration before deciding whether a person may be regarded a
true believer or not. Full recognition of the station of the
Forerunner, the Author, and the True Exemplar of the Bahá'í Cause, as
set forth in 'Abdu'l-Bahá's Testament; unreserved acceptance of, and
submission to, whatsoever has been revealed by their Pen; loyal and
steadfast adherence to every clause of our Beloved's sacred Will; and
close association with the spirit as well as the form of the present
day Bahá'í administration throughout the world -- these I conceive to
be the fundamental and primary considerations that must be fairly,
discreetly and thoughtfully ascertained before reaching such a vital
decision.
(Shoghi Effendi, Baha'i Administration, p. 90)
If you want to call that 'discounting' that's your choice, but it is
not my words.
| Quote: | Do you believe we should or should not be inspired by those words?
|
You can be inspired by them all you want, but if you were to try and
use the statement from PUP to the effect that to be a Baha'i was to be
a lover of all mankind as the criteria for enrollment rather than the
Guardian's statement, while serving on your LSA, it would be
inappropriate.
| Quote: | You know I prefer to talk about what we believe than what we say, so if y
ou
could clarify your comments to address the issues we are talking about I
would appreciate it.
|
Your words reflect your beliefs as well as your attitudes towards others.
| Quote: |
Accusing people of 'robbing the community' is not the same as questionin
g.
I was speaking about questioning the authenticity of PUP and Paris Talks.
|
Yes, I know that was what you were speaking of and I'm saying calling
it that was most inappropriate.
| Quote: | It is when there is disagreement with the meaning of a passage that it
should be questioned, authentication sought. Not when the books are
referred to in a general manner should we immediately scream "pilgrims'
notes".
|
Sorry Kent, no one screamed pilgrim's notes. And it was over the issue
of your preferring a certain passage of from that source over an
authoritative source which raised this question in the first place.
The issue then died down for quite sometime until you decided to
reopen it out of the blue by starting a thread making all kinds of
ludicrous accusations against Mark and myself.
Susan |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kent Johnson
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 1:07 am Post subject: What is a Baha'i? |
|
|
Mark and I and someone else have been discussing several issues surrounding
what it means to be a Baha'i as 'Abdu'l-Baha used the terms.
"My position is that it cannot be used to negate this statement from the
Guardian, which is how a number of ex-Baha'is on the internet are
trying to use it: ..."the principal factors that must be taken into
consideration before deciding whether a person may be regarded a
true believer or not..."
I am much more interested in 'Abdu'l-Baha's use of the word "Baha'i" than in
who "may be regarded a true believer". I think there is a difference, but I
don't speak much Persian.
--Kent
"Poststructuralist" <drfosternotfromgloucester@nospamgmail.com> wrote in
message news:6aydnST4fYOnKBHVnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@giganews.com...
Kent Johnson wrote:
| Quote: | But specifically we are talking about who 'Abdu'l-Baha asked to be Baha'i,
and that is the issue I would like to address.
|
I posted this message to the Baha'i Studies listserv three years ago:
The following is taken from chapter 5 of Baha'u'llah and the New Era,
which (along with chapters 1 and 2) was corrected by `Abdu'l-Baha. (Only
part of chapter 3 was corrected by Him.) Note `Abdu'l-Baha's very broad
definitions of being a Baha'i.
-------
"When asked on one occasion: 'What is a Baha'i' `Abdu'l-Baha replied:
'To be a Baha'i simply means to love all the world; to love humanity and
try to serve it; to work for universal peace and universal brotherhood.'
On another occasion He defined a Baha'i as "one endowed with all the
perfections of man in activity." In one of His London talks He said that
a man may be a Baha'i even if He has never heard the name of
Baha'u'llah. He added: --
"'The man who lives the life according to the teachings of Baha'u'llah
is already a Baha'i. On the other hand, a man may call himself a Baha'i
for fifty years, and if he does not live the life he is not a Baha'i. An
ugly man may call himself handsome, but he deceives no one, and a black
man may call himself white, yet he deceives no one, not even himself.'
"'One who does not know God's Messengers, however, is like a plant
growing in the shade. Although it knows not the sun, it is,
nevertheless, absolutely dependent on it. The great Prophets are spirits
suns, and Baha'u'llah is the sun of this "day" in which we live. The
suns of former days have warmed and vivified the world, and had those
suns not shone, the earth would not be cold and dead, but it is the
sunshine of today that alone can ripen the fruits which the suns of
former days have kissed into life.'"
-------
My point in posting this excerpt from Esslemont's book is to suggest
that "Baha'i," as a word or label, has been given more than one
definition in the history of the Baha'i Faith. One of those definitions,
which was sometimes employed by `Abdu'l-Baha, was broad and
encompassing. Another, which was used by Shoghi Effendi, the House of
Justice, and also, on occasion, `Abdu'l-Baha, is more institutional and
communal.
Speaking as an individual Baha'i, *not* as a sociologist, I do not feel
that, using `Abdu'l-Baha's broad definition, we can, or should, *ever*
discourage people from having, or expressing, a Baha'i identity,
irrespective of whether they are members of the Baha'i International
Community. Personally, I would like to see more of this self-definition
among people not members of the Baha'i International Community.
I also wonder whether statements such as the following, aside from any
hyperbole, might be referring to `Abdu'l-Baha's broad definition of a
Baha'i or believer:
"When the victory arriveth, every man shall profess himself as believer
and shall hasten to the shelter of God's Faith. Happy are they who in
the days of world-encompassing trials have stood fast in the Cause and
refused to swerve from its truth."
-- Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p.319
--
Regards, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. * http://www.markfoster.net
"... the modern challenge is how to live with uncertainty. The
basic fault lines today are not between people with different
beliefs but between people who hold these beliefs with an
element of uncertainty and people who hold these beliefs with
a pretense of certitude." — Peter L. Berger, sociologist |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Poststructuralist
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 2:26 am Post subject: Re: What is a Baha'i? |
|
|
Kent Johnson wrote:
| Quote: | I am much more interested in 'Abdu'l-Baha's use of the word
"Baha'i" than in who "may be regarded a true believer". I
think there is a difference, but I don't speak much Persian.
|
Both `Abdu'l-Baha and, especially, Shoghi Effendi defined the word
"Baha'i" in terms of being a true believer, loyalty to the Baha'i
Covenant, etc. However, `Abdu'l-Baha also used the word Baha'i in a more
universal sense which was not, apparently, employed by Shoghi Effendi.
IMO, both definitions are valid, in their own respective contexts, but
they should not be confused with one another. Furthermore, the
covenantal definition should not be supplanted with the more universal
definition (or vice-versa).
The fact that we have two definitions of the same term appears to me to
be an instance of the relativity of language. Words have no inherent
meanings. Any meaning is strictly in the minds of the speakers, writers,
listeners, or readers.
--
Regards, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. * http://www.markfoster.net
"... the modern challenge is how to live with uncertainty. The
basic fault lines today are not between people with different
beliefs but between people who hold these beliefs with an
element of uncertainty and people who hold these beliefs with
a pretense of certitude." — Peter L. Berger, sociologist |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Susan Maneck
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 2:30 am Post subject: Re: What is a Baha'i? |
|
|
| Quote: | I am much more interested in 'Abdu'l-Baha's use of the word "Baha'i" tha
n
in who "may be regarded a true believer". I think there is a difference
,
but I don't speak much Persian.
|
Dear Kent,
Since I don't know that we have a Persian transcript for the talk,
Persian wouldn't help you anyhow. I would agree with Mark's analysis
below.
warmest, Susan
| Quote: |
Both `Abdu'l-Baha and, especially, Shoghi Effendi defined the word "Baha'
i"
in terms of being a true believer, loyalty to the Baha'i Covenant, etc.
However, `Abdu'l-Baha also used the word Baha'i in a more universal sense
which was not, apparently, employed by Shoghi Effendi.
IMO, both definitions are valid, in their own respective contexts, but th
ey
should not be confused with one another. Furthermore, the covenantal
definition should not be supplanted with the more universal definition (o
r
vice-versa).
The fact that we have two definitions of the same term appears to me to b
e
an instance of the relativity of language. Words have no inherent meaning
s.
Any meaning is strictly in the minds of the speakers, writers, listeners,
or
readers.
--
Regards, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. * http://www.markfoster.net
"... the modern challenge is how to live with uncertainty. The
basic fault lines today are not between people with different
beliefs but between people who hold these beliefs with an
element of uncertainty and people who hold these beliefs with
a pretense of certitude." — Peter L. Berger, sociologist
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kent Johnson
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 4:42 pm Post subject: Re: What is a Baha'i? |
|
|
Hi Mark,
We should say at the outset, if you agree, that enrollment in the Baha'i
Faith as it exists today is obviously and absolutely the domain of the
Administrative Order of the Baha'i Faith. There can be no doubt about that,
even if we were to quibble about the meaning of the various covenants and
the authentication of any texts. There is no need or valid reason to
question the authority of our elected bodies as to who is or isn't enrolled
in the Baha'i Faith or an individual's status in that regard.
As you may have noted, I look at this as a spiritual matter, one between
each of us and our views of God and His Messengers. Again, I am not talking
about enrollment, but rather in grace, salvation, indulgence, deliverance,
redemption and entrance to the Kingdom of God.
To that end, let me begin by re-quoting what Doug just quoted from the Bab:
"PRAISE be to God that He hath enabled us to become cognizant of Him Whom
God shall make manifest in the Day of Resurrection, so that we may derive
benefit from the fruit of our existence and be not deprived of attaining the
presence of God." (The Bab, Selections from the Writings of the Bab, p.
109)
For a sense of ease of discussion, perhaps you won't object to separating
the two halves of the salvation equation into "deeds" and "recognition".
At the risk of dismissing deeds which is the most important part of the
equation in my opinion because there is little dispute as to what a good
deed is. Deeds are a necessary part of the equation, and easily
recognizable, and they are not something that you do once and forget about,
having already completed your requisite good deed, but rather good deeds
must be derived from a constant state of mind, an abiding concern for
others. From my perspective that is the recognition side of the salvation
equation. The many actions of the day, of the hour, of the minute that we
all do for the sake of others must be motivated, and that motivation is
recognition, a controversial point. That the deeds are necessary is not in
question.
If we can agree on that point, or those points, I would like to proceed to
talk about the more complicated issues of what is involved in "recognition".
I will leave you now with an appropriate quote from an authenticated text:
"... the foundation of success and salvation is the knowledge of God, and
that the results of the knowledge of God are the good actions which are the
fruits of faith.
"If man has not this knowledge, he will be separated from God, and when this
separation exists, good actions have not complete effect. This verse does
not mean that the souls separated from God are equal, whether they perform
good or bad actions. It signifies only that the foundation is to know God,
and the good actions result from this knowledge. Nevertheless, it is certain
that between the good, the sinners and the wicked who are veiled from God
there is a difference. For the veiled one who has good principles and
character deserves the pardon of God, while he who is a sinner, and has bad
qualities and character, is deprived of the bounties and blessings of God.
Herein lies the difference.
"Therefore, the blessed verse means that good actions alone, without the
knowledge of God, cannot be the cause of eternal salvation, everlasting
success, and prosperity, and entrance into the Kingdom of God."
(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 238)
--Kent
"Poststructuralist" <drfosternotfromgloucester@nospamgmail.com> wrote in
message news:Xa2dnUpSa9bZdRHVnZ2dnUVZ_s_inZ2d@giganews.com...
Kent Johnson wrote:
| Quote: | I am much more interested in 'Abdu'l-Baha's use of the word "Baha'i" than
in who "may be regarded a true believer". I think there is a difference,
but I don't speak much Persian.
|
Both `Abdu'l-Baha and, especially, Shoghi Effendi defined the word
"Baha'i" in terms of being a true believer, loyalty to the Baha'i
Covenant, etc. However, `Abdu'l-Baha also used the word Baha'i in a more
universal sense which was not, apparently, employed by Shoghi Effendi.
IMO, both definitions are valid, in their own respective contexts, but
they should not be confused with one another. Furthermore, the
covenantal definition should not be supplanted with the more universal
definition (or vice-versa).
The fact that we have two definitions of the same term appears to me to
be an instance of the relativity of language. Words have no inherent
meanings. Any meaning is strictly in the minds of the speakers, writers,
listeners, or readers.
--
Regards, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. * http://www.markfoster.net
"... the modern challenge is how to live with uncertainty. The
basic fault lines today are not between people with different
beliefs but between people who hold these beliefs with an
element of uncertainty and people who hold these beliefs with
a pretense of certitude." — Peter L. Berger, sociologist |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kent Johnson
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 4:42 pm Post subject: Re: What is a Baha'i? |
|
|
Hi Mark,
We should say at the outset, if you agree, that enrollment in the Baha'i
Faith as it exists today is obviously and absolutely the domain of the
Administrative Order of the Baha'i Faith. There can be no doubt about that,
even if we were to quibble about the meaning of the various covenants and
the authentication of any texts. There is no need or valid reason to
question the authority of our elected bodies as to who is or isn't enrolled
in the Baha'i Faith or an individual's status in that regard.
As you may have noted, I look at this as a spiritual matter, one between
each of us and our views of God and His Messengers. Again, I am not talking
about enrollment, but rather in grace, salvation, indulgence, deliverance,
redemption and entrance to the Kingdom of God.
To that end, let me begin by re-quoting what Doug just quoted from the Bab:
"PRAISE be to God that He hath enabled us to become cognizant of Him Whom
God shall make manifest in the Day of Resurrection, so that we may derive
benefit from the fruit of our existence and be not deprived of attaining the
presence of God." (The Bab, Selections from the Writings of the Bab, p.
109)
For a sense of ease of discussion, perhaps you won't object to separating
the two halves of the salvation equation into "deeds" and "recognition".
At the risk of dismissing deeds which is the most important part of the
equation in my opinion because there is little dispute as to what a good
deed is. Deeds are a necessary part of the equation, and easily
recognizable, and they are not something that you do once and forget about,
having already completed your requisite good deed, but rather good deeds
must be derived from a constant state of mind, an abiding concern for
others. From my perspective that is the recognition side of the salvation
equation. The many actions of the day, of the hour, of the minute that we
all do for the sake of others must be motivated, and that motivation is
recognition, a controversial point. That the deeds are necessary is not in
question.
If we can agree on that point, or those points, I would like to proceed to
talk about the more complicated issues of what is involved in "recognition".
I will leave you now with an appropriate quote from an authenticated text:
"... the foundation of success and salvation is the knowledge of God, and
that the results of the knowledge of God are the good actions which are the
fruits of faith.
"If man has not this knowledge, he will be separated from God, and when this
separation exists, good actions have not complete effect. This verse does
not mean that the souls separated from God are equal, whether they perform
good or bad actions. It signifies only that the foundation is to know God,
and the good actions result from this knowledge. Nevertheless, it is certain
that between the good, the sinners and the wicked who are veiled from God
there is a difference. For the veiled one who has good principles and
character deserves the pardon of God, while he who is a sinner, and has bad
qualities and character, is deprived of the bounties and blessings of God.
Herein lies the difference.
"Therefore, the blessed verse means that good actions alone, without the
knowledge of God, cannot be the cause of eternal salvation, everlasting
success, and prosperity, and entrance into the Kingdom of God."
(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 238)
--Kent
"Poststructuralist" <drfosternotfromgloucester@nospamgmail.com> wrote in
message news:Xa2dnUpSa9bZdRHVnZ2dnUVZ_s_inZ2d@giganews.com...
Kent Johnson wrote:
| Quote: | I am much more interested in 'Abdu'l-Baha's use of the word "Baha'i" than
in who "may be regarded a true believer". I think there is a difference,
but I don't speak much Persian.
|
Both `Abdu'l-Baha and, especially, Shoghi Effendi defined the word
"Baha'i" in terms of being a true believer, loyalty to the Baha'i
Covenant, etc. However, `Abdu'l-Baha also used the word Baha'i in a more
universal sense which was not, apparently, employed by Shoghi Effendi.
IMO, both definitions are valid, in their own respective contexts, but
they should not be confused with one another. Furthermore, the
covenantal definition should not be supplanted with the more universal
definition (or vice-versa).
The fact that we have two definitions of the same term appears to me to
be an instance of the relativity of language. Words have no inherent
meanings. Any meaning is strictly in the minds of the speakers, writers,
listeners, or readers.
--
Regards, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. * http://www.markfoster.net
"... the modern challenge is how to live with uncertainty. The
basic fault lines today are not between people with different
beliefs but between people who hold these beliefs with an
element of uncertainty and people who hold these beliefs with
a pretense of certitude." — Peter L. Berger, sociologist |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kent Johnson
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 4:42 pm Post subject: Re: What is a Baha'i? |
|
|
Hi Mark,
We should say at the outset, if you agree, that enrollment in the Baha'i
Faith as it exists today is obviously and absolutely the domain of the
Administrative Order of the Baha'i Faith. There can be no doubt about that,
even if we were to quibble about the meaning of the various covenants and
the authentication of any texts. There is no need or valid reason to
question the authority of our elected bodies as to who is or isn't enrolled
in the Baha'i Faith or an individual's status in that regard.
As you may have noted, I look at this as a spiritual matter, one between
each of us and our views of God and His Messengers. Again, I am not talking
about enrollment, but rather in grace, salvation, indulgence, deliverance,
redemption and entrance to the Kingdom of God.
To that end, let me begin by re-quoting what Doug just quoted from the Bab:
"PRAISE be to God that He hath enabled us to become cognizant of Him Whom
God shall make manifest in the Day of Resurrection, so that we may derive
benefit from the fruit of our existence and be not deprived of attaining the
presence of God." (The Bab, Selections from the Writings of the Bab, p.
109)
For a sense of ease of discussion, perhaps you won't object to separating
the two halves of the salvation equation into "deeds" and "recognition".
At the risk of dismissing deeds which is the most important part of the
equation in my opinion because there is little dispute as to what a good
deed is. Deeds are a necessary part of the equation, and easily
recognizable, and they are not something that you do once and forget about,
having already completed your requisite good deed, but rather good deeds
must be derived from a constant state of mind, an abiding concern for
others. From my perspective that is the recognition side of the salvation
equation. The many actions of the day, of the hour, of the minute that we
all do for the sake of others must be motivated, and that motivation is
recognition, a controversial point. That the deeds are necessary is not in
question.
If we can agree on that point, or those points, I would like to proceed to
talk about the more complicated issues of what is involved in "recognition".
I will leave you now with an appropriate quote from an authenticated text:
"... the foundation of success and salvation is the knowledge of God, and
that the results of the knowledge of God are the good actions which are the
fruits of faith.
"If man has not this knowledge, he will be separated from God, and when this
separation exists, good actions have not complete effect. This verse does
not mean that the souls separated from God are equal, whether they perform
good or bad actions. It signifies only that the foundation is to know God,
and the good actions result from this knowledge. Nevertheless, it is certain
that between the good, the sinners and the wicked who are veiled from God
there is a difference. For the veiled one who has good principles and
character deserves the pardon of God, while he who is a sinner, and has bad
qualities and character, is deprived of the bounties and blessings of God.
Herein lies the difference.
"Therefore, the blessed verse means that good actions alone, without the
knowledge of God, cannot be the cause of eternal salvation, everlasting
success, and prosperity, and entrance into the Kingdom of God."
(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 238)
--Kent
"Poststructuralist" <drfosternotfromgloucester@nospamgmail.com> wrote in
message news:Xa2dnUpSa9bZdRHVnZ2dnUVZ_s_inZ2d@giganews.com...
Kent Johnson wrote:
| Quote: | I am much more interested in 'Abdu'l-Baha's use of the word "Baha'i" than
in who "may be regarded a true believer". I think there is a difference,
but I don't speak much Persian.
|
Both `Abdu'l-Baha and, especially, Shoghi Effendi defined the word
"Baha'i" in terms of being a true believer, loyalty to the Baha'i
Covenant, etc. However, `Abdu'l-Baha also used the word Baha'i in a more
universal sense which was not, apparently, employed by Shoghi Effendi.
IMO, both definitions are valid, in their own respective contexts, but
they should not be confused with one another. Furthermore, the
covenantal definition should not be supplanted with the more universal
definition (or vice-versa).
The fact that we have two definitions of the same term appears to me to
be an instance of the relativity of language. Words have no inherent
meanings. Any meaning is strictly in the minds of the speakers, writers,
listeners, or readers.
--
Regards, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. * http://www.markfoster.net
"... the modern challenge is how to live with uncertainty. The
basic fault lines today are not between people with different
beliefs but between people who hold these beliefs with an
element of uncertainty and people who hold these beliefs with
a pretense of certitude." — Peter L. Berger, sociologist |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kent Johnson
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 5:20 pm Post subject: Re: What is a Baha'i? |
|
|
Hi Susan,
"Since I don't know that we have a Persian transcript for the talk, Persian
wouldn't help you anyhow."
Seems you are missing a qualifier here, and that is an important point to
me.
We don't know if we have the transcript, so Persian would only help if we
do, right? Or perhaps you meant to say "Persian *might not* help.
But I disagree with those scenarios as well, because even if we don't have
the transcript, at some point we could become relatively certain what word
He used by looking at the other work by the same translator or translators,
and seeing similar statements with similar contexts and similar word
construction. In that case, Persian would also be necessary.
--Kent
"Susan Maneck" <smaneck@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:H8idnS1uTKNYdhHVnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@giganews.com...
| Quote: | I am much more interested in 'Abdu'l-Baha's use of the word "Baha'i" tha
n
in who "may be regarded a true believer". I think there is a difference
,
but I don't speak much Persian.
|
Dear Kent,
Since I don't know that we have a Persian transcript for the talk,
Persian wouldn't help you anyhow. I would agree with Mark's analysis
below.
warmest, Susan
| Quote: |
Both `Abdu'l-Baha and, especially, Shoghi Effendi defined the word "Baha'
i"
in terms of being a true believer, loyalty to the Baha'i Covenant, etc.
However, `Abdu'l-Baha also used the word Baha'i in a more universal sense
which was not, apparently, employed by Shoghi Effendi.
IMO, both definitions are valid, in their own respective contexts, but th
ey
should not be confused with one another. Furthermore, the covenantal
definition should not be supplanted with the more universal definition (o
r
vice-versa).
The fact that we have two definitions of the same term appears to me to b
e
an instance of the relativity of language. Words have no inherent meaning
s.
Any meaning is strictly in the minds of the speakers, writers, listeners,
or
readers.
--
Regards, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. * http://www.markfoster.net
"... the modern challenge is how to live with uncertainty. The
basic fault lines today are not between people with different
beliefs but between people who hold these beliefs with an
element of uncertainty and people who hold these beliefs with
a pretense of certitude." — Peter L. Berger, sociologist
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Poststructuralist
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 1:50 am Post subject: Re: What is a Baha'i? |
|
|
Kent Johnson wrote:
| Quote: | For a sense of ease of discussion, perhaps you won't object to separati
ng
the two halves of the salvation equation into "deeds" and "recognition"
... |
I see salvation, to attempt my poor Arabic, as "al-fanA al-nafs
al-ammAra" (the extinction, or annihilation, of the commanding, or
insistent, self). To me, salvation is the process of becoming free from
al-nafs al-ammAra which, IMO, approximates the metaphor of hellfire.
Entering into a Covenant with God's Prophet can allow us to gradually
escape it.
| Quote: | If we can agree on that point, or those points, I would like to proceed
to
talk about the more complicated issues of what is involved in "recognit
ion". |
I believe that recognition, or `irfAn (gnosis), is coming to an inner,
spiritual knowledge of the Prophet.
--
Regards, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. * http://www.markfoster.net
"... the modern challenge is how to live with uncertainty. The
basic fault lines today are not between people with different
beliefs but between people who hold these beliefs with an
element of uncertainty and people who hold these beliefs with
a pretense of certitude." — Peter L. Berger, sociologist |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Susan Maneck
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 2:55 am Post subject: Re: What is a Baha'i? |
|
|
| Quote: | We don't know if we have the transcript, so Persian would only help if we
do, right?
|
Dear Kent,
Right.
| Quote: | But I disagree with those scenarios as well, because even if we don't have
the transcript, at some point we could become relatively certain what word
He used by looking at the other work by the same translator or translators,
and seeing similar statements with similar contexts and similar word
construction.
|
I can certainly use my knowledge of Persian to make some guesses as to
what terms Abdu'l-Baha might have been using but I can never be sure
as to whether the translator wasn't imposing his own understanding. We
do know this happened for instance, in one of Abdu'l-Baha's talks
contained in the first edition of PUP. It incorrectly had Abdu'l-Baha
calling Confucius a Manifestation, something that was shown to be
incorrect once the original transcript was located. I think the use of
PUP has been especially problematic when it has come to the issue of
the proper relationship between science and religion. There are all
kinds of Persian words that might have been translated as science and
each has a different connotation. In my opinion those Baha'is who have
tried to write definitive works on this principle based largely on
this source are doing something I think quite premature.
warmest, Susan |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Dean Betts
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 10:02 am Post subject: Re: What is a Baha'i? |
|
|
Mark,
Would you plese clarify for me what "approximates the metaphor of hellfire"?
You wrote:
| Quote: | I see salvation, to attempt my poor Arabic, as "al-fanA al-nafs
al-ammAra" (the extinction, or annihilation, of the commanding, or
insistent, self). To me, salvation is the process of becoming free from
al-nafs al-ammAra which, IMO, approximates the metaphor of hellfire.
Entering into a Covenant with God's Prophet can allow us to gradually
escape it.
Thanks, |
Dean Betts |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kent Johnson
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:13 pm Post subject: Re: What is a Baha'i? |
|
|
I don't understand, Mark, why you are now speaking Arabic. Before you were
speaking Greek, and I never got a satisfactory answer to why you did that
either.
--Kent
"Poststructuralist" <drfosternotfromgloucester@nospamgmail.com> wrote in
message news:svSdne_x6tS6zhPVnZ2dnUVZ_tXinZ2d@giganews.com...
Kent Johnson wrote:
| Quote: | For a sense of ease of discussion, perhaps you won't object to separati
ng
the two halves of the salvation equation into "deeds" and "recognition"
.... |
I see salvation, to attempt my poor Arabic, as "al-fanA al-nafs
al-ammAra" (the extinction, or annihilation, of the commanding, or
insistent, self). To me, salvation is the process of becoming free from
al-nafs al-ammAra which, IMO, approximates the metaphor of hellfire.
Entering into a Covenant with God's Prophet can allow us to gradually
escape it.
| Quote: | If we can agree on that point, or those points, I would like to proceed
to
talk about the more complicated issues of what is involved in "recognit
ion". |
I believe that recognition, or `irfAn (gnosis), is coming to an inner,
spiritual knowledge of the Prophet.
--
Regards, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. * http://www.markfoster.net
"... the modern challenge is how to live with uncertainty. The
basic fault lines today are not between people with different
beliefs but between people who hold these beliefs with an
element of uncertainty and people who hold these beliefs with
a pretense of certitude." — Peter L. Berger, sociologist |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kent Johnson
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:28 pm Post subject: Re: What is a Baha'i? |
|
|
Hi Susan, you did not acknowledge the point:
You said "Since I don't know that we have a Persian transcript for the talk,
Persian wouldn't help you anyhow."
But now you agree that if we do or if we don't have the original transcript,
Persian will help.
The point of the Pilgrims' Notes thread that I started was to make the point
that the Baha'i community is much too quick to throw away two treasures
based upon the declaration that some of the passages in those two treasures
may not be authenticated.
You continue that error now: if we don't have the transcript, Persian WILL
HELP US become clearer on 'Abdu'l-Baha's meanings through text comparisons.
Sure we can never be sure, and it will be up to the House of Justice to
decide if the texts can be used to make scriptural clarifications, so there
is very little to doubt.
| Quote: | ... in one of Abdu'l-Baha's talks
contained in the first edition of PUP.
|
I am encouraged by the fact that it no longer appears in later editions.
| Quote: | In my opinion those Baha'is who have
tried to write definitive works on this principle based largely on
this source are doing something I think quite premature.
|
I agree with you. My issue is that discounting the books, putting an
asterisk next to them when we just don't know to what small extent these two
works might be un-authenticated, knowing so far there are no known
substantive errors, at least not posted here...
So discounting these works is also quite premature.
--Kent
"Susan Maneck" <smaneck@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0qydnYLGDdWqzhPVnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@giganews.com...
| Quote: | We don't know if we have the transcript, so Persian would only help if we
do, right?
Dear Kent,
Right.
But I disagree with those scenarios as well, because even if we don't
have
the transcript, at some point we could become relatively certain what
word
He used by looking at the other work by the same translator or
translators,
and seeing similar statements with similar contexts and similar word
construction.
I can certainly use my knowledge of Persian to make some guesses as to
what terms Abdu'l-Baha might have been using but I can never be sure
as to whether the translator wasn't imposing his own understanding. We
do know this happened for instance, in one of Abdu'l-Baha's talks
contained in the first edition of PUP. It incorrectly had Abdu'l-Baha
calling Confucius a Manifestation, something that was shown to be
incorrect once the original transcript was located. I think the use of
PUP has been especially problematic when it has come to the issue of
the proper relationship between science and religion. There are all
kinds of Persian words that might have been translated as science and
each has a different connotation. In my opinion those Baha'is who have
tried to write definitive works on this principle based largely on
this source are doing something I think quite premature.
warmest, Susan
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
tsuki190
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 6:40 pm Post subject: Re: What is a Baha'i? |
|
|
The charge of :"throw away two treasures" has been dealt with in several posts
by several persons and Kent should 'throw away' that phrase and never use it
again.
We might profitably discuss how these books should be used. Their status
as unauthenticated is clearly based on statements from our highest institution
and the central figures so that should be accepted and we can move on from
there.
I listed some of the ways such books (these are not the only ones) should and
should not be used. Perhaps that can be used as a basis for a meaningful
thread.
=========================================================
The problem is that we really don't know where and how they do not reflect
His meaning accurately. So for describing the Baha'i teaching on complex
topics they are not a reliable source. So for reciting the prayers, getting
inspiration, and understanding the great themes of the Baha'i Revelation,
my take is that they are fine (as long as they are not contradicted by
authenticated passages). Can we all agree on that? I think that is
generally how Kent wants to use them.
When are they not so useful? Such topics might include evolution,
ether, the inerrancy of the Manifestations, the exact nature of the future
world executive, how the soul originates, ... I would not use these texts
in developing position papers on such topics until authenticated
translations were made available.
I think the important point is to recognize the strengths and the
limitations of these books. Then we can use them and discuss them
without making mistaken assumptions.
==========================================================
Tom
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 4:28 AM, Kent Johnson <kent@compx2.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Hi Susan, you did not acknowledge the point:
You said "Since I don't know that we have a Persian transcript for the talk,
Persian wouldn't help you anyhow."
But now you agree that if we do or if we don't have the original transcript,
Persian will help.
The point of the Pilgrims' Notes thread that I started was to make the point
that the Baha'i community is much too quick to throw away two treasures
based upon the declaration that some of the passages in those two treasures
may not be authenticated.
You continue that error now: if we don't have the transcript, Persian WILL
HELP US become clearer on 'Abdu'l-Baha's meanings through text comparisons.
Sure we can never be sure, and it will be up to the House of Justice to
decide if the texts can be used to make scriptural clarifications, so there
is very little to doubt.
... in one of Abdu'l-Baha's talks
contained in the first edition of PUP.
I am encouraged by the fact that it no longer appears in later editions.
In my opinion those Baha'is who have
tried to write definitive works on this principle based largely on
this source are doing something I think quite premature.
I agree with you. My issue is that discounting the books, putting an
asterisk next to them when we just don't know to what small extent these two
works might be un-authenticated, knowing so far there are no known
substantive errors, at least not posted here...
So discounting these works is also quite premature.
--Kent
"Susan Maneck" <smaneck@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0qydnYLGDdWqzhPVnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@giganews.com...
We don't know if we have the transcript, so Persian would only help if we
do, right?
Dear Kent,
Right.
But I disagree with those scenarios as well, because even if we don't
have
the transcript, at some point we could become relatively certain what
word
He used by looking at the other work by the same translator or
translators,
and seeing similar statements with similar contexts and similar word
construction.
I can certainly use my knowledge of Persian to make some guesses as to
what terms Abdu'l-Baha might have been using but I can never be sure
as to whether the translator wasn't imposing his own understanding. We
do know this happened for instance, in one of Abdu'l-Baha's talks
contained in the first edition of PUP. It incorrectly had Abdu'l-Baha
calling Confucius a Manifestation, something that was shown to be
incorrect once the original transcript was located. I think the use of
PUP has been especially problematic when it has come to the issue of
the proper relationship between science and religion. There are all
kinds of Persian words that might have been translated as science and
each has a different connotation. In my opinion those Baha'is who have
tried to write definitive works on this principle based largely on
this source are doing something I think quite premature.
warmest, Susan
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
