The Quest for Certitude

A culture of disagreement

noreply@blogger.com (Nikhil) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:18:00 +0000

"The most striking feature of contemporary moral utterance is that so much of it is used to express disagreements; and the most striking feature of the debates in which these disagreements are expressed is their interminable character. I do not mean by this just that such debates go on and on and on - although they do - but also that they apparently find no terminus. There seems to be no rational way of securing moral agreement in our culture."

-- Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue: A study in moral theory (quoted in Paul Lample's Revelation and Social Reality)

Forbearance and humility

noreply@blogger.com (Nikhil) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:43:00 +0000

"In past Dispensations, the believers have tended to divide into two mutually antagonistic groups: those who held blindly to the letter of the Revelations, and those who questioned and doubted everything. Like all extremes, both of these can lead into error... Baha'is are called upon to follow the Faith with intelligence and understanding. Inevitably believers will commit errors as they strive to rise to this degree of maturity, and this calls for forbearance and humility on the part of all concerned, so that such matters do not cause disunity and discord among the friends."

-- From a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice, 1980

Science, religion and truth

noreply@blogger.com (Nikhil) — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:52:00 +0000

Here's a thought provoking passage I came across, from one of Dr. Arbab's essays on science and religion. I think it presents a really key insight about the nature of truth, and how one can avoid the extremes of becoming either too ideological or skeptical. Would love to hear your thoughts on this, dear reader...

"I find quite inadequate the approach to the study of religion according to which the researcher is divided into two separate entities, the scientist and the believer, the first bound to the rules of academia and the second obliged to ignore the absurdities that this duality introduces into his or her belief system. That so untenable an approach should have achieved widespread acceptance is due to the impositions of secularism acting as a kind of fundamentalist creed. As a result, much of the reality of science, religion and the forces that transform society has ended up hidden behind a veil created by false objectivity.

The alternative to the prevailing situation is not apologetics or sectarian controversy. What is called for is a new look at the interpenetration of reason and faith, as well as a systematic exploration of rational approaches that are not tied to materialism...

An immediate consequence of this realization, it could be argued, is to require the researcher in certain fields to make explicit relevant aspects of his or her own belief and experience. To do so in a meaningful way, one must be convinced that it is possible to be firm in one's convictions without being judgmental. Although the statement, "if I believe something to be right, then he whose opinions differ from mine must be wrong" passes the tests of formal logic, and although it is applicable in countless situations, its usefulness vanishes once the object of discussion becomes relatively complex. It is not that "A" and "not A" can both be true, but that the vastness of truth does not allow most matters of belief, if there is any depth to them at all, to be reduced to such comparisons. The only options this simplistic posture finally leaves open are either religious and ideological fanaticism or the brand of relativism that does away with faith, embraces skepticism, and idolizes doubt. It is instructive to note how the assaults of such relativism on belief, initially launched against religion, have been directed in the postmodern era to the very foundations of science."

I find the last paragraph particularly illuminating on this search for truth. I have often struggled with the very quandary he states, of being firm in one's belief without becoming judgmental of others - and the insight provided here shows (in my opinion) a clear way to overcome this hurdle, by understanding one of the fundamental characteristics of reality, and our respective understandings of reality - that they are ultimately too complex to subject to such comparisons and judgments.

Thinking vs. feeling

noreply@blogger.com (Nikhil) — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:05:00 +0000

Here's another extremely thought provoking passage from the same book, Immortality:

"I think, therefore I am is the statement of an intellectual who underrates toothaches. I feel, therefore I am is a truth much more universally valid, and it applies to everything that's alive. My self does not differ substantially from yours in terms of its thought. Many people, few ideas: we all think more or less the same, and we exchange, borrow, steal thoughts from one another. However, when someone steps on my foot, only I feel the pain. The basis of the self is not thought but suffering, which is the most fundamental of all feelings. While it suffers, not even a cat can doubt its unique and uninterchangeable self. In intense suffering the world disappears and each of us is alone with his self. Suffering is the university of egocentrism."

Human rights

noreply@blogger.com (Nikhil) — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:40:00 +0000

Milan Kundera's Immortality is filled with thought provoking statements about the nature of humanity and our quest for immortality. However there is one particular excerpt I wish to share with you all, that seems to very aptly capture one aspect of human society today. Pay particular attention to the last 2 lines.

"And so, thanks to Solzhenitsyn, human rights once again found their place in the vocabulary of our times; I don't know a single politician who doesn't mention ten times a day 'the fight for human rights' or 'violations of human rights'. But because people in the West are not threatened by concentration camps and are free to say and write what they want, the more the fight for human rights gains popularity, the more it loses any concrete content, becoming a kind of universal stance of everyone towards everything, a kind of energy that turns all human desires into rights. The world has become man's right and everything in it has become a right..."

Science

noreply@blogger.com (Nikhil) — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 16:22:00 +0000

One of the things that always drew me to the Baha'i teachings was its emphasis on science, and scientific thinking. In fact, Abdu'l Baha once wrote that "any religious belief that is not conformable with scientific proof and investigation is superstition" which I always thought was a wonderful standard to have. However, I just read a passage from the writings of Abdu'l Baha which gives a whole new meaning to the Baha'i understanding of science, and I felt I must share it with you all.

Science is the first emanation from God toward man. All created beings embody the potentiality of material perfection, but the power of intellectual investigation and scientific acquisition is a higher virtue specialized to man alone. Other beings and organisms are deprived of this potentiality and attainment. God has created or deposited this love of reality in man. The development and progress of a nation is according to the measure and degree of that nation’s scientific attainments. Through this means its greatness is continually increased, and day by day the welfare and prosperity of its people are assured.

All blessings are divine in origin, but none can be compared with this power of intellectual investigation and research, which is an eternal gift producing fruits of unending delight. Man is ever partaking of these fruits. All other blessings are temporary; this is an everlasting possession. Even sovereignty has its limitations and overthrow; this is a kingship and dominion which none may usurp or destroy. Briefly, it is an eternal blessing and divine bestowal, the supreme gift of God to man. Therefore, you should put forward your most earnest efforts toward the acquisition of science and arts. The greater your attainment, the higher your standard in the divine purpose. The man of science is perceiving and endowed with vision, whereas he who is ignorant and neglectful of this development is blind. The investigating mind is attentive, alive; the callous and indifferent mind is deaf and dead. A scientific man is a true index and representative of humanity, for through processes of inductive reasoning and research he is informed of all that appertains to humanity, its status, conditions and happenings. He studies the human body politic, understands social problems and weaves the web and texture of civilization. In fact, science may be likened to a mirror wherein the infinite forms and images of existing things are revealed and reflected. It is the very foundation of all individual and national development. Without this basis of investigation, development is impossible. Therefore, seek with diligent endeavor the knowledge and attainment of all that lies within the power of this wonderful bestowal.

A pure heart

noreply@blogger.com (Nikhil) — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 18:25:00 +0000

I'm always blown away by this passage whenever I read it...

O My Brother! A pure heart is as a mirror; cleanse it with the burnish of love and severance from all save God, that the true sun may shine within it and the eternal morning dawn. Then wilt thou clearly see the meaning of “Neither doth My earth nor My heaven contain Me, but the heart of My faithful servant containeth Me.” And thou wilt take up thy life in thine hand, and with infinite longing cast it before the new Beloved One.

-- Baha'u'llah

Individual and social transformation

noreply@blogger.com (Nikhil) — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 18:08:00 +0000

Living a Baha'i life involves the twofold purpose of individual and social transformation. However most institutions in society today focus on one or the other more. Religions of the past have largely tended to focus on individual change - purifying the self, becoming a better person, establishing a personal connection with God etc - believing that this will lead to widespread change in society. Most non-religious social institutions on the other hand focus on social transformation - governments enact laws governing all of society, policies are made that change the nature of the economy etc - there isn't much effort made to transform the individual (save in the field of education). It is assumed that people are who they are, and then institutions are devised so as to cater to people as they are.

However there is a very dynamic interplay between the individual and society, and it is essential to work at transforming both simultaneously. This was brought home to be especially strongly as I read the following excerpt from a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi:

"We cannot segregate the human heart from the environment outside us, and say that once one of these is reformed everything will be improved. Man is organic with the world. His inner life molds the environment and is itself also deeply affected by it. The one acts upon the other and every abiding change in the life of man is the result of these mutual reactions."

So what, dear reader, are ways in which this simultaneous transformation can happen?

Hermeneutical principles

noreply@blogger.com (Nikhil) — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 16:08:00 +0000

Paul Lample's "Revelation and Social Reality" provides, amongst other things, an excellent summary of some of the hermeneutical principles (principles that deal with the interpretation of scriptural writings) presented in the Baha'i writings. I offer a short listing of these principles, along with some extracts from the book that explain these for the reader to ponder and apply as he/she engages in his/her own personal study of the many religious writings we have available to us.

The Book has intended meaning - "We cannot simply read into the Text any meaning we wish or use quotations out of context to justify personal opinions. Our views may be right and they may be wrong, or they may reflect a partial understanding, depending on the measure of their correspondence to Baha'u'llah's (or any of the other Manifestations') intention." Some philosophers have argued that a book has no intended meaning, and even the author often cannot know what the meaning of a book is - it is left to the reader to interpret. The Baha'i stance on this states that at least the writings of the Prophets and their authorized interpreters do not fit into this category.
Judgments about meaning should be made from the perspective of the Revelation - "We should not weight the Book of God with human standards and sciences, since 'the Book itself is the unerring balance established amongst men'".
There is no contradiction between authoritative passages - "It may appear that certain statements in the Book contradict one another. But a difference in context or emphasis or the exploration of a single reality from different perspectives should not be misconstrued as contradiction... If a personal interpretation of a passage contradicts the Text or its authoritative interpretation, that individual interpretation is erroneous." This provides us with one way of testing our individual interpretations of these writings.
Meaning is sometimes explicit and sometimes veiled - "At times we are dealing with explicit meanings and an esoteric interpretation would be inappropriate and incorrect... At other times a verse has deeper meanings, and trying to hold to the outward understanding can lead to rigidity or confusion." Some things are to be taken literally, some metaphorically. And figuring out which to use in any situation that is unclear is done on the basis of some of the other hermeneutical principles listed here.
The meaning of the Book cannot be exhausted - "This opens the Text to a range of individual interpretations, including instances in which an authoritative interpretation has been made. For example, after presenting an interpretation of the meaning of the story of Adam and Eve, Abdu'l Baha explains - 'This is one of the meanings of the biblical story of Adam. Reflect unti you discover the others.' However this concept does not imply relativism - personal interpretations are not all equally valid, and some are erroneous. Rather, meaning continually emerges through study and application throughout one's lifetime and over the entire course of the dispensation in a changing historical context."
Truth unfolds progressively within the dispensation - "The meaning of the Revelation is intentionally disclosed in a gradual manner over time. 'Consider the sun,' Baha'u'llah explains, 'How gradually its warmth and potency increase as it approaches its zenith...' He also states - 'Not everything that a man knoweth can be disclosed, nor can everything that he can disclose be regarded as timely, nor can every timely utterance be considered suited to the capacity of those who hear it.'" This dynamic revelation of truth is essential, as it enables people to make the transition from their established ways of thinking to a new way of viewing the world and their lives/actions.
Understanding is influenced by the stages of the Faith's organic development - This is more specifically written wrt the Baha'i Faith's development in the last 150 or so years, but can also be applied to other religions by looking at their history. "The Baha'i community evolves organically over time and certain passages may pertain to specific stages in this developmental process." The Universal House of Justice explains this through a simile - "If a farmer plants a tree, he cannot state at that moment what its exact height will be, the number of its branches or the exact time of its blossoming. He can, however, give a general impression of its size and pattern of growth and can state with confidence which fruit it will bear. The same is true of the evolution of the World Order of Baha'u'llah." In past dispensations errors arose because the believers "were overanxious to encompass the Divine Message within the framework of their limited understanding, to define doctrines where definition was beyond their power, to explain mysteries which only the wisdom and experience of a later age would make comprehensible, to argue that something was true because it appeared desirable and necessary."
Personal interpretations of the meaning of the Text should be weighed in the light of science and reason - This seems pretty clear to me :) Abdu'l Baha states, "If religious beliefs and opinions are found contrary to the standards of science, they are mere superstitions and imaginations...". However, there is one thing to be aware of - "it is vital to appreciate that in certain cases, rather than intending to convey a scientific truth, a passage in the Text uses scientific concepts according to the understanding of the people as a way of illustrating a spiritual theme." This is really important to understand, I think, as otherwise one might view some statement as being contradictory to the standards of science - while all it was was an analogy to explain some other more important spiritual principle. A clear example of this is Abdu'l Baha's use of the analogy of the concept of ether to illustrate the unknowability of God. In one passage he says, "The Divine Essence as it is in itself is however beyond all description. For instance, the nature of ether is unknown, but that it existeth is certain by the effects it produceth, heat, light and electricity being the waves thereof. By these waves the existence of ether is thus proven. And as we consider the outpourings of Divine Grace we are assured of the existence of God." The purpose here is to discuss human understanding of God, not prove the existence of ether. This is made clear in another passage of Abdu'l Baha's where he says that "Even ethereal matter, the forces of which are said in physics to be heat, light, electricity and magnetism, is an intellectual reality, and is not sensible." In other words, the ether is an intellectual concept used to explain certain phenomena. Over time as scientists couldn't verify its existence, they constructed other intellectual concepts to explain phenomena.
History and context have implications for understanding the meaning of the Text - Understanding context can be very important for grasping the meaning of a Text. However, "this does not imply that meaning of scripture is circumscribed by its particular context and that no general insights or principles can be drawn from it and applied universally... Hermeneutical practice must be concerned with both the particular and universal implications of the Writings..." We must also strive to avoid two extremes - one which is to insist that everything in the Writings can only be understood in the context of historical evidence, and the second which is to ignore the historical context or assume that all which is presented in the Text is historical fact - some statements, as was explained in the earlier point about science, are presented to people as analogies based on the particular understanding of the audience being addressed.

More on consultation

noreply@blogger.com (Nikhil) — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 00:41:00 +0000

In a brief conversation with A, I realized that the context for the second quote in the post below is important - it should not be taken in isolation from other spiritual qualities. Clearly one should not be a mute bystander to injustice, for example. Understanding the principle of unity in decision-making (even if it is not the ideal decision) is something that can be better understood in the context of the main principles of consultation. Here's an extract from the worldwide Baha'i website that summarizes these principles well:

The principles of consultation were laid down in Bahá'u'lláh's writings, and, as a procedure for building consensus and investigating truth, they have the potential for wide application. Indeed, Bahá'ís have found them to be useful in virtually any arena where group decision-making and cooperation is required. These principles are used not only by the Faith's own institutions, but in Bahá'í-owned businesses, in Bahá'í-operated schools, and in day-to-day decision-making of Bahá'í families.

In essence, consultation seeks to build consensus in a manner that unites various constituencies instead of dividing them. It encourages diversity of opinion and acts to control the struggle for power that is otherwise so common in traditional decision-making systems.

Bahá'í consultation is based on the following principles:

* Information should be gathered from the widest possible range of sources, seeking a diversity of points of view. This may mean making special efforts to seek the views of specialists--such as lawyers, doctors, or scientists. It may also mean looking for information outside traditional specialties or making a special effort to consider the views of community members from diverse backgrounds.
* During discussion, participants must make every effort to be as frank and candid as possible, while maintaining a courteous interest in the views of others. Personal attacks, blanket ultimatums and prejudicial statements are to be avoided.
* When an idea is put forth it becomes at once the property of the group. Although this notion sounds simple, it is perhaps the most profound principle of consultation. For in this rule, all ideas cease to be the property of any individual, sub-group, or constituency. When followed, this principle encourages those ideas that spring forth from a sincere desire to serve, as opposed to ideas that emanate from a desire for personal aggrandizement or constituency-building.
* The group strives for unanimity, but a majority vote can be taken to bring about a conclusion and make the decision. An important aspect to this principle is the understanding that once a decision is made, it is incumbent on the entire group to act on it with unity - regardless of how many supported the measure.

In this sense, there can be no "minority" report or "position of the opposition" in consultation. Rather, Bahá'ís believe that if a decision is a wrong one, it wlll become evident in its implementation--but only if the decision-making group and, indeed, the community at large, support it wholeheartedly.

This commitment to unity ensures that if a decision or a project fails, the problem lies in the idea itself, and not in lack of support from the community or the obstinate actions of opponents.

The final section of the above extract gives some clear reasoning as to why this principle of unity is important. And it does make one wonder - how many policies, projects, actions and ideas fail because they are truly wrong/bad? And how many fail because of opposition from people, disunity and contention?

Consultation

noreply@blogger.com (Nikhil) — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 16:13:00 +0000

Two quotes about consultation that we all (definitely me) need to imbibe, I think...

"He who expresses an opinion should not voice it as correct and right but set it forth as a contribution to the consensus of opinion, for the light of reality becomes apparent when two opinions coincide."

"If they agree upon a subject, even though it be wrong, it is better than to disagree and be in the right, for this difference will produce the demolition of the divine foundation. Though one of the parties may be in the right and they disagree that will be the cause of a thousand wrongs, but if they agree and both parties are in the wrong, as it is in unity the truth will be revealed and the wrong made right."

-- Abdu'l Baha

The second, in particular, is worth discussing... What is it that makes it better to be united and wrong rather than divided and right? What do you all think?

Faith and action

noreply@blogger.com (Nikhil) — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 15:06:00 +0000

A few weeks ago I had a most wonderful experience with a co-passenger on my flight back home from Michigan. We had some great conversations around religion, even though we came at it from very different angles. She was what you might call a literalist Christian - she believed the world was created in 7 days, that Jesus was the only way to salvation and so on... Coming at it from the Baha'i perspective, I of course disagreed - and yet our conversation was very open, and pleasant.

One of the things we talked about was faith - she believed that as she believed in Christ, she was saved and going to heaven, and it didn't matter what she did, how she acted, for all her sins were forgiven when Christ got crucified. I tried to make her see the other perspective, of how faith was intricately tied in to action - if one "believed" in Christ, but then committed actions that were against the teachings of Christ, one cannot possibly be "saved" - and yet this was something she could not accept as part of her Christian faith.

It was therefore a pleasant surprise as I just read the Epistle of James, and came across a passage that talks exactly about this issue:

¹⁷Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

¹⁸Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

¹⁹Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

²⁰But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

²¹Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

²²Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

²³And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

²⁴Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

-- James 2:17-24

I find this to be in perfect alignment with the Bahai teaching that "the essence of faith is fewness of words and abundance of deeds." And to me, this is now yet another classic example of how all religions intrinsically really teach the same things, while we people interpret them in our own ways, creating differences and distinctions.

Pure honey

noreply@blogger.com (Nikhil) — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 18:42:00 +0000

Verily I say: Whatever befalleth in the path of God is the beloved of the soul and the desire of the heart. Deadly poison in His path is pure honey, and every tribulation a draught of crystal water.

-- Baha'u'llah

Humanity - members of one body

noreply@blogger.com (Nikhil) — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:55:00 +0000

¹²For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

¹³For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

¹⁴For the body is not one member, but many.

¹⁵If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

¹⁶And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

¹⁷If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?

¹⁸But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.

¹⁹And if they were all one member, where were the body?

²⁰But now are they many members, yet but one body.

²¹And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.

²²Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:

²³And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.

²⁴For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked.

²⁵That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.

²⁶And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.

-- 1 Corinthians 12:12-26

The body politic may be likened to the human organism. As long as the various members and parts of that organism are coordinated and cooperating in harmony, we have as a result the expression of life in its fullest degree. When these members lack coordination and harmony, we have the reverse, which in the human organism is disease, dissolution, death. Similarly, in the body politic of humanity dissension, discord and warfare are always destructive and inevitably fatal. All created beings are dependent upon peace and coordination, for every contingent and phenomenal being is a composition of distinct elements. As long as there is affinity and cohesion among these constituent elements, strength and life are manifest; but when dissension and repulsion arise among them, disintegration follows.

-- Abdu'l Baha

Thus when that unifying force, the penetrating influence of the Word of God, taketh effect, the difference of customs, manners, habits, ideas, opinions and dispositions embellisheth the world of humanity. This diversity, this difference is like the naturally created dissimilarity and variety of the limbs and organs of the human body, for each one contributeth to the beauty, efficiency and perfection of the whole. When these different limbs and organs come under the influence of man’s sovereign soul, and the soul’s power pervadeth the limbs and members, veins and arteries of the body, then difference reinforceth harmony, diversity strengtheneth love, and multiplicity is the greatest factor for co-ordination.

-- Abdu'l Baha

Sorrow not...

noreply@blogger.com (Nikhil) — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:35:00 +0000

O My servants! Could ye apprehend with what wonders of My munificence and bounty I have willed to entrust your souls, ye would, of a truth, rid yourselves of attachment to all created things, and would gain a true knowledge of your own selves—a knowledge which is the same as the comprehension of Mine own Being. Ye would find yourselves independent of all else but Me, and would perceive, with your inner and outer eye, and as manifest as the revelation of My effulgent Name, the seas of My loving-kindness and bounty moving within you... Ye are even as the bird which soareth, with the full force of its mighty wings and with complete and joyous confidence, through the immensity of the heavens, until, impelled to satisfy its hunger, it turneth longingly to the water and clay of the earth below it, and, having been entrapped in the mesh of its desire, findeth itself impotent to resume its flight to the realms whence it came. Powerless to shake off the burden weighing on its sullied wings, that bird, hitherto an inmate of the heavens, is now forced to seek a dwelling-place upon the dust. Wherefore, O My servants, defile not your wings with the clay of waywardness and vain desires, and suffer them not to be stained with the dust of envy and hate, that ye may not be hindered from soaring in the heavens of My divine knowledge.

The world is but a show, vain and empty, a mere nothing, bearing the semblance of reality. Set not your affections upon it. Break not the bond that uniteth you with your Creator, and be not of those that have erred and strayed from His ways. Verily I say, the world is like the vapor in a desert, which the thirsty dreameth to be water and striveth after it with all his might, until when he cometh unto it, he findeth it to be mere illusion...

O My servants! Sorrow not if, in these days and on this earthly plane, things contrary to your wishes have been ordained and manifested by God, for days of blissful joy, of heavenly delight, are assuredly in store for you. Worlds, holy and spiritually glorious, will be unveiled to your eyes. You are destined by Him, in this world and hereafter, to partake of their benefits, to share in their joys, and to obtain a portion of their sustaining grace. To each and every one of them you will, no doubt, attain.

-- Baha'u'llah

Poetry

noreply@blogger.com (Nikhil) — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 22:52:00 +0000

For the poetry buffs, here's an excerpt from Mister God, This is Anna again...

"Do you like poetry?" he asked.

Anna nodded. Old Woody settled the glowing tobacco in his pipe with his thumb.

"Do you," he said, sucking away, "do you know what poetry is?"

"Yes," replied Anna. "It's sort of like sewing."

"I see," Old Woody nodded, "and what do you mean by sewing?"

Anna juggled the words around in her mind. "Well, its making something from different bits that is different from all the bits."

"Um," said Old Woody, "I think that is rather a good definition of poetry."

The same chord

noreply@blogger.com (Nikhil) — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 15:25:00 +0000

I've posted this excerpt a long time ago, but reading this book again, I was struck once more by the profound simplicity of the message.

So here, again, is an excerpt from the absolutely delightful Mister God, This is Anna.

"Fynn," her voice was a squeak of amazement, "Fynn, we're all playing the same chord."

"I'm not surprised," I said. "What are we talking about?"

"Fynn, its all them different names for churches."

"So what's that got to do with chords?" I asked.

"We're all playing the same chord to Mister God, but with different names."

It was this kind of thing that was so exciting about talking to Anna. She had this capacity for taking a statement of fact in one subject, teasing it until she discovered its pattern, then looking around for a similar pattern in another subject. Anna had a high regard for facts, yet the importance of a fact did not lie in its uniqueness but in its ability to do service in diverse subjects. Had Anna ever been given a convincing argument in favor of atheism, she'd have teased it about until she got a firm hold of the pattern, viewed it from all sides, and then shown you that the whole argument was a necessary ingredient in the existence of God. The chord of atheism might be a discord, but then discords were in Anna's estimation "thrilly," but definitely, "thrilly".

"Fynn, them names of them chords," she began.

"What about them?" I asked.

"The home note can't be Mister God because then we couldn't call them different names. They would all be the same name," she said.

"I guess you're right at that. What is the home note then?"

"It's me or you or Ali. Fynn, it's everybody. That's why it's all different names. That's why it's all different Churches. That's what it is."

It makes sense, doesn't it? We're all playing the same chord, but it seems we don't know it. You call your chord a C major, while I call the same notes A minor seventh. I call myself a Christian, what do you call yourself? I reckon Mister God must be pretty good at music, he knows all the names of the chords. Perhaps he doesn't mind what you call it, as long as you play it.

Weighing the consequences

noreply@blogger.com (Nikhil) — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 16:56:00 +0000

While musing in the shower today, I had a bit of an insight into why, when having to choose between two activities, one materially beneficial, and one spiritually beneficial, we often tend to choose the former rather than latter. For example, if one has to choose between attending a weekly study circle that furthers my spiritual growth, and taking that extra hour to study for an exam tomorrow, I've realized that one is more likely to skip the study circle and prepare for the exam. Or, if one has to choose between spending an hour meditating and using that hour to work on a class/work project, one is more likely to give up the hour of meditation, rationalizing that the project deadline is more important. Why does this happen? I believe there are two reasons - the first obvious, the second not so obvious.

1. The consequences of material choices of usually much more apparent and immediate than spiritual choices. So I believe that if I dont spend that time studying for the exam, I'm more likely to fail. Of course, I could have sacrificed an hour of sleep and used that to prepare for the exam, and still attended to that which is spiritually beneficial to me - but that would have other material consequences on the next day, such as more fatigue, etc. And so I'm willing to forgo the spiritual action as I don't see any immediate consequences of NOT going to my study circle or meditating this week.

2. Material consequences can be both positive and negative, while spiritual consequences can only be positive or less positive. I think this is an important, but not often appreciated reason why we make the choices we do. We've normalized our expectations such that our minimum degree of material comfort is at a non-zero value. And so deviations from that minimum level of comfort can be both positive and negative. And so I want to score at least a certain amount on an exam; anything below that would be a travesty. However, such is not the same with spiritual actions - if I don't read a prayer today, it will only mean I don't progress as fast as I might have. If I don't study the spiritual text I've been reading regularly today, it only means I finish it a day later. We are therefore prepared to accept a less positive spiritual consequence in favor of devoting time to ensuring a positive, rather than negative, material consequence.

What, then, I wonder, might happen if we were able to renormalize our spiritual expectations, so that we set our minimum level of desired progress at a nonzero level? If we viewed the consequence of one lost hour of prayer/meditation as being as negative (and as immediate/apparent) as one lost hour of sleep? How then, would we prioritize our choices?

Silence - a tranquil conscience within

noreply@blogger.com (Nikhil) — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 16:55:00 +0000

Create in me a pure heart, O my God, and renew a tranquil conscience within me, O my Hope! Through the spirit of power confirm Thou me in Thy Cause, O my Best-Beloved, and by the light of Thy glory reveal unto me Thy path, O Thou the Goal of my desire! Through the power of Thy transcendent might lift me up unto the heaven of Thy holiness, O Source of my being, 143 and by the breezes of Thine eternity gladden me, O Thou Who art my God! Let Thine everlasting melodies breathe tranquillity on me, O my Companion, and let the riches of Thine ancient countenance deliver me from all except Thee, O my Master, and let the tidings of the revelation of Thine incorruptible Essence bring me joy, O Thou Who art the most manifest of the manifest and the most hidden of the hidden!

-- Baha'u'llah

Silence - refraining from idle talk

noreply@blogger.com (Nikhil) — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 16:52:00 +0000

That seeker must, at all times, put his trust in God, must renounce the peoples of the earth, must detach himself from the world of dust, and cleave unto Him Who is the Lord of Lords. He must never seek to exalt himself above any one, must wash away from the tablet of his heart every trace of pride and vain-glory, must cling unto patience and resignation, observe silence and refrain from idle talk. For the tongue is a smoldering fire, and excess of speech a deadly poison. Material fire consumeth the body, whereas the fire of the tongue devoureth both heart and soul. The force of the former lasteth but for a time, whilst the effects of the latter endureth a century.

-- Baha'u'llah

Silence - the essence of faith

noreply@blogger.com (Nikhil) — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 16:51:00 +0000

The essence of faith is fewness of words and abundance of deeds

-- Baha'u'llah

Silence - the mark of humility

noreply@blogger.com (Nikhil) — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 16:46:00 +0000

It behooveth you to remain silent before His Throne, for indeed of all the things which have been created between heaven and earth nothing on that Day will be deemed more fitting than the observance of silence. Moreover, take ye good heed not to be reckoned among those of the past who were invested with knowledge, yet by reason of their learning waxed proud before God, the Transcendent, the Self-Subsisting, inasmuch as on that Day it is He Who is the All-Knowing, the Omniscient, the Source of all knowledge, far above such as are endued with learning; and it is 165 He Who is the Potent, the All-Compelling, the Lord of power, in the face of those who wield power; and it is He Who is the Mighty, the Most August, the Most Glorious before such as display glory; and on that Day it is He Who is the Lofty, the All-Highest, the Source of exaltation, far above those who are elevated in rank; and it is He Who is the Almighty, the Source of glory and grandeur, far above the pomp of the mighty; and it is He Who is the Omnipotent, the Supreme Ruler, the Lord of judgement, transcending all such as are invested with authority; and it is He Who is the Generous, the Most Benevolent, the Essence of bounty, Who standeth supreme in the face of such as show benevolence; and it is He Who is the Ordainer and the Supreme Wielder of authority and power, inconceivably high above those who hold earthly dominion; and it is He Who is the Most Excellent, the Unsurpassed, the Pre-eminent in the face of every man of accomplishment.

-- The Báb

The body and blood

noreply@blogger.com (Nikhil) — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 15:27:00 +0000

The orthodox interpretation of the practice of communion followed by many Christians always puzzled me a little - many believe that the process of eating the wafer and drinking the sip of wine truly means you are eating the body and blood of Christ. Two things always made me wonder - first, why would one believe that the wafer and the wine actually, physically transforms into Christ's body and blood? Second, why would one want to eat the body and blood of one's prophet at all?

I found the clearest explanation for this practice in the gospel of John:

⁵³Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

⁵⁴Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

⁵⁵For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

⁵⁶He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

⁵⁷As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

⁵⁸This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

-- John 6:53-58

These verses, looked at literally, seem to confirm the orthodox Christian belief that one should et the body/blood of Christ in order to be saved. But is this what Christ really meant? I believe a clue to what the "bread" he talks about is can be found in some preceding and succeeding verses.

³⁵And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

³⁶But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

³⁷All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

³⁸For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

³⁹And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

⁴⁰And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

-- John 6:35-40

and

⁶³It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

-- John 6:63

Once we take all these verses together, I think it becomes clear that by "bread" is meant spiritual food, the teachings of God. And as Jesus clearly says above, "the flesh profiteth nothing" - and so in the earlier verses when he talks about people "eating his flesh", he must mean it metaphorically, not literally. It is therefore not his body/flesh that is the bread people are meant to eat, but his teachings and words that they are meant to imbibe.

Only God knows

noreply@blogger.com (Nikhil) — Sun, 31 May 2009 14:32:00 +0000

A simple, yet thought-provoking fable...

Once there was an old man who lived in a tiny village. Although poor, he was envied by all, for he owned a beautiful white horse. Even the king coveted his treasure. A horse like this had never been seen before – such was its splendor, its majesty, its strength.

People offered fabulous prices for the steed, but the old man always refused. “This horse is not a horse to me,” he would tell them. “It is a person. How could you sell a person? He is a friend, not a possession. How could you sell a friend.” The man was poor and the temptation was great. But he never sold the horse.

One morning he found that the horse was not in his stable. All the village came to see him. “You old fool,” they scoffed, “we told you that someone would steal your horse. We warned you that you would be robbed. You are so poor. How could you ever protect such a valuable animal? It would have been better to have sold him. You could have gotten whatever price you wanted. No amount would have been to high. Now the horse is gone and you’ve been cursed with misfortune.”

The old man responded, “Don’t speak too quickly. Say only that the horse is not in the stable. That is all we know; the rest is judgment. If I’ve been cursed or not, how can you know? How can you judge?”

The people contested, “Don’t make us out to be fools! We may not be philosophers, but great philosophy is not needed. The simple fact that your horse is gone is a curse.”

The old man spoke again. “All I know is that the stable is empty, and the horse is gone. The rest I don’t know. Whether it be a curse or a blessing, I can’t say. All we can see is a fragment. Who can say what will come next?”

The people of the village laughed. They thought that the man was crazy. They had always thought he was a fool; if he wasn’t, he would have sold the horse and lived off the money. But instead, he was a poor woodcutter, and old man still cutting firewood and dragging it out of the forest and selling it. He lived hand to mouth in the misery of poverty. Now he had proven that he was, indeed, a fool.

After fifteen days, the horse returned. He hadn’t been stolen; he had run away into the forest. Not only had he returned, he had brought a dozen wild horses with him. Once again, the village people gathered around the woodcutter and spoke. “Old man, you were right and we were wrong. What we thought was a curse was a blessing. Please forgive us.”

The man responded, “Once again, you go too far. Say only that the horse is back. State only that a dozen horses returned with him, but don’t judge. How do you know if this is a blessing or not? You see only a fragment. Unless you know the whole story, how can you judge? You read only one page of a book. Can you judge the whole book? You read only one word of one phrase. Can you understand the entire phrase?”

“Life is so vast, yet you judge all of life with one page or one word. All you have is one fragment! Don’t say that this is a blessing. No one knows. I am content with what I know. I am not perturbed by what I don’t.”

“Maybe the old man is right,” they said to one another. So they said little. But down deep, they knew he was wrong. They knew it was a blessing. Twelve wild horses had returned. With a little work, the animals could be broken and trained and sold for much money.

The old man had a son, an only son. The young man began to break the wild horses. After a few days, he fell from one of the horses and broke both legs. Once again the villagers gathered around the old man and cast their judgments.

“You were right,” they said. “You proved you were right. The dozen horses were not a blessing. They were a curse. Your only son has broken both his legs, and now in your old age you have no one to help you. Now you are poorer than ever.”

The old man spoke again. “You people are obsessed with judging. Don’t go so far. Say only that my son broke his legs. Who knows if it is a blessing or a curse? No one knows. We only have a fragment. Life comes in fragments.”

It so happened that a few weeks later the country engaged in war against a neighboring country. All the young men of the village were required to join the army. Only the son of the old man was excluded, because he was injured. Once again the people gathered around the old man, crying and screaming because their sons had been taken. There was little chance that they would return. The enemy was strong, and the war would be a losing struggle. They would never see their sons again.

“You were right, old man,” They wept. “God knows you were right. This proves it. Your son’s accident was a blessing. His legs may be broken, but at least he is with you. Our sons are gone forever.”

The old man spoke again. “It is impossible to talk with you. You always draw conclusions. No one knows. Say only this. Your sons had to go to war, and mine did not. No one knows if it is a blessing or a curse. No one is wise enough to know. Only God knows.”

Scientology news

noreply@blogger.com (Nikhil) — Sat, 30 May 2009 03:04:00 +0000

The religion faces being banned in France - read more about that here.