Flags and Baddies

Russians Plant Flag; A Thousand Baddy Qualities

By John Taylor; 2007 August 04

Let me comment on a recent headline: "Russians Plant Flag on the Arctic Seabed." A complete article is at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/03/world/europe/03arctic.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

This New York Times article begins,

"A Russian expedition descended in a pair of submersible vessels more than two miles under the ice cap on Thursday and deposited a Russian flag on the seabed at the North Pole. The dive was a symbolic move to enhance the government's disputed claim to nearly half of the floor of the Arctic Ocean and potential oil or other resources there."

The New York Times late quotes the Canadian riposte,

"At least one country with a stake in the issue registered its immediate disapproval of the expedition. `This isn't the 15th century,' Peter MacKay, Canada's foreign minister, said on CTV television. `You can't go around the world and just plant flags and say, "We're claiming this territory."'"

Although Canada is a disputant for that territory and is therefore hardly disinterested, our representative Peter MacKay is perfectly right, this is not the 15th Century. Abdu'l-Baha, in Paris, gave us the definitive criterion for what is, well, newer than the 15th Century,

"Land belongs not to one people, but to all people. This earth is not man's home, but his tomb." (Abdu'l-Baha, Paris Talks, 28)

I often think about this startling statement of the Master. It seems to me that it is easy for Baha'is to take this at face value and think, `yes, territory is the possession of all humanity,' and leave it at that.

But what does it really mean for the entire human race to own something? Even if we had a world government, how could it decide a dispute like this one?

Russia wants more oil wealth, and is willing to go anywhere and do whatever it takes to get it, even if it happens to be on the Arctic Ocean floor. So is Canada. You could try to reason with the two of them by putting forward several arguments. You could point out economists have pointed out that wherever oil is found, the people who supposedly should benefit from the influx of wealth, always suffer terribly. Even the threat of oil discoveries is enough to devastate a local economy. They might answer, `we are willing to suffer through.’ Then you could argue that we need to invest in sustainable energy, not in digging up more greenhouse gas producing gunk. That argument, even post-Inconvenient Truth, is not likely to have much effect either.

Or, you could say, you both have enough oil wealth, why not give Burkina Faso or Haiti, or some other country in dire need of wealth have a shot at the money free-for-all? Okay, they would really think you are crazy to think that.

But consider, the Master gives the best criterion for distributing land in the same talk I cited above.

"If more land is required for the improvement of the condition of the people, for the spread of civilization (for the substitution of just laws for brutal customs) -- surely it would be possible to acquire peaceably the necessary extension of territory." (Abdu'l-Baha, Paris Talks, 28-29)

Here is a sensible criterion for distribution of wealth: just prove that it would benefit the people to exploit it. Needless to say, drilling for oil under the Arctic icecap is not going to benefit anybody because as a matter of fact it harms all people. Anything that promotes the Hothouse Effect is out of the discussion. But say that it is a question of another resource from the Arctic Ocean bed, one that is not inherently evil like oil and gas. Then Canada and Russia would just have to present a credible case to the World Government that exploitation can reasonably be expected to benefit their people. But then cost benefit calculus could be applied, which might well make Haiti and Burkina Faso into viable alternatives. They could present a case that their people, being already poor, are in a better position to benefit than big, rich countries like Canada and Russia.

Qualities, Nine good, One Bad, and Vice Versa

Yesterday, completely out of the blue, Silvie said to me: "You know you are really weird, Dad, you always cheer for the bad guy whenever we are reading a book or watching a movie."

Of course, I answered, I am trying to follow Abdu'l-Baha's advice to ignore the bad qualities and look at the good. Fictional situations are the perfect chance to exercise that ability to see what others do not see. Besides, it bugs everybody around me if I root for the heavy; it gives them a chance to learn the same rare skill with my good and bad qualities.

This tweaked my interest, though, and I looked up the quote. Turned out it is in Esslemont's introduction to the Baha'i Faith, and nowhere else.

"To be silent concerning the faults of others, to pray for them, and to help them, through kindness, to correct their faults. To look always at the good and not at the bad. If a man has ten good qualities and one bad one, to look at the ten and forget the one; and if a man has ten bad qualities and one good one, to look at the one and forget the ten. Never to allow ourselves to speak one unkind word about another, even though that other be our enemy." (Dr. J.E. Esslemont, Baha'u'llah and the New Era, p. 83)

This is the only place that this quote turns up in Ocean, though I seem to recall that it originally came from May Maxwell's An Early Pilgrimage, which would make it a pilgrim's note. But I do not want to get into boring questions of authority here. It is interesting that you often hear the first part of this cited by people from memory, but rarely do you hear the last part, "never to allow ourselves to speak one unkind word about another, even though he be our enemy." We would all be better off if we did.

This is a mental skill that takes practice. Try it out while you are watching the news on television. You are constantly being told what to feel and think, so think different. Look at the good in notoriously bad people, like Hitler and Saddam Hussein. Then remember that in conversation. These guys offer a great chance to practice never saying an unkind word about anybody, be they present or not, be they good people, or terrible.

Another point rarely noticed is that whereas this 9 to 1 ratio quote is not on entirely unassailable ground, as far as authority goes, the following reference is much more stable, being a quote written down in the original language by one of the Master's secretaries. I will close with it; it offers us another ratio, a thousand to one. If you yourself have a thousand good qualities and one bad, single that one out. Pay attention to that. Search and destroy. Fail in the mission and you are spiritually dead. Note that the whole commentary, as it becomes clear at the end, is an interpretation of the incident in the Gospel where Jesus refuses to be called good.

"Mrs Tatum said, 'I feel so dejected today. I am unhappy with myself.' The Master replied:"
"This is a sign of progress. The person who is satisfied with himself is the manifestation of Satan and the one who is not satisfied is the manifestation of the Merciful One. An egotist does not progress but the one who thinks himself imperfect will seek perfection for himself and will progress. If a man has a thousand good qualities, he must not look at them. He must search always for his shortcomings.
"For example, if a man has a building which is well-constructed and fully decorated but which has a small crack in one of its walls, he will, no doubt, forget the rest and turn his whole attention to repairing that crack. Furthermore, the attainment of absolute perfection for a human being is impossible; thus, however much he may progress he is still imperfect and has above him a point higher than himself. And the instant he sees this point he will not be satisfied with himself. It is for this reason that when someone called Christ 'Good Master', He replied that there is only One who is good and that is God." (Mahmud, 216-217)

 

u could point out economists have pointed out that wherever oil is found, the people who supposedly should benefit from the influx of wealth, always suffer terribly. Even the threat of oil discoveries is enough to devastate a local economy. They might answer, `we are willing to suffer through.’ Then you could argue that we need to invest in sustainable energy, not in digging up more greenhouse gas producing gunk. That argument, even post-Inconvenient Truth, is not likely to have much effect either.

Or, you could say, you both have enough oil wealth, why not give Burkina Faso or Haiti, or some other country in dire need of wealth have a shot at the money free-for-all? Okay, they would really think you are crazy to think that.

But consider, the Master gives the best criterion for distributing land in the same talk I cited above.

"If more land is required for the improvement of the condition of the people, for the spread of civilization (for the substitution of just laws for brutal customs) -- surely it would be possible to acquire peaceably the necessary extension of territory." (Abdu'l-Baha, Paris Talks, 28-29)

Here is a sensible criterion for distribution of wealth: just prove that it would benefit the people to exploit it. Needless to say, drilling for oil under the Arctic icecap is not going to benefit anybody because as a matter of fact it harms all people. Anything that promotes the Hothouse Effect is out of the discussion. But say that it is a question of another resource from the Arctic Ocean bed, one that is not inherently evil like oil and gas. Then Canada and Russia would just have to present a credible case to the World Government that exploitation can reasonably be expected to benefit their people. But then cost benefit calculus could be applied, which might well make Haiti and Burkina Faso into viable alternatives. They could present a case that their people, being already poor, are in a better position to benefit than big, rich countries like Canada and Russia.

Qualities, Nine good, One Bad, and Vice Versa

Yesterday, completely out of the blue, Silvie said to me: "You know you are really weird, Dad, you always cheer for the bad guy whenever we are reading a book or watching a movie."

Of course, I answered, I am trying to follow Abdu'l-Baha's advice to ignore the bad qualities and look at the good. Fictional situations are the perfect chance to exercise that ability to see what others do not see. Besides, it bugs everybody around me if I root for the heavy; it gives them a chance to learn the same rare skill with my good and bad qualities.

This tweaked my interest, though, and I looked up the quote. Turned out it is in Esslemont's introduction to the Baha'i Faith, and nowhere else.

"To be silent concerning the faults of others, to pray for them, and to help them, through kindness, to correct their faults. To look always at the good and not at the bad. If a man has ten good qualities and one bad one, to look at the ten and forget the one; and if a man has ten bad qualities and one good one, to look at the one and forget the ten. Never to allow ourselves to speak one unkind word about another, even though that other be our enemy." (Dr. J.E. Esslemont, Baha'u'llah and the New Era, p. 83)

This is the only place that this quote turns up in Ocean, though I seem to recall that it originally came from May Maxwell's An Early Pilgrimage, which would make it a pilgrim's note. But I do not want to get into boring questions of authority here. It is interesting that you often hear the first part of this cited by people from memory, but rarely do you hear the last part, "never to allow ourselves to speak one unkind word about another, even though he be our enemy." We would all be better off if we did.

This is a mental skill that takes practice. Try it out while you are watching the news on television. You are constantly being told what to feel and think, so think different. Look at the good in notoriously bad people, like Hitler and Saddam Hussein. Then remember that in conversation. These guys offer a great chance to practice never saying an unkind word about anybody, be they present or not, be they good people, or terrible.

Another point rarely noticed is that whereas this 9 to 1 ratio quote is not on entirely unassailable ground, as far as authority goes, the following reference is much more stable, being a quote written down in the original language by one of the Master's secretaries. I will close with it; it offers us another ratio, a thousand to one. If you yourself have a thousand good qualities and one bad, single that one out. Pay attention to that. Search and destroy. Fail in the mission and you are spiritually dead. Note that the whole commentary, as it becomes clear at the end, is an interpretation of the incident in the Gospel where Jesus refuses to be called good.

"Mrs Tatum said, 'I feel so dejected today. I am unhappy with myself.' The Master replied:"
"This is a sign of progress. The person who is satisfied with himself is the manifestation of Satan and the one who is not satisfied is the manifestation of the Merciful One. An egotist does not progress but the one who thinks himself imperfect will seek perfection for himself and will progress. If a man has a thousand good qualities, he must not look at them. He must search always for his shortcomings.
"For example, if a man has a building which is well-constructed and fully decorated but which has a small crack in one of its walls, he will, no doubt, forget the rest and turn his whole attention to repairing that crack. Furthermore, the attainment of absolute perfection for a human being is impossible; thus, however much he may progress he is still imperfect and has above him a point higher than himself. And the instant he sees this point he will not be satisfied with himself. It is for this reason that when someone called Christ 'Good Master', He replied that there is only One who is good and that is God." (Mahmud, 216-217)