Principles as Proofs

Envisioning Peripatetic Principles

By John Taylor; 2008 Jan 23, 5 Sultan, 164 BE

Dear Friends,

I woke to find that today I have the ineffable honor of a migraine attack. My thoughts, like many of the Writings of Baha'u'llah, have become discursive, wandering unpredictably from one thought to another, without rhyme nor reason, with no willed means of control. Since writing something new is out of the question, I will proofread and share an old essay. The following essay I wrote in 2002, about a month after the essay I re-posted here a couple of days ago. It is a first attempt to do what I plan to redo here soon, only in more detail and more systematically, that is, go through each of the principles as a separate proof of deity.

 I missed the dramatic event mentioned at the start, starring Jolene Nichols and Ron Speer commemorating the experience of Baha'u'llah in the Siyyih Chal, for one reason or another. I did hear from others afterwards that they succeed, that it was edifying, reverent and enjoyable.

 The Baha'i Principles as Proofs of Deity, Introduction

 Originally written: 2002 Dec 16

 This is the first in a series on the Baha'i principles as proofs of the existence of God

 A problem we all have to deal with is how to imagine the greatest story ever told, the biography of the Manifestation of God. How do you visualize what transcends the sight of human eyes? Anything you see or even imagine is liable to turn into an idol. For that reason, all images and other direct depictions of the Manifestation are not allowed.

 And of course whenever something is disallowed, people go overboard.

Our community is about to stage a dramatic presentation in a local restaurant, Reader's Cafe, on the incarceration of Baha'u'llah. I had the job of making up tickets for that event. No doubt the local actress starring in this production has found ways to depict Baha'u'llah's incarceration in the Black Pit of Tihran without taking the shortcut of using improper images. But I was surprised to find that one believer actually objected to the word "dramatic" in the title of the play. If we can't show the face of the Manifestation we shouldn't be able to even put on a presentation with the word "dramatic" in the title!

I say all this because if you hit this link you will see a web presentation on the arrest of Baha'u'llah and His imprisonment in the black well of Tehran. The Baha'is of New York City evidently made it up. Hopefully it will be up there permanently.

 <http://www.nybahai.org/siyahchal/>

Visualization is vital to understanding, and I found this visual reenactment showing what Baha'u'llah might have seen while entering His imprisonment to be quite helpful. I look forward to showing it to my eight-year old daughter, since she loves to read aloud the words that appear up on the screen like that.

The picture in this video of the inside of the Siyyih Chal has evidently been approved, but of course Baha'u'llah forbade depictions of His sufferings in that stench-filled, dark and dank location. When I first read His warning not to do this, I assumed that He meant that it is impossible to depict that place, and that we should imitate certain Christians who dwell upon lurid descriptions of the agony on the cross. However, Balyuzi and other Baha'i scholars take it to mean that we are not permitted to try to display, or even to describe that "Black Hole of Teheran."

For many years I have tried to visualize the Baha'i principles. Also, a couple of years ago I went off on a wild goose chase trying to visualize the Badi months in a series of essays. I found advantages to doing this. I noticed that the time sequence of a plotted story combines scattered visual and verbal data and gives abstract concepts a place in an ordered sequence. I continue to seek a proper visualization and temporalization of the principles of the Faith.

I am about to launch upon an experimental visualization of the proofs of deity using the Mashriqu'l-Adhkar and its gardens as a visual framework for the principles.

I just reviewed a book called, "Plato, Not Prozac!" It has an afterword called Beyond Client Counseling that describes a special kind of meeting that he calls "Socratic Dialogs." These are not to be confused with Socratic or elenchic method, which is a purely negative way of coming to a definition, refuting it, then refuting a revised definition, and so forth. A Socratic dialog is a more positive technique that takes at least a weekend for an expert to extract from people's ordinary experience a "world class" definition of an abstract concept like hope or love.

A more informal version of this is what he calls Philosopher's Cafes, where you hold a meeting in an informal setting and discuss a problem or whatever is on peoples' minds. Marinoff has only two rules for his discussion groups: one, everyone must be civil and considerate of the opinions of others, and two, no namedropping. You have to concentrate only on your own experience and not borrow ideas and systems made up by others, no matter how illustrious. Marinoff has founded two Philosopher's Cafe's in New York City, one in a cafe in Greenwich Village. I had been thinking of setting up such a group in our own "Reader's Cafe," Dunnville's combination restaurant and bookstore. Now that I have read this, I think I will talk to the proprietors about it.

In the series of essays that are about to follow I want to examine the Baha'i principles as proofs of deity. Both separately and taken together as a whole, the Baha'i principles are strong supports for faith in a Supreme Being. The fact that they are not a single proof but several demonstrations of deity does not lessen their effectiveness. Many medicines are compound in nature and manage to cure conditions that do not respond to any single remedy.

Through the ages a broad spectrum of arguments has been put forward for and against the existence of a Supreme Being. The spread of atheism and agnosticism have not been checked by the proofs of deity so far advanced.

It is understandable that many atheists and agnostics have sought to define their convictions in a more positive way than in reference to a God that they deny exists. Many call themselves naturalists, materialists or humanists. Some, notably Noam Chomsky, prefer to brand their core beliefs as "standard enlightenment values."

The European Enlightenment indeed marked a turning point in the currents of Western ideas. On one hand it marked a liberation from centuries of forced dominance by traditional religion. On the other hand, the Enlightenment Project marked an eclipse in the belief in God. Since the Enlightenment theism, the belief in a personal God, has gradually lost vitality and influence in intellectual circles. The number of atheists and agnostics among the educated has increased steadily, especially in the West. If lack of belief could be counted as a religion, it has been estimated that in most developed countries so-called "humanists," be they atheist or agnostic, weak or strong, positive or negative, including those, whatever their beliefs, who label themselves as "non-religious," all combined together they rank among the two or three largest "religions."

I believe that unlike the question of the nature of the soul, sometimes called the mind-body problem, which may never be solved, the problem of disbelief in God can respond to careful analysis and investigation. When the merits of the Baha'i principles are better understood the belief in God will naturally and inevitably begin to regain ground. When religions regulate themselves and learn to cooperate in harmony, the force of the belief in God will again be felt in every sphere of human endeavor. As for the Baha'i principles, they are already closer to the best of "Enlightenment values," that is, what most atheists already believe, than any other set of beliefs, be they religious or secular.

When I encountered the Baha'i Faith in my youth I did not use the names "humanist" or "enlightenment values" but I definitely believed them and firmly disbelieved in a God. God seemed to have nothing to do with enlightenment. The Enlightenment, the shedding off of the chains of religion, was where liberal values came from. I had been some kind of atheist for at least ten years. I had lately become what can only be called an evangelistic atheist upon contact with the unbelieving philosopher Ayn Rand. When I encountered the Baha'i principles I was shocked to find a theistic system that taught the best of what I had come to believe as an atheist. Over a few months of investigation and conversations with Baha'is, I came to totally reverse my convictions about Deity.

Belief in God did not seem so absurd when it was pointed not at nonsensical dogma but at principle, these powerful ideals and noble goals set up by the Baha'i teachings. These principles are not only a wonderful prescription for the ills of the world, they grow in subtlety and power the more I investigate them. Almost thirty years I have studied them and I have hardly begun to plumb their depths.

I became a Baha'i at the start and still remain one for the same reasons that I had originally held to atheism: I believe that the system of liberal "enlightenment values," as now clarified and purified in the form of the Baha'i principles, is indisputably the best solution; they are our last, best hope for an answer to the dire problems facing mankind. Once I understood how God fits into and informs principle I grasped the potential force that principle can have in the world. Most atheists and agnostics do not realize how negligible an obstacle the existence of a God really is, when it is conditioned by pure principle. Especially since Baha'is -- and all pure theists -- believe that God is, strictly speaking, unknowable anyway.

It should not be surprising that these principles actually place most of our distinctive Baha'i beliefs closer to those who call themselves humanists and hold to "standard enlightenment beliefs" than to virtually any other group that calls itself "religious." Most religions reject science, while most atheists embrace it. Yet such is the bugbear of belief in God that Baha'is tend to be intimidated and our teaching activities ignore atheists, agnostics and other non-religious.

As I said, many various proofs of deity have been put forward. However, the only proofs that are exclusively and characteristically Baha'i are the Baha'i principles.

In two talks in New York in November, at the end of His stay in North America, the Master pointed out what is most distinctive about the Baha'i Teachings that He had been expounding upon. He named Covenant, the "most great characteristic," first; then He pointed to about a dozen of the Baha'i principles.

It is true that `Abdu'l-Baha did put forward proofs such as the Via Negativa, the experiential and others as weighty proofs of Deity. We shall be looking at these from several points of view in the coming essay series. But He never claimed that the experiential or Via Negativa proofs are exclusively Baha'i. On the contrary, they are clearly inherent to virtually everything of value in older religious scriptures.

Principle is definitely the new and original contribution of the Baha'i Faith to the history of ideas. It is therefore worthwhile to explore them on their own, as well as in the role of proofs of deity.

I will walk through each principle as if it were one of the nine gardens that surround each and every Mashriqu'l-Adhkar. I will use the technique that Marinoff describes for teasing out the truth of an abstract issue. If his proposed uses for philosophers catch on as I think they should, I foresee this as literally taking place. Philosophers will cure people much more effectively than therapists ever did by the "peripatetic method" used by Plato and Aristotle, simply walking around and discussing truth in auspicious surroundings. In future every Baha'i will walk to the Mashriqu'l-Adhkar for dawn prayers anyway. A supplemental walk through the gardens surrounding them may become an additional spring-point for philosophical as well as spiritual inquiry.

So, enjoy the upcoming series of imagined excursions through the nine temple gardens while talking over nine Baha'i principles.

p10phs

How to Really Take Up the Blasphemy Challenge

By John Taylor; 2008 Jan 22, 4 Sultan, 164 BE

I have been going over the pro and contra of theism versus atheism, much of it as expressed in the videotaped Internet forum that is YouTube. One of the surprises I stumbled on was the so-called "Blasphemy Challenge." Having cut off my father's television feed from our part of the house we are safer from mind viruses, but one bad result is that I have not been following broadcast news, and I missed this event completely, which apparently arrived with great publicity around the past Christmas and New Years season. The following advertisement for the Blasphemy Challenge has been very controversial; the YouTube hitbot records a staggering 600,000 odd viewings.

 http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=i7QVbJnSPQE&NR=1

 The accompanying explanation goes, "Do you dare accept the Blasphemy Challenge? Show the world how sure you are that the Christian God doesn't exist!" The host of a television show called "Heartland" in the following snippet interviews the atheist who laid down the gauntlet by offering a free copy of his film "The God Who Was Not There" to any young Christian who will blaspheme the holy spirit by reading a short statement the atheists had prepared.

 <http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=zDB3rHOHu4E&NR=1>

 Although the television personality is brusque and very anxious to show his disapproval for what he regards as a baseless grab for publicity, he does allow the atheist to have his say, if only barely. For those who cannot see the video, the atheist claims that he offered this challenge out of sympathy. He considers many Christian youth to be innocent victims of systematic brainwashing by their parents, and by cursing the Holy Spirit they are liberating themselves from oppressive, forced conversion to what an atheist considers false, spurious belief.

 Now I have a feeling, call me a Nervous Nelly if you wish, that by even mentioning the phrase "blasphemy challenge" on this blog I will immediately be inundated by waves of polarized opinion from both sides. God Himself is being made into a political hotbutton. One thing I learned from recent flaming attacks from the camp of M*a*r*k S*t*e*y*n is how many people believe in their bones that anybody who disagrees with their precious position is ipso facto morally suspect, not to say evil.

 Oh no, man oh man, I just tipped my hand.

 I had a mountain of material here to answer the question, "How in fact do you blaspheme against the Holy Spirit?" "Can you blaspheme against God just by reading a statement of disbelief, or by denying His existence?" And here I just out and answered these questions before asking them: you blaspheme against the Holy Spirit by hating your brother or sister, the image of God Himself, for whatever reason. If the atmosphere is politicized, there is blasphemy going on. If you contribute to or, worse, foment that discord, you, my friend, are blaspheming against the Holy Spirit.

 Let me backtrack a little. The blasphemy challenge is based on a statement that occurs in all four Gospels, but since the challengers point to the one in Mark (Mark 3:22-35, WEB), let us look at that mention of what is, for Christians, the only unforgivable sin. To know what is going on here you have to take in the full context in which this statement was made. So let us cite it in full.

 "The scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, `He has Beelzebul,' and, `By the prince of the demons he casts out the demons.' He called them to him, and said to them in parables, `How can Satan cast out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. If Satan has risen up against himself, and is divided, he cannot stand, but has an end. But no one can enter into the house of the strong man to plunder, unless he first binds the strong man; and then he will plunder his house. Most assuredly I tell you, all their sins will be forgiven to the sons of men, and their blasphemies with which they may blaspheme; but whoever may blaspheme against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin' -- because they said, `He has an unclean spirit.'"

 That is, the scribes were blaspheming against the holy spirit when they appropriated religious language for their own political ends by accusing Jesus of having an "unclean spirit." Lest there be any mistake about what "spirit" meant for Jesus, just then somebody calls in saying that His family are outside waiting for Him. Jesus refuses to leave, asking instead,

 "`Who are my mother and my brothers?' Looking around at those who sat around him, he said, `Behold, my mother and my brothers! For whoever may do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.'"

 The spirit, then, is what is done according to and in the spirit of God's will. "...the excellency of the power may be of God and not of us." (II Cor 4:7) The scribes had been doing the reverse, using God for their own ends, politicizing the One Being totally above politics. They stood for my favorite definition of a corrupt religious leader: "A theologian is somebody who tells God what to do." They proved their blasphemy when they claimed that Jesus' miracles were sorcery, from the devil. Jesus points out that a divided house falls, and those who divide fall with it; in other words, this is not faith. Somebody who follows Jesus, on the other hand, is someone who lets God rule, who really does the Will of God, qua Superior, not as a mere implement of what they deem expedient in a given situation. This is the definition of belief in God,

 "How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?" (John 5:44)

 The Holy Spirit is more than just light. It is the light of light, the light that came before the sun. It is, as it were, the Big Bang. Recall that the Book of Genesis starts off with God creating light, and "seeing" that it is good. In other words, this is the light by which God Himself sees, and by which He sees goodness. This light's light comes into being long before a sun is created. The sun's light is of a lower, more derivative order, and it was not created until day three.

 "There was evening and there was morning, a third day. God said, `Let there be lights in the expanse of sky to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the expanse of sky to give light on the earth,' and it was so." (Gen 1:13-15, WEB)

 This secondary light is also good, but unlike the first light, it is not goodness unalloyed by darkness. It is outside the Godhead, it occupies space and time; in fact, it creates time, days and seasons by dividing and separating light from dark, day from night.

 In the thirty-first query in Some Answered Questions, Abdu'l-Baha is presented with the same statement of Jesus as recorded in Matthew,

 "He who is not with me is against me, and he who doesn't gather with me, scatters. Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in that which is to come. (Matt 12:30-32, WEB)

 Briefly, Abdu'l-Baha points out (SAQ 128-129) that the Manifestation of God has two stations, one of "resplendence" and the other of "place." He defines the Holy Spirit as "the perfections of God;" the "divine bounties and lordly perfections, and these divine perfections are as the rays and heat of the sun." Without the sunlight, He goes on, there would effectively be no sun; were there no divine perfections, there would be no God, since the former constitutes His existence. To curse a lamp is different from cursing the light that emanates from the lamp. He mentions that many have started off hating a Manifestation, but when they realize Who it is, they become friends. But to deny the light is much more serious, it is a permanent kind of blindness.

 "If a soul remains far from the manifestation, he may yet be awakened; for he did not recognize the manifestation of the divine perfections. But if he loathe the divine perfections themselves -- in other words, the Holy Spirit -- it is evident that he is like a bat which hates the light. This detestation of the light has no remedy and cannot be forgiven -- that is to say, it is impossible for him to come near unto God. This lamp is a lamp because of its light; without the light it would not be a lamp. Now if a soul has an aversion for the light of the lamp, he is, as it were, blind, and cannot comprehend the light; and blindness is the cause of everlasting banishment from God."

 The Master defines Holy Spirit here in general terms, but the message of Jesus was specialized for the purposes of His age, and by extension to all ages. So intense was His concentration on Spirit that the Qur'an gives Him the title, "Ruhu'llah," the Spirit of God. `Abdu'l-Baha of course sees the holy spirit in Baha'i terms, as a force for unity, "Whatsoever is conducive to unity is merciful and from the divine bounty itself." (Promulgation, 202) The Christian understanding was concerned primarily with the Holy Spirit as force for love.

 "... God's love has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which was given to us. (Romans 5:3-5, WEB)

 So, in answer to the question in the title of this Blog entry, the way you blaspheme against the Holy Spirit is, if you a Baha'i, by breaking up unity; and if you are a Christian, by breaking up love. It cannot be done by repeating a formula cursing the holy spirit, as these atheists (and Christians) seem to think.

 In fact -- if I may cast aside my Nervous Nelly fears and say something that may sound controversial to so-called fundamentalists -- a case could be made that parents who force religion, be it Christianity, atheism or whatever, on their children is already offending against the love that the Holy Spirit embodies. God looks at that and says, "It is not good." A case could be made that a parent who holds to a literalistic view of the Bible offends the Spirit of God, which is all about change and growth. "...we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter." (Rom 7:6) A case could be made that a parent who interferes with the free opinions of their children offends the Holy Spirit, which is all about the free and independent search for truth.

 "The spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God." (I Cor 2:10)

 Thus, when kids feel they must go onto YouTube and publicly curse the Holy Spirit, it is a knee-jerk reaction to a blaspheming of the Spirit that preceded them. Their parents laid out a bad example of total misunderstanding of God, the Spirit and Jesus, and they only follow what is clearly laid out before them.

Nofudh

Miracles, Proofs, Signs and Confirmations of God

By John Taylor; 2008 Jan 21, 3 Sultan, 164 BE

Dear Friends,

I feel energized by my new focus -- not to say obsession -- with the proofs of deity. I was grabbed by it and it has not let go since around Christmas of last month. At times, though, I feel overawed, overwhelmed, discouraged and disheartened. Everything I learn changes even as I grasp it. What am I getting into? This is a terribly vast subject, terribly important, and I feel terribly inadequate to come to grips with it. On Friday night at the Youth Outreach Centre Stu asked me what the proofs of God are, and I just froze, mumbling something about the fact that I am working on a new one, what I call the principle proof of deity, but all I could do was list the principles. How they are proofs I am not clear on yet. I will have to go through each one in detail before I will be able to articulate clearly and concisely in what sense they are proofs of God.

 But, concentrating on the positive, I have learned a few things lately. I learned that there is a gradation of proof. It is not enough just to speak of a "proof of God," you need to specify what level of proof you are talking about.

 On the high end of the spectrum the needle tilts over towards the miracle (the Baha'i definition of a miracle, of course, is anything, great or trivial, that turns the soul towards God). A miracle is a sensory or empirical indicator, it is the "vision" of God standing right before you, if such a thing could ever be with an Infinite, All-Powerful Being.

 A miracle is all about "turning," or being "reborn," for if there is a God even an atheist has to admit that being privy to that knowledge, if true, would have huge existential consequences. It is a miracle that a plant finds the wherewithal to turn directly to the sun rather than bask in weaker, indirect reflections of its light. A miracle is easily the most intimate proof of deity possible, but being subjective it tends not to be repeatable or contagious. If I turn from disbelief to belief, for whatever reason, it will have only a diminished effect on those around me. In the same way, a thousand lovely daffodils may dance in the sunlight but that does not help the one, lonely daffodil that sits shaded, indoors.

 The next lower tick on the scale is the rational proof of God. Like the miracle of seeing God standing before you in the flesh, this kind of proof cannot be, by definition. A concept or proof that we can understand would, by that very fact, not have any direct tie to the existence of an Inconceivable Source of all being. That is why in yesterday's essay I joked about William Hatcher, who was going around claiming to have a logical proof of deity, as a threat to my children.

 Lower on our gradation are what are termed signs or Ayat of God. Of these more should be said.

 A sign is a signpost just like what you see when driving on the road, "London 20 km, God 50 km, Windsor 69 km." A road sign points in a certain direction. A pointer does not prove, it points. It indicates the way but does not even try to prove anything existential to anybody. If I see a sign saying "God this way" and I do not turn that direction I will never know. But that does not mean that I doubt its veracity. If I see a sign saying "London 20 km," I have to assume that it is reliable, that if London were 500 miles away or in another direction completely there would have been complaints and the sign would have been taken down or obscured.

 Lowest on the scale -- lowest in the sense of burden of proof -- are confirmations. A confirmation is a proof for somebody who already believes. It does not turn us around completely, but it is a form of miracle since it makes an already pre-existing belief a little more alive, a little firmer. It is like the plant not only turning sunward but also growing a little closer towards the sun. Nobody expects a plant to traverse the millions of miles it takes to reach the sun; even if it did, it would burn up. No, its growth spurt can refer only to its own viability as an organism. This kind of proof even the most ardent believer in God needs to renew every day, every moment of their life. Confirmations are faith in action.

 Confirmations confirm the exact point at which the rubber hits the road. In that sense, we all wake up as atheists and confirm our faith as the day progresses, until we hit the sack at night as confirmed believers. And of course -- I surely do not need to add -- the thing that confirmations prove to believers is not God but themselves, both individually and as groups. The testing of confirmation is self-testing.

 Many believers who live examined lives and do regular self-testing, and who work together in harmony, that kind of behavior results in a vital, active beneficial religion. A religious group working for the good of all proves, albeit indirectly, both the validity of their own convictions and the effectiveness of God as a teacher. We are told in the Writings that we can attract confirmations by what they term "arising," in other words, active obedience, not mere acceptance but going out doing exactly what the Word of God tells us to do. To arise is to move forward, leaving confirmations in our wake, and those confirmations in turn prove the effect of the Word to those outside its direct purview.

 Having said all that, I want to feature a confrontation between an early Baha'i and a Mullah, as witnessed around 1886 by the Cambridge doctor and orientalist E.G. Browne. It is the first recorded instance in English of Baha'is teaching the Faith. Even in Persian there cannot be many recorded discussions from these years, if only because being caught with such evidence would have meant death for both teacher and student.

 The Baha'i teacher was the poet, Aqa 'Ali-Ashraf of Lahijan in the province of Gilan, titled `Andalib, or Nightingale. Andalib does a very good job of explaining this. In my opinion what he said stands even today as a definitive illustration of this scale of gradations between miracle and confirmation. It is so incisive and important that I often remember it as, my nails digging into my knees, I watch helplessly the flailing, stumbling debate between Christians and atheists. So, EG Browne writes,

 "'And so in every dispensation,' he (Andalib) resumed, as soon as I had received and returned the greetings of those present, 'the very men who professed to be awaiting the new Manifestation most eagerly were the first to deny it, abandoning the "Most Firm Handhold" of God's Truth to lay hold of the frail thread of their own imaginings. You talk of miracles, but of what evidential value are miracles to me, unless I have seen them?
 "Has not every religion accounts of miracles, which had they ever taken place, must, one would have thought, have compelled all men to believe; for who would dare, however hard of heart he might be, to fight with a Power which he could not ignore or understand?
 "No, it is the Divine Word which is the token and sign of a prophet, the convincing proof to all men and all ages, the everlasting miracle. Do not misunderstand the matter: When the Prophet of God called his verses 'signs' (ayat), and declared the Kur'an [Qur'an] to be his witness and proof, he did not intend to imply, as some vainly suppose, that the eloquence of the words was a proof. How, for instance, can you or I, who are Persians, judge whether the eloquence of a book written in Arabic be supernatural or not?
 "No: the essential characteristic of the Divine Word is the penetrative power (nufudh): it is not spoken in vain, it compels, it constrains, it creates, it rules, it works in men's hearts, it lives and dies not. The Apostle of God said "in the month of Ramazan [Ramadan] men shall fast from sunrise to sunset". See how hard a thing this is; and yet here in Yezd there are thousands who, if you bade them break the fast or die, would prefer death to disobedience. Wherever one arises speaking this Word, know him to be a Manifestation of the Divine Will, believe in him, and take his yoke upon you.'
 "'But this claim,' said the old Mulla, 'this claim! It is a hard word that He utters. What can we do or say?'
 "'For the rest, He hath said it,' replied 'Andalib, 'and it is for us, who have seen that this Divine Word is His, to accept it.' There was silence for a little while, and then the old Mulla arose with a sigh, and repeating, 'It is difficult, very difficult,' departed from our midst." (Edward Granville Browne, A Year Amongst the Persians, pp. 401-2)

 Andalib was probably thinking of this verse of the Qur'an:

 "We have sent down to thee Manifest Signs (ayat); and none reject them but those who are perverse. Is it not (the case) that every time they make a covenant, some party among them throw it aside?- Nay, Most of them are faithless." (Q2:99-100, Yusuf Ali)

 And there is this mention of "ayat" or signs in the Surih of Jonah,

 "These are the ayats of the Book of Wisdom. Is it a matter of wonderment to men that We have sent Our inspiration to a man from among themselves?- that he should warn mankind (of their danger), and give the good news to the Believers that they have before their Lord the lofty rank of truth. (But) say the Unbelievers: `This is indeed an evident sorcerer!'" (Q10:1-2, Yusuf Ali)

 I have made up from the Baha'i Writings a little compilation of mentions of Ayat and Nofuz (confirmations?) and will include that in a mailing that will take exactly whenever.

CAT proof of Deity

The CAT Proof of Deity

By John Taylor; 2008 Jan 20, 2 Sultan, 164 BE

So far, I have heavily revised two early essays about the proofs of deity, one from the early 1980's, the other from 1991. The following, from the 20th of November, 2002, is so embedded in the time and place in which it was written that I hesitate to change a word. It was written just before I started the Badi' Blog, so to the majority of my present readers it will be new. As is evident from the text, Thomas was a very vigorous three-year-old at the time. I do have a couple of minor corrections that I will append after the original text.

2002 Nov 20; Mostly about CAT's and Teaching Children about God
First of a series about proofs of deity

I think a lot of parents out there will sympathize when I confess that now that my daughter Silvie has reached eight years old I am concerned that she gain at least a passing familiarity with St. Anshelm's ontological proof of deity.

These are strange times and there are a lot of wackos walking around. Parents around here have been warned, for example, of a fellow by the name of Billy (the kid) Hatcher who is going from town to town claiming that he has updated Anshelm's proof using the dog and pony show of modern symbolic logic. What hope does Silvie have, should Billy turn up, of defending herself against a whack like that? On what grounds are her refutation to be based? Questions like that keep me up at night for I know in my heart even I, an adult, would have a hard time avoiding non-sequitors in the presence of the "kid." What shame she would bring upon the family, no upon the whole town of Dunnville, if she should fail to fend off Billy's assault? Or really worse I suppose, if she were to slip up in upholding the only real basis for proofs of deity, the Negative Way?

 These considerations prompted me to come up with a story explaining the essentials of Anselm's proof along with the related Cartesian "demon" explanation of the theory of mind. It involves, as always, a fox named Bea and a wolf named Gabby. I will tell it to you sometime soon.

 About my younger son, Thomas, I have fewer worries. Thomas is three years old but he shows at times an understanding beyond his years. The other day he went into a tantrum as we were walking somewhere in a hurry. I had to do something fast or we would be late. The teacher of the adult classes at our Baha'i school last year, Pat Cameron, advised us to say Allah'u'Abha, or the Remover of Difficulties in such situations; a baby may be too little to understand about prayer but hearing the words helps nonetheless. Marie had tried it a few times and found that Thomas objected to the prayer so much that he forgot about the tantrum. Perhaps not the sort of spiritual effect that Pat had in mind, but still effective. This happened the other day when I tried the prayer. But his objection intrigued me, because it actually increased my understanding of what the prayer is saying.

 What happened was this. He was rolling about on the sidewalk, so I picked him up, embraced him and walked along saying gently the Remover of Difficulties in his ear. When I got to "He is God" Thomas shouted and tried to interrupt but I continued right through, as Pat advised us to do. At the end I asked what the problem was. "He is not God!" What did you say? "`He' is not God." Well, if He is not God, then who is? "Cat is God." What? You mean "that" is God? Are you saying that it should say, "That is God?" "No," he screamed, "Cat is God!" Do you mean your cat? Malley is God? Or are all cats God? "Yes! Yes, cat is God."

 Worried that he was reverting to ancient Egyptian belief systems, I quickly and smoothly moved the topic of conversation away from this controversial theological objection. Soon his tantrum blessedly passed. But later when I thought about what he had said the implications began impacting me like a rotten tooth. By any standard, "He is God!" in the prayer is a pretty strange thing to say. A Muslim would recognize it as the first part of the formula, "He is Allah, there is no God but Him, and Muhammad is His prophet." Just saying the first part rings strange, though; one as familiar with Islam as E. G. Browne evidently thought so, since he translated "Huwallah!" in the Remover of Difficulties with parentheses: "He (alone) is God!"

 But if you start adding parentheses it does not stop. A feminist would instinctively add, "He (or She) is God!" A philosopher, bearing in mind that Huwat is Arabic for the technical term "ipseity" or "thisness" might add: "He (analytically and by synthesis) is God!" But as you go down the human food chain, parentheses get more dangerous. A mystic says, "He is (my) God," but the sectarian ends up debasing that to, "He is (the Baptist) God", or "He is (this or that kind of) God!" which ultimately obviates the unity of deity. In effect the prayer becomes a self denial, He is not God.

 But Thomas in his contrary mood can be understood to be bluntly and effectively denying even denial. To assert anything about the Origin of Being is to deny it, so he obviates everything that can be placed in parentheses. In effect Thomas adds, "He is (not not) God!" where the (not) cancels itself out and denies all possibility of anything else to go between those brackets. His denial leaves only the assertion, "He is God!" Naturally Thomas has to bring it down to my level. So, to make it comprehensible, he says, "Cannot Attract Theology," or CAT.

 CAT would be this: If there is any attempt at direct attribution of existence, existence could not attract being into Being. CAT thus effectively removes the paradox from reference and meaning, the banes of Twentieth Century philosophy. To say "He is God" is to deny any capability of reference except the self-reference that God Himself indulges in. This is positive, it is a meta reference. Baha'u'llah seems to uphold such thinking in the following,

 "It is therefore established that all names and attributes return unto these sublime and sanctified Luminaries. Indeed, all names are to be found in their names, and all attributes can be seen in their attributes." (Javahiru'l-Asrar, para 47, p. 35-6)

 You may deny Thomas's insightful glimpse down the Via Negative. You may say, "Hey this is just the proud father speaking." Tomorrow I will offer further evidence intended to refute such insinuations.

 Note from now: I broke my promise to explain whatever it was I had in mind the next day. Regrettably, I violated Baha'u'llah's order to "promise not that which thou canst not fulfill," but for a migrainer especially one must take refuge in God, and recall what the Bab told Mullah Husayn on the evening of the Declaration when he tried to beg off His offer of hospitality by saying that he had promised to meet his friends elsewhere: the Bab said, in effect, surely you prefaced your promise, as every Muslim is assumed to do, with the proviso: "if it be the will of God." Had Mullah Husayn not subordinated a verbal promise to God's will, the Declaration would not have happened at its destined moment.

 Anyway, I made a mistake when I attributed the ontological proof of deity to Anselm. As "Billy the Kid" Hatcher himself acknowledges, the original and best articulation of this proof comes from Avicenna -- though Hatcher himself, in the whirlwind tour of public talks that he was giving then, sadly as it turned out just before his death, did his best to improve upon Avicenna's proof. Whether he did so is up to more qualified persons than myself, though I plan to try -- if it be the will of God, mind you.

 A silly error of mis-attribution on my part to credit it to Anshelm. But I would be a lot more red-faced were I alone in making that blooper. Unfortunately, pretty much every Western philosopher since the so-called Enlightenment has ignored the Muslim contribution to Western thought. It is ironic that Anshelm, Bacon, Lock, and many other pre-Enlightenment Christian thinkers had no problem acknowledging the greatness of Avicenna; they read him closely, and did not seem even to bother trying to improve upon his ontological proof. Anshelm, for instance, referred to it in a prayer, he did not flesh it out into a full treatise.

 No, it was the largely agnostic and atheist so-called "Enlightenment" that decided that it would be a lot easier to ignore anything that came from a religious source. We have discussed lately on this blog how the hands-on educational reforms of the religious thinker Comenius were suddenly forgotten in the "Enlightenment." Now the credit for freedom in early childhood goes to Rousseau's Emile, a work of fiction by a man who had his own babies adopted out before he laid eyes on them. For example, in the Philosophy of Education course I took in college, Emile was required reading, and Comenius was not mentioned at all.

 The same bigoted injustice happened to Avicenna. Perhaps the new deist and atheist philosophes found his ontological proof too formidable, or maybe they just assumed that because he was a Muslim he must have been a religious thinker -- he was not. Although he prayed, he also drank wine and was in many respects what we would call today a secular thinker. Whatever he was, he was undoubtedly one of the greatest thinkers in history. As a Baha'i, I was interested to learn that Avicenna spent his latter years in Isfahan, the city where a thousand years later the Bab spent the first stage of His exile.

 To check my facts about this, I just looked at the Encyclopedia Britannica, and still there is no mention of Avicenna in regard to the ontological proof, just Anselm of Canterbury and Descartes (both of whom read Avicenna closely). But if you read the article on Avicenna in the Wikipedia, more recent scholarship is in evidence. The article even hints that Descartes completely misunderstood Avicenna when he plagiarized his "floating man" experiment and made it into his "I think therefore I am." No wonder we in the West have such problems defending God against materialists, we have not got our philosophical heads on straight.

Shoghi Effendi, CEO, PD

How to Succeed as a Baha'i Hatchetman

By John Taylor; 2008 Jan 19, 1 Sultan, 164 BE

Newspapers today assume that the world of business is fascinating, and I have to admit that sometimes there is high drama there, and even heroism. A reforming leader can make the difference that a new sheriff in town did in the old West. They call a leader who is good at rapidly improving a company's outlook a "turnaround specialist," and the more ruthless among them are feared and given nicknames like "hatchetmen" or "hired guns." Perhaps an individual with know-how can make a difference in the short term but I wonder how long the changes will last, and what effect they have on the overall business climate. In the long run, surely structural changes are the only way to permanent change.

 If so, does what we read in the paper about individual CEO heroes amount to nothing more than high-profile office gossip?

I recall one of my favorite comedies in my youth was "How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying," the story of a savvy fellow who is hired as a mail clerk and by clever manipulation of personalities makes his way to the top in no time. I am not very often tempted to write fiction, much less an update on "How to succeed in business...," but the following dry article from the business section of the Globe and Mail tweaked my interest.

 

Copy that: Xerox tries again to rebound
"When Xerox CEO Anne Mulcahy took the reins in 2000, the iconic firm's operations were in a shambles. ... her seven-year struggle to rebuild the company and her next big challenge - a landmark rebranding campaign she's rolling out... Today, the Stamford, Conn.-based company is setting out to change all that with its most comprehensive corporate overhaul in more than 40 years, as it looks to leave its recent history of stock overstatements and brushes with bankruptcy in the rear-view mirror." (Globe and Mail, Electronic Edition, 07/01/08, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080107.wrxerox07/BNStory/Technology/?cid=al_gam_nletter_dtechal

 

The exploits of Anne Mulcahy at Xerox make me wonder what a Baha'i would do suddenly plunked into the CEO position in a large corporation. Would she do what Mulcahy did? How would she go about using Baha'i ideas to reform a struggling operation?

I know, there have been real-life Baha'i CEOs, notably Harry Randall in the time of the Master. But the problem with Randall's example is that God used his career to work out one of those saprophagous proofs of deity that I discussed in yesterday's essay. In other words, everything conspired against him and he got turfed. And okay, today there probably are some Baha'i CEOs kicking around the business world. But I am sure that they have worked their way up the ladder and arrived at the inevitable compromises that largely nullify their effect, qua Baha'i, on the business climate.

What I would want to write is a complete fantasy, a Baha'i enters the mail room and starts everybody consulting, discouraging backbiting and applying Baha'i principles at every turn. Okay, not likely, I know, but in this story she meets with the sort of success that you only find in fiction. The mail room becomes the most efficient department of the company, which draws the attention of higher ups, and, long story short, she is appointed CEO.

What would she do? How would she change things?

For one thing, surely she would reduce her own prominence as a charismatic leader. Decisions would be group decisions and it would be her duty to stay in the background like the members of the UHJ do. Here is a question: how did the members of the UHJ learn to act in that unique, extremely self-effacing way? Most leaders would not be leaders if they did not revel in the limelight, yet they are the very model of a Platonic philosopher king, or king philosopher, who values truth first and only reluctantly takes on the burden of power. Okay, the UHJ members learned by following the example of the Hands, who refused to be elected to that supreme body. It is well to remember the Hands, now that the last of them is gone. But where did the Hands get that model? Not from Plato, safe to say.

The answer to that question came to me lately like a bite in the derrière. My atheist friend, known here as ePhilo, in an email aside said something like "I do not see how that man Shoghi Effendi could be a proof of God." I asked ePhilo what the heck he was talking about. Of course a man cannot be proof of deity. Did I say that Shoghi Effendi is a proof of deity? He replied, and I saw what had happened.

In fact, I did say that, way back months ago on this Badi' Blog, talking about something else entirely. ePhilo had used Google Blog Search to uncover a little commentary on the Master's will and testament around the time of the Day of the Covenant (you can find it yourself there if you preface your keyword with "badiblog:"). The Master implies there that Shoghi Effendi was a standing proof of God, and I had picked up on that, not expecting it ever to be read by a non-Baha'i, much less an atheist.

That set me to thinking. Yes, the Master is our exemplar, but Abdu'l-Baha was appointed to leadership of the Baha'i Faith and had no choice but to become a charismatic leader. When His Father was alive He had stayed in the background, even refusing to write books and tablets save when Baha'u'llah ordered Him directly to do so. Then, when Baha'u'llah put the Master at the Center of the Covenant, and the doctrinal body of the Faith was still inchoate, the Master took Baha'u'llah's revelation out of the sky and placed it in concrete form into the mainstream of current thought. You cannot do that without standing center stage.

But then, when Shoghi Effendi was appointed Guardian, the charismatic function of individual spiritual leader endowed with doctrinal power had been completed for the duration of this prophetic cycle. Thus liberated, the new Guardian could act in a manner of a man who, well, does not have a capital "M" in man. In other words an ordinary person like you and me.

Shoghi Effendi proved that there is a God when eschewed the limelight.

He acted just like Plato's ideal leader, the reluctant philosopher king who hates being singled out, who is happiest in obscurity, in pure contemplation of being. He hated being photographed or lionized. He instead let the average Baha'i stand out with pioneering and performing other sacrificial services. Shoghi Effendi logged, mapped and planned, but did nothing for us average believers. Just think of it, Shoghi Effendi could easily have stood out. Shoghi Effendi never traveled officially or spoke in public meetings. He could easily have given talks, better than any of the Baha'is (he did give a few in England before being appointed, and he was even on a public speaking club in school, as I recall), but he was moved not to do so for the duration of his Guardianship.

Instead, we stood out, we average believers manned the plan worked out by the Guardian. His work was done behind-the-scenes, far from the glitz and paparazzi, and he did everything he could to let us think we did it all ourselves. He, our "true brother," gave us the credit. He was only severe when it came to keeping him out of the limelight; we were allowed to adore him with nothing more exalted than the title "beloved Guardian." No, the average Joe working in consultative groups now is the only charismatic leader in the Baha'i Faith.

How does that prove God? How does this ordinary brother of ours stand as an example of the Godhead? The Godhead does exactly that. It stays in the background. Only those who know or love His Delegate, those who ask for Him see or receive Him. He selflessly vacates the universe to make "room" for us creatures. God so effectively vacates this reality that many intelligent people live their lives as atheists, never once recognizing His existence. An effective disguise indeed.

So a Baha'i CEO would follow this exalted, divine example by taking on the job of eliminating her own job. She would institute profit sharing, so that the workers and the shareholders would not be two opposing interests, they would be largely the same entity. She would see that policy decisions are made only after as broad as possible consultation has taken place. She would see to it that the CEO and the Chairman of the Board are, like an LSA, part of a unified body, with no more than one equal vote. She would treat consultants with the affectionate closeness of a auxiliary board member who has rank but not power. She would do everything in her power to stay in the background and let the workers take prominence, as their "true sister."

The nickname for a radical reforming CEO is "hatchetman," because of the number of firings that soon follow his appointment. The appointment of a Baha'i CEO would be like that, except that she would take the hatchet to her own job.

 Our story for the day from "Mother's Stories of Abdu'l-Baha" (this "mother" was the daughter of Howard Colby Ives) is from page 40, called "Lover of Truth." It illustrates how our heroine, the Baha'i CEO, might go about encouraging co-workers to adopt the foundation of all virtues, truthfulness.

Lover of truth
"It was some years before this, when Abdu'l-Baha was in Paris, that a group of men from Teheran came to Him deeply troubled, They had walked all the way from their homes in Persia - since traveling on foot was the only proper way to meet their Master - to make what they considered a most vital request. In a village, there was a Baha'i who was causing a great deal of trouble because of the lies he told. He lied about everything with the result that misunderstandings, distrust and confusion reigned. This dreadful situation, Abdu'l-Baha would, they begged, have to do something about. Abdu'l-Baha agreed; indeed it was a most dreadful situation and certainly He would do something about it. He would write the man a letter. And the salutation at, the heading of this letter was, "O thou great lover of Truth" (Sadly there is no record I have seen of the balance of this Epistle - which must have been priceless.) - Muriel Ives Barrow Newhall, Mother's Stories, Self-Published, Shawnigan Lake, BC, 1998

Oh, and speaking of truthfulness, the Master once promised that if you tell the truth for a month you will find great success visit all your affairs. Around that time somebody wrote a fantasy play not unlike the reverse of "How to succeed in business without really trying," where a young man on a bet starts telling the truth. He insults his fiancée, his boss and everybody else, and ends up after a month on the street, utterly penniless, friendless and without a love life.

That was the way it was; until recently anybody would have laughed in your face if you had suggested that telling the truth could get you ahead in the business world. Then came Google, whose unofficial motto is "Do not be evil." Its founders were firmly committed from the start to telling the truth and never cutting corners with their integrity. Now the Master's statement has to be taken deadly seriously by anybody trying to follow their path on the road to success.

p25 Rumble

Mystic Rumble in the Jungle

The other night I read the Forum section's exchange of opinions about mysticism in the latest issue of World Order. It was an interesting read but I was tired and went to bed. Then I had a dream.

I dreamed that Mooj was the undisputed champion of the world. He walked into the center of the ring to receive the accolades of his adoring fans. Out of the crowd bursts a scrawny fellow in boxing gloves and boxing shorts, name of Mac. Mac's arms are a blur as he swings blows everywhere. Mooj steps back, expecting security guards to drag Mac away, but none come. The crowd is expectant to witness the champ dispatch this doughty challenger. Mac's flailing hay makers come hot and heavy, but they are powder puffs that mostly hit the air. The champ is nonplussed and steps back once more.

 Is Mooj adopting the "rope-a-dope" tactic that Ali used to beat Frazier in their rematch? If so, he will have a hard time of it because there are no ropes around this ring, just a giant painted circle. Mooj takes another step back and decides he has no option but to fight back. He lays a bone crushing blow to Mac's jaw but Mac does not go down. The lights are on but nobody is home. Mooj then thuds a solid blow to Mac's midsection, and he drops like a ton of bricks at his feet.

 The crowd goes wild!

 But then to Mooj's surprise, the officials come, pick up the unconscious Mack and declare him to be the new champion. Then Mooj looks down and sees that he has stepped out of the circle. No wonder there are no ropes, this is a Sumo wrestling ring! Mooj the heavyweight boxing champion has been pushed out of the Sumo circle by a much smaller man.

 When I woke, I mused on how meaningless and irrelevant my dreams are. Every evening I pray that my dreams will teach me something new to prepare me for what I will write the next day, but they never do. A stupid boxing\Sumo match. This is the kind of dumb dream I get ...

 Anyway, I was going to review the debate about mysticism between Jack McLean and Moojan Momen in World Order Magazine (2006, volume 38, number 1). Throwing aside the polite preludes, McLean opens up his assault by saying,

 "After rereading Dr. Momen's paper carefully, I am still haunted by this question: did Baha'u'llah intend to create a worldwide mystical community at all?  His writings advocate, rather, the manifestation of essential spiritual virtues, not essential mystical virtues such as self abstraction, absorption and the divine, the death of self, ecstasy, and so on. This is not mere semantical hairsplitting. While certain elements of mysticism, such as universal divine love, prayer, and meditation help to constitute faith and spirituality, it does not follow that mysticism is at the heart of Baha'i community experience." (p. 12)

 Did I see that right? Did he just lay out a solid right to the jaw -- to his own jaw, that is? I will have to hit the rewind button to be sure. Let me see. If "mysticism helps constitute faith and spirituality," how then can it not be at the heart of Baha'i community experience? Is there something other than faith and spirituality at the heart? Oh, let it pass. He continues,

 "By definition, mysticism is a type of peak experience. It is not a steady state, whereas faith and spirituality may, and should be, lived as constants. In this sense, practical spirituality trumps rarefied mysticism, whether one refers to the individual or the community."

 Here comes an effective left uppercut that might be more effective were it applied to his opponent's jaw. Since this is a mystic talking about mysticism, I can only assume that McLean is practicing a sort of exercise in self-immolation. Oh wait, I remember my dream now. Maybe it did mean something. McLean won this match and his goal, I can see it now, it is not to land effective blows but to distract his opponent from the real rules of the game. Crazy, like a fox.

 Next, McLean, perhaps wishing to taunt Momen by pointing to his chin with both gloves, lands two solid blows to both of his own cheeks. He does this by quoting the Guardian's definition of mysticism.

 "For the core of religious faith is that mystical feeling which unites man with God. This state of spiritual communion can be brought about and maintained by means of meditation and prayer.  And this is the reason why Baha'u'llah has so much stressed the importance of worship. It is not sufficient for a believer merely to accept and observe the teachings. He should, in addition, cultivate the sense of spirituality, which you can acquire chiefly by means of prayer." (Letter written on behalf of shall be a fan date to a body, December 8, 9035, in Compilation of Compilations, no. 1704).

 McLean then tells us what "of course" the Guardian means by saying this.

 "The passage is, of course, a definition of faith, not of mysticism. And it needs to be stressed the mention of mystical feeling refers to the individual's spiritual life, not to collective worship. It points to mysticism, more exactly, mystical feeling along with prayer and meditation, as being at the heart of religious faith. Thus mysticism has to be seen within the larger context of both faith and spirituality."

 Why is the Guardian's statement not a definition of mysticism? Adding "of course" to a proposition does not constitute an argument. If mysticism is not a tie between a believer and God, then what is it? A flash-in-the-pan? A Kodak moment? A one night stand?

 Jack McLean then cites the Guardian's very important statement that slams the door on virtually every branch of mystic and occult thinking in our time,

 "If we are going to have some deeply spiritual experience, we can rest assured that God will vouchsafe it to us without our having to look for it." (Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to a Baha'i, October 25, 1942, in compilation of compilations.  No. 1742)

 Thus, you cannot force or encourage mystical experiences, you have to let God himself roll up your sleeve and mainline the hit for you. As if that is not enough, next comes a below-the-belt blow that would be illegal if the attacker had used it on anybody but himself. He says,

 "Baha'u'llah has made his readers/believers, aware that this largely uncharted, inner universe of the heart does exist and that the Arif (mystic knower) is capable of attaining Irfan (mystic knowledge) directly, rather than through a process of rational discourse. But it is understood that today, in view of the dire straits in which a divided humanity finds itself, the Baha'is should not make the experience of this private, inner universe of the heart the whole quest of spiritual life. The Baha'i writings, and the guidance of Shoghi Effendi and the Universal House of Justice, have established other priorities."

 I do not think so. Remember Ahmad, he was a mystic, and Baha'u'llah wrote a major prayer for him that I, for one, use every day; Ahmad followed the mission to convert the Babis to Baha'u'llah's Faith, but nobody knows what happened to his body. He disappeared on the road somewhere, perhaps translated directly to the next life. Then there was Thomas Breakwell, he did little outwardly other than die of TB, but his quest was so intimate that the Master was moved to trumpet his mystical victory. Same thing with Mirza Abu'l-Fadl. When he was pioneering in Washington he refused to eat and was found in his room, immobile, his jaws locked together, so ardent had been his prayers the night before. When he died, the Master's tribute was not exactly disapproving.

 In the Guardian's time there were Mathew Kazab, who died alone in a room, with only the book "Dawnbreakers" as his companion. Then there were the many mystics who answered the call to "Arise!" and gave up home and culture and everything to pioneer to the ends of the earth. And even today Baha'is in Iran, Egypt and other such places have the "priority" of giving up home, educations, identity cards, and life itself. With the full approval of the UHJ. If that is not mystical, what is? Sitting alone in a rich man's room in a rich man's country and congratulating yourself on how close to God you are?

 A mystic experience that is not followed by spiritual expression is sterile, useless, even, dare I say it, harmful and deceptive. The sun shines on all, but a stone just warms itself in the heat while a plant photosynthesizes the energy. If you are a plant and you just warm yourself without photosynthesis, you are in deep trouble. After all, was it not Baha'u'llah who, addressing the monks, said,

 "He that secludeth himself in his house is indeed as one dead. It behoveth man to show forth that which will benefit mankind. He that bringeth forth no fruit is fit for the fire." (Summons, 70)

 The problem, from a proud mystic's point of view, with expressing your mystical experience in a group is that you are less exclusive. You are not so special, your insight becomes that of a group and is no longer yours. You object to anybody who would, in McLean's words "democratize so to speak the mystical experience." This hints at what prompted this fervent assault in the first place.

 Let us turn to Momen's response. As my dream implied, he backs away from the stand he took in the original paper, called "The Baha'is as a Mystical Community." Obviously taken aback, Momen defends himself by saying that he was not talking about mysticism in individuals, he was talking about group mysticism.

 "It is here, in the social organization of mystical communities, that Baha'u'llah differs radically from the mystics of the past ... and it is the delineation of the features of this aspect on which I have concentrated in my article. The fact that I have concentrated on this innovative aspect of the Baha'i Faith in this article in no way diminishes the importance of individual aspect of mysticism (and I referred to this individual aspect at the beginning and end of the paper) but it is simply not the subject of the article."

 For this concession he loses the Sumo match, in my opinion. The fact is that Baha'u'llah has abrogated mysticism as known before His revelation, as the "secluded in his house" quote above implies. In fact, mysticism had already been partially excluded by Islam, Baha'u'llah just takes it a step further. I do not want to develop a whole thesis here, but Mirza Abu'l-Fazl, a mystic himself, was very explicit in blaming mystics, monastics and Sufis for the corruption and dismemberment of both Christianity and Islam. Abdu'l-Baha backed him up on this too.

 Let there be no mistake, mysticism left to fester on its own is a pernicious, destructive force that bolsters the ego far easier than the higher self. Like any physical passion, left on its own, it can ruin your life and the lives of all around you. But if you sublimate it and use it to galvanize yourself in service to others, it becomes a good thing.

 Which brings me to the next story in the book "Mother's Stories." Coincidentally, when I found this story I had been reading about a very similar experience of the Muslim philosopher Al Ghazzali, who was struck dumb in front of a class of students when he realized that he was doing what he was doing for egotistical reasons. He fell ill and took a ten year hiatus from his teaching, then directed the rest of his career in an unsuccessful attempt to defend Islam from Sufis and agnostic philosophers. Remember, Abu'l-Fazl is among that small number of people the Master called "perfect." So clearly, the mystic struggles of a Baha'i are mainly an antidote to pride, as Fazl applied it.

 Abu'l Fazl's story, told by Ali Kuli Khan in 1934

  "In the early days (1901 to '05), Abdu'l-Baha sent to the United States the beloved and most radiant Abu'l-Fadl. The purpose was to travel and teach and Ali Kuli Khan was asked to accompany Abu'l-Fadl as interpreter. This was arranged and the two gentlemen started off. The trip was a wonderful success. It was during the period when teachers (Hindu, Zoroastrian or Buddhist) were greeted eagerly all over the country and these Baha'i teachers shared the wave of popularity. It was in one of the middle western cities that this experience occurred.
  The local Opera House had been rented for Abu'l-Fadl's talks and it was packed. Probably more than a thousand people had come. And, before this crowd Abu'l-Fadl rose to speak. For a moment, he stood there, his eyes roving over all the lifted, waiting faces, and suddenly he thought 'This trip is proving very successful! I am doing very well, this is a cause for great pride and satisfaction and when I return to Acca the Master will be well pleased with me. Truly I am doing well.' And, with this thought, the mind of Abu'l-Fadl went completely blank.
  He did not know who he was or why he was standing on this platform with all these people looking at him or what he was supposed to say. Then, instantly he realized what had happened. He had taken it upon himself to feel that it was HE who had accomplished this success; it was HIS words that would reach the hearts; it was HE - HE - HE - who had been proud. And, as he realized this he turned, in abject shame, to Baha'u'llah, imploring His forgiveness and begging Him to fill his heart once more with His Light to move his lips again with His Word. And immediately Abu'l-Fadl's prayer was answered, and the talk went forward.
  Later, Abu'l-Fadl asked Dr. Khan how long it had been that he stood there tongue-tied and blank - for it had seemed to Abu'l-Fadl that he must have disgraced himself before that great audience. But Khan assured him that it had been no time at all that there had been no break in the discourse. But it is to be noted that - many years afterward - Abdu'l-Baha particularly praised Abu'l-Fadl for being one of the very rare souls who never used the pronouns 'I' or 'me' or 'mine'.