In your faith group, what does sacred ground mean?
For the answer to this question, given by Jack McLean, "Baha'i scholar, teacher, essayist and poet published in the fields of spirituality, Baha'i theology and poetry," go to:
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/religion/story.html?id=51a40410-9f25-4597-8598-4fd4d41aacf1
He quotes "They should conduct themselves in such manner that the earth upon which they tread may never be allowed to address to them such words as these: `I am to be preferred above you...'" which is from Gleanings, pp. 7-8. Another mention of sacred ground is:
"For he who had believed in God and in the Manifestation of His beauty was raised from the grave of heedlessness, gathered together in the sacred ground of the heart, quickened to the life of faith and certitude, and admitted into the paradise of the divine presence. What paradise can be loftier than this, what ingathering mightier, and what resurrection greater? Indeed, should a soul be acquainted with these mysteries, he would grasp that which none other hath fathomed." -Baha'u'llah, Gems of Divine Mysteries, paragraph 58, p. 42
::
Monday, November 17, 2008
Song of Protection
Song based on a prayer for protection by Baha'u'llah.
CXXII
Praise be to Thee, O Lord my God! Thou seest and knowest that I have called upon Thy servants to turn nowhere except in the direction of Thy bestowals, and have bidden them observe naught save the things Thou didst prescribe in Thy Perspicuous Book, the Book which hath been sent down according to Thine inscrutable decree and irrevocable purpose.
I can utter no word, O my God, unless I be permitted by Thee, and can move in no direction until I obtain Thy sanction. It is Thou, O my God, Who hast called me into being through the power of Thy might, and hast endued me with Thy grace to manifest Thy Cause. Wherefore I have been subjected to such adversities that my tongue hath been hindered from extolling Thee and from magnifying Thy glory.
All praise be to Thee, O my God, for the things Thou didst ordain for me through Thy decree and by the power of Thy sovereignty. I beseech Thee that Thou wilt fortify both myself and them that love me in our love for Thee, and wilt keep us firm in Thy Cause. I swear by Thy might! O my God! Thy servant's shame is to be shut out as by a veil from Thee, and his glory is to know Thee. Armed with the power of Thy name nothing can ever hurt me, and with Thy love in my heart all the world's afflictions can in no wise alarm me.
Send down, therefore, O my Lord, upon me and upon my loved ones that which will protect us from the mischief of those that have repudiated Thy truth and disbelieved in Thy signs.
Thou art, verily, the All-Glorious, the Most Bountiful.
Baha'u'llah, Prayers and Meditations by Baha'u'llah, p. 207-208
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Family Diarchy
Diarchy and the Three Bonds of Family
2008 Nov 16, 13 Qudrat 165 BE
Let us continue our trip through the lost 16th Century manuscript of Jan Amos Comenius, the Panorthosia or Universal Reform, his Magnum Opus, the first and surely the greatest how-to manual for a utopia of our own making. The attention he gives to the institution of the family -- inspired by the Bible -- distinguishes Comenius from other reformers and utopian thinkers, who have wholly secular outlooks. I therefore began this study not at the beginning of the Panorthosia but with its 21st chapter, "The Particular Reform of Family."
We are at the 12th paragraph, which discusses the religious function of a household. Although the content of the activities here differs, the form is identical to Baha'i homes. In fact, any healthy family would need to perform an almost identical daily schedule of devotions in order to live up to the ideals of faith and the habits of religion.
"The whole household will have its church if the members gather together every day to worship God in praise and prayer and to be confirmed in their earnest pursuit of piety. This is easy to arrange if they sing a psalm or a hymn every morning and evening before and after work, and also during their work (when they meet together at mealtimes), and attend to a portion of God's Word (like heavenly fire for the altar of their hearts), and presently lift up their hearts, hands, and eyes, and call for God's mercy, and are inspired to piety, that is, to love God and fear Him and honour Him with their obedience. The same purpose is served by combining the ten commandments (Exodus 20:3-17) with morning prayers like a bridle to restrain the flesh that day from evil and vanity, and the Apostles' Creed with evening prayers as a trophy for daily victory in Christ and a guarantee of sounder sleep through the strengthening of their trust in God."
Comenius describes how active control of information by family leaders can be used for both inspiration and edification. Songs, devotions and readings read or sung by themselves encourage each and all to dedicate themselves to selfless religious purposes. At the same time, as Comenius points out, this schedule would also promote better sleep, and healthy habits in general.
The advantage of his "family church" over what we have is that it establishes dialectic with God first. Each member begins alone, with silence, reflection, and prayer, followed by reading Holy Writ. This recapitulates en famille. Thus the family as an institution connects with the individual directly, without distraction or corruption from outside images and values. The plant's roots extend directly into the soil, and its leaves are directly exposed to sunlight.
This plan for a family's daily religious routine, based on his experience with a 16th century household, is just how a successful extended household might arrange its daily devotions today. It is in stark contrast with what we allow today, with our constant feed of electronic multimedia pumped into the living room, blocking rather than encouraging direct connection between individuals and the family. Sophisticated as our technology is, there is far less participation or control over either form or content than what Comenius proposes using only printed books.
As we have seen, Comenius holds that there are three main roles of family, that of a school, a church and a state. The thirteenth paragraph proceeds to the third of these three roles, the political or consultative one.
"The whole family group will resemble a state if every effort is made to see that the mutual duties allocated to all members are correctly performed, and if inspectors like prefects are appointed on the basis of seniority one over another up to the father of the family who is supreme, like a king or a prince or the consul of a city, and vested with authority over all the lesser members. Tests and trials should also be held at certain times (either on fixed dates or as circumstances arise) to enable them to practice the parts of accuser, witness for the defendant, and judge."
Comenius is describing an extended, patriarchal family with the father as sole head. This was always a clumsy arrangement, and has been decisively altered by Baha'u'llah. Now the headship is something like a diarchy, with wife and husband taking on headship together, equally. I am planning soon to write more at length about patriarchy soon.
Anyway, setting this difference between Christian and Baha'i families aside, Comenius describes a sort of constitutional meritocracy where roles, duties and privileges of each family member are arrived at consultatively, then clearly promulgated and dynamically renegotiated. Justice and advancement in the family enterprise come about by means of active "trials" or examinations using role playing techniques. Role playing games -- with no serious purpose -- have become very popular over the past three decades, thus proving how effective Comenius's educational technique might be for involving a family in the application of divine law.
The three specific means of enforcing family authority is made clearer in the 14th paragraph,
"So much for the order and training of the well-reformed family, past, present, or future. The bonds which will keep them in order are 1. written rules, 2. safeguards for the observance of the rules, 3. rewards for observing the rules and punishments for failing to observe them."
Lack of attention to these three bonds, I believe, is what has kept the present-day nuclear family back. Applying them would allow it to extended families and possibly regain their former influence that, until about a century ago, dominated the world's economy, especially in agriculture.
Ignoring bond one, written rules, is a constant source of conflict in our home, which has my father living here as well. We all forget what is not written down, and children and elders especially are prone to forget. In my experience it is easy to remind the kids repeatedly of ground rules. However when my eighty nine-year-old father forgets agreements he inevitably denies they ever existed. Conflict and injustice is the constant result. Peace under this roof has a half life of about one month, based on the time it takes for a carefully negotiated treaty to pass out of recall. Based on this, written rules and contracts would make the family a more child and elder-friendly place.
Bond two, safeguards for enforcement, is another weak area. Comenius suggests a prefectorial system based on seniority (he has already established exams establishing merit). This sounds like it would work, especially connected with the outside world through open standards. If families were connected by the Internet, experience could be pooled and exchanged with social networking to ensure that improvements would be rapidly spread among households.
I just read a book about the history of the company that describes how in the early 20th Century the largely family-owned concerns in England were beaten out even on their own turf by more efficient American corporations. The authors attribute this to family businesses failing to pass the torch between generations of managers. They did not select and train family members for upper management as well as their American corporate competitors did. Comenius thus is describing a structured family system for organizing and educating each successive generation for leadership. Done right, this might help family-based enterprises surpass their main competitor, the company. Since the latter is largely responsible for the extreme, unbounded growth that is causing global warming and economic collapse, the reform of family is in the interest of all.
Bond three, rewards and punishments, merits longer discussion; at least one further essay is upcoming on that. Suffice to say for now, the tyranny inherent in the patriarchal family has created in us all a visceral aversion to reward and punishment in general, and to the family in particular. The patriarchal family is either disfunctional, negligent, or, when active, tends to be corrupt, unjust and capricious in doling out rewards and punishments. This familial failure is largely responsible for the materialism and individualism pervading Western culture.
But that does not mean that the Baha'i family diarchy would need to avoid reward and punishment completely, in the vain hope of anarchists and libertarians that people will somehow float up to heaven under their own power, like helium balloons without need of external guidance. In Paris Abdu'l-Baha stated that it would be impossible to exaggerate the importance of rewards and punishments. The business of devising condign rewards and punishments should the all-engaging preoccupation of leaders on every level.
"In the conduct of life, man is actuated by two main motives: 'The Hope for Reward' and 'The Fear of Punishment'. This hope and this fear must consequently be greatly taken into account by those in authority who have important posts under Government. Their business in life is to consult together for the framing of laws, and to provide for their just administration. ... There is no greater prevention of oppression than these two sentiments, hope and fear. They have both political and spiritual consequences." (Paris Talks, p. 157)
As the diarchic family replaces the patriarchal one, the great improvement will surely be better application of what Baha'u'llah called the twin "pillars of existence," reward and punishment. This new institution will redifine the limits of what is possible in social progress by applying divine law consultatively, contractually, and in subtler, more effective and less obnoxious ways.
--
John Taylor
email: badijet@gmail.com
blog: http://badiblog.blogspot.com/
::
2008 Nov 16, 13 Qudrat 165 BE
Let us continue our trip through the lost 16th Century manuscript of Jan Amos Comenius, the Panorthosia or Universal Reform, his Magnum Opus, the first and surely the greatest how-to manual for a utopia of our own making. The attention he gives to the institution of the family -- inspired by the Bible -- distinguishes Comenius from other reformers and utopian thinkers, who have wholly secular outlooks. I therefore began this study not at the beginning of the Panorthosia but with its 21st chapter, "The Particular Reform of Family."
We are at the 12th paragraph, which discusses the religious function of a household. Although the content of the activities here differs, the form is identical to Baha'i homes. In fact, any healthy family would need to perform an almost identical daily schedule of devotions in order to live up to the ideals of faith and the habits of religion.
"The whole household will have its church if the members gather together every day to worship God in praise and prayer and to be confirmed in their earnest pursuit of piety. This is easy to arrange if they sing a psalm or a hymn every morning and evening before and after work, and also during their work (when they meet together at mealtimes), and attend to a portion of God's Word (like heavenly fire for the altar of their hearts), and presently lift up their hearts, hands, and eyes, and call for God's mercy, and are inspired to piety, that is, to love God and fear Him and honour Him with their obedience. The same purpose is served by combining the ten commandments (Exodus 20:3-17) with morning prayers like a bridle to restrain the flesh that day from evil and vanity, and the Apostles' Creed with evening prayers as a trophy for daily victory in Christ and a guarantee of sounder sleep through the strengthening of their trust in God."
Comenius describes how active control of information by family leaders can be used for both inspiration and edification. Songs, devotions and readings read or sung by themselves encourage each and all to dedicate themselves to selfless religious purposes. At the same time, as Comenius points out, this schedule would also promote better sleep, and healthy habits in general.
The advantage of his "family church" over what we have is that it establishes dialectic with God first. Each member begins alone, with silence, reflection, and prayer, followed by reading Holy Writ. This recapitulates en famille. Thus the family as an institution connects with the individual directly, without distraction or corruption from outside images and values. The plant's roots extend directly into the soil, and its leaves are directly exposed to sunlight.
This plan for a family's daily religious routine, based on his experience with a 16th century household, is just how a successful extended household might arrange its daily devotions today. It is in stark contrast with what we allow today, with our constant feed of electronic multimedia pumped into the living room, blocking rather than encouraging direct connection between individuals and the family. Sophisticated as our technology is, there is far less participation or control over either form or content than what Comenius proposes using only printed books.
As we have seen, Comenius holds that there are three main roles of family, that of a school, a church and a state. The thirteenth paragraph proceeds to the third of these three roles, the political or consultative one.
"The whole family group will resemble a state if every effort is made to see that the mutual duties allocated to all members are correctly performed, and if inspectors like prefects are appointed on the basis of seniority one over another up to the father of the family who is supreme, like a king or a prince or the consul of a city, and vested with authority over all the lesser members. Tests and trials should also be held at certain times (either on fixed dates or as circumstances arise) to enable them to practice the parts of accuser, witness for the defendant, and judge."
Comenius is describing an extended, patriarchal family with the father as sole head. This was always a clumsy arrangement, and has been decisively altered by Baha'u'llah. Now the headship is something like a diarchy, with wife and husband taking on headship together, equally. I am planning soon to write more at length about patriarchy soon.
Anyway, setting this difference between Christian and Baha'i families aside, Comenius describes a sort of constitutional meritocracy where roles, duties and privileges of each family member are arrived at consultatively, then clearly promulgated and dynamically renegotiated. Justice and advancement in the family enterprise come about by means of active "trials" or examinations using role playing techniques. Role playing games -- with no serious purpose -- have become very popular over the past three decades, thus proving how effective Comenius's educational technique might be for involving a family in the application of divine law.
The three specific means of enforcing family authority is made clearer in the 14th paragraph,
"So much for the order and training of the well-reformed family, past, present, or future. The bonds which will keep them in order are 1. written rules, 2. safeguards for the observance of the rules, 3. rewards for observing the rules and punishments for failing to observe them."
Lack of attention to these three bonds, I believe, is what has kept the present-day nuclear family back. Applying them would allow it to extended families and possibly regain their former influence that, until about a century ago, dominated the world's economy, especially in agriculture.
Ignoring bond one, written rules, is a constant source of conflict in our home, which has my father living here as well. We all forget what is not written down, and children and elders especially are prone to forget. In my experience it is easy to remind the kids repeatedly of ground rules. However when my eighty nine-year-old father forgets agreements he inevitably denies they ever existed. Conflict and injustice is the constant result. Peace under this roof has a half life of about one month, based on the time it takes for a carefully negotiated treaty to pass out of recall. Based on this, written rules and contracts would make the family a more child and elder-friendly place.
Bond two, safeguards for enforcement, is another weak area. Comenius suggests a prefectorial system based on seniority (he has already established exams establishing merit). This sounds like it would work, especially connected with the outside world through open standards. If families were connected by the Internet, experience could be pooled and exchanged with social networking to ensure that improvements would be rapidly spread among households.
I just read a book about the history of the company that describes how in the early 20th Century the largely family-owned concerns in England were beaten out even on their own turf by more efficient American corporations. The authors attribute this to family businesses failing to pass the torch between generations of managers. They did not select and train family members for upper management as well as their American corporate competitors did. Comenius thus is describing a structured family system for organizing and educating each successive generation for leadership. Done right, this might help family-based enterprises surpass their main competitor, the company. Since the latter is largely responsible for the extreme, unbounded growth that is causing global warming and economic collapse, the reform of family is in the interest of all.
Bond three, rewards and punishments, merits longer discussion; at least one further essay is upcoming on that. Suffice to say for now, the tyranny inherent in the patriarchal family has created in us all a visceral aversion to reward and punishment in general, and to the family in particular. The patriarchal family is either disfunctional, negligent, or, when active, tends to be corrupt, unjust and capricious in doling out rewards and punishments. This familial failure is largely responsible for the materialism and individualism pervading Western culture.
But that does not mean that the Baha'i family diarchy would need to avoid reward and punishment completely, in the vain hope of anarchists and libertarians that people will somehow float up to heaven under their own power, like helium balloons without need of external guidance. In Paris Abdu'l-Baha stated that it would be impossible to exaggerate the importance of rewards and punishments. The business of devising condign rewards and punishments should the all-engaging preoccupation of leaders on every level.
"In the conduct of life, man is actuated by two main motives: 'The Hope for Reward' and 'The Fear of Punishment'. This hope and this fear must consequently be greatly taken into account by those in authority who have important posts under Government. Their business in life is to consult together for the framing of laws, and to provide for their just administration. ... There is no greater prevention of oppression than these two sentiments, hope and fear. They have both political and spiritual consequences." (Paris Talks, p. 157)
As the diarchic family replaces the patriarchal one, the great improvement will surely be better application of what Baha'u'llah called the twin "pillars of existence," reward and punishment. This new institution will redifine the limits of what is possible in social progress by applying divine law consultatively, contractually, and in subtler, more effective and less obnoxious ways.
--
John Taylor
email: badijet@gmail.com
blog: http://badiblog.blogspot.com/
::
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Self-Subsisting
Defining the Indefinable, "Self-Subsisting"
By John Taylor; 2008 Nov 15, 12 Qudrat 165 BE
As soon as a person becomes a Baha'i and learns the short obligatory prayer, they run across the compound term, "self-subsisting." Evidently somebody tried to look it up in a dictionary, did not find it, and complained to the Universal House of Justice. As always, the supreme institution handed the answer off to its research department. The researcher replied,
"In your second letter, you have stated that the term `self-subsisting', which Baha'u'llah often uses to characterize God, `means nothing' in the English language. It is likely that this term signifies in some way a basic concept of the Faith; namely, that creation is an emanation from God, without Whose continuing bounty and grace it would cease to exist.
"The term thus underscores the immense contrast between our reality, which is related to the contingent world, and His reality which is independent of any cause and which entirely transcends the world of being. Indeed, the point is that He is the Cause of being itself. There is a way to deduce such a meaning, however, solely from the common meaning of the words." (letter from UHJ Research Department, 21 January 1993, http://www.bahai-library.com/file.php?file=uhj_translation_subsisting)
In other words, then, the dictionaries available at the World Centre apparently do not have the term "self-subsisting" in them either. The UHJ RD's anonymous author simply looks up the separate words "self" and "subsist."
"According to its primary dictionary definition, "to subsist" means to have existence, to persist or continue. The addition of "self" makes it reflexive. Knowing just these two things, can we not then say that if God is self-subsisting it means that there is nothing other than Himself upon which He depends for His continuing existence? In other words, He exists in and of Himself without being dependent on any other cause: He has no creator and there is nothing prior to Him."
Fortunately, we have better tools available now than way back in 1993. A microsecond after I typed "define: self-subsisting" into Google, a dictionary entry responded: "see self-subsistent." As soon as you look up `self-subsistent' an overwhelming cornucopia of definitions fills your screen. The Guardian's choice of the present participle apparently throws people off the scent, even at the World Centre. A cursory look at the definition reveals that "self-subsistent" is the English form of an ancient philosophic term going back to Aristotle and beyond. It means quite a bit more than just "self" and "subsist" stuck together, even reflexively.
We get the word "substance," for example, from the scholastic term, "Res Ex Tensa," literally, thing reaching out, or more commonly, extended matter. From that we get "substance," literally standing under, the reality that holds up what the senses perceive. Subsistence, in short, is part of an extremely complex and sophisticated set of concepts that, like modern physics I forget several seconds after I learn it, if in fact I understand it in the first place. Could it be that Shoghi Effendi chose that confusing present participle "self-subsisting" to emphasize a self-subsistent beyond the bounds of time that transcends past and future? As it has been understood historically, subsistence does refer more to matter than to time, and since Einstein we know that space and time are two sides of one coin.
At the end of this post, I will include the balance of the UHJ RD's letter. Briefly, it warns that spiritual understanding does not depend on scholarly learning. Then, strangely in view of the fact that the enquirer is challenging the Guardian's choice of terminology, it goes on to talk about overcoming the difficulties that the average person has with his literary style.
I am hardly qualified to talk about a specialist term of metaphysics authoritatively, but I want to look over how "self-subsistent" has been used by some great thinkers. In his Physics, Aristotle says,
"Some, as the Pythagoreans and Plato, make the infinite a principle in the sense of a self-subsistent substance, and not as a mere attribute of some other thing."
Aristotle's reference to his predecessors points to a difference between self-subsistent as a term in itself and certain other synonyms such as "principle" or "independent." Self-subsistent is something that does not have substance -- other things standing under it, or standing under other things -- it is in fact it own substance or essence. This was brought out by Plato's dalliance with forms, things in themselves. In the sixth chapter of the Republic, for example, pictures the Good as a sun that illuminates the world -- ordinary substance is the flickering light in the cave, while self-subsistence radiates all with its own light. Good with a capital "g" is a different order of existence from good with a small "g". This is the difference between having an attribute of goodness and being the essence of Good itself. Aristotle refers to this indirectly in the Nichomachean Ethics,
"Now some thought that apart from these many goods there is another which is self-subsistent and causes the goodness of all these as well." (paragraph 5)
Plato dropped calling the self-subsistent by the inanimate sounding word "form," perhaps because once you get this high above us on the chain of being it is counterproductive to think of it as an "it" rather than a "He" or a "She." For example, Baha'u'llah personifies it when He says,
"Tear asunder the veils of human learning lest they hinder thee from Him Who is My name, the Self-Subsisting." (Summons, 56, 1.106)
Aristotle brings up "self-subsistent" at least four times in the Metaphysics, but I am so intimidated by that book that will leave it aside. It would only strain my brain, tire my readers and bring us further from where we wish to be with this.
Self-subsistence plays a central role in Cartesian philosophy, and I must admit that that is where I was familiar with the term. I did not realize until today how important it was in Greek philosophy too.
Ever since I read Descartes I understood the short obligatory prayer as having me declare that God, as a Self-Subsisting Being, is His own substance, His own cause, the ground of His own Being. The Godhead is thus utterly unlike all other kinds of stuff, whose base of being is always external. In prayer, I mirror that condition of being too, where my thought reflects and is the outcome of my own essence. Hence the Hidden Word, which would have us turn unto ourselves and "find God standing within, Mighty, Powerful and Self-Subsisting." (AHW 60) I remember being annoyed when, back in the 1980's, a Creole translation of the Short Obligatory prayer said "Self-Sustaining" instead of Self-Subsisting.
A bit more about the Cartesian idea of self-subsistence.
Descartes agreed with the schoolmen, who on other points opposed him, that the mind is a "thinking substance," and the external world an "extended substance." Spinoza held that strictly speaking, though, the self of God is the only real substance, since the word "substance" itself means standing under or outside.
"In Spinoza's view, Descartes came close to a correct understanding of God when he said that, strictly speaking, he was the only substance, since he was the only being which was entirely self-subsistent (or cause of itself in Spinoza's terminology). But for Spinoza, we must always speak strictly, and it is not good enough to say that (an) extended thing and thinking thing are substances in some secondary sense. They are not substances at all, if substance is defined in terms of its self-subsistence. Consequently, it makes no sense to say that God created two substances (or kinds of substance) characterised by the attributes of thought and extension, which are somehow existentially separate from him, even if still dependent on him for their continued existence. Instead we have to say that thought and extension are attributes of God himself." (http://www.philosophy.leeds.ac.uk/GMR/resources/summaries/spinoza/spinsum.html)
The Quran, distinctively from the Western philosophic tradition, emphasizes creation as an act of Will. The Bab and Baha'u'llah follow this lead. Seeing creation as willed means that "self-subsisting" is God's condition of willing existence out of His own Nature.
This is a different kind of Self-Subsisting.
In an essay I wrote on 24 June, 2006, called "Notes on an Unnamed Tablet of the Bab, Inner meaning of the principle of Oneness of God" I talked about how important self-subsistence is for the Bab's concept of "Manifestation." Another essay on this Badi' Blog talked about "self-subsisting" in the Writings of the Bab, where it seems to express the birthing or fruition period between the creative missions of the Manifestations,
The Bab also began the Book of Names with a tree metaphor ... He carried it further, even calling himself by the appellation "Tha," the first letter in 'Thamarih' or fruit, following through on this idea that each Revelation is the fruit or consummation of the tree of all previous Teachings. He addresses Baha'u'llah, the first "manifester," as opposed to prophet, in the following terms,
"This is an epistle from the letter 'Tha' unto Him Who will be made manifest through the power of Truth -- He Who is the All-Glorious, the Best Beloved -- to affirm that all created things as well as myself bear witness for all time that there is none other God but Thee, the Omnipotent, the Self-Subsisting; that Thou art God, there is no God besides Thee and that all men shall be raised up to life through Thee." (The Bab, Selections, 2)
In a word, the Bab taught that what is past is prophesy, what is future is Manifest. ("Some Primal Points About Trees," 21 September, 2004)
==========
From the UHJ RD's answer to a question about "self-subsistent" in the Writings:
"A few comments may serve to provide a perspective in which to view the issues you have raised. First, it is essential to recall that, as we are told in the Writings, the comprehension of the Sacred Writings is not dependent upon scholarship or learning. This should encourage every believer, no matter what his attainments, to delve into the Revelation with determination and confidence. In the Book of Certitude, Baha'u'llah says:
"The understanding of His words and the comprehension of the utterances of the Birds of Heaven are in no wise dependent upon human learning. They depend solely upon purity of heart, chastity of soul, and freedom of spirit."
"But, in addition to needing the proper spirit, it requires concentration and meditation to unravel the meanings which lie enshrined in the Revealed Word. Nowadays, however, the lives of most people are busy and crowded with distractions, so it requires great discipline to devote the time, attention and care necessary to study the Teachings in the way they deserve. Deepening is like a skill or art which must be acquired through effort. And, just as there are millions of Christians who would not trade the King James Version of the Holy Bible, once one has caught the flavor of the English translations done by Shoghi Effendi -- or done in the style he developed -- the beauty and power of expression become appealing and inspiring. One comes to fall in love with that style.
--
John Taylor
email: badijet@gmail.com
blog: http://badiblog.blogspot.com/
::
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Baha'i inspired joking
Baha'i Jokes
By John Taylor; 2008 Nov 13, 10 Qudrat 165 BE
Taken and slightly adapted from a thread by that name on the Baha'i library forum: http://bahai-library.com/forum/viewtopic.php.
Q: Why do Baha'is need to visit Dracula?
A: Because we need to bring ourselves to a-count each day!
How many Baha'is does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
Nineteen. Nine to consult in order to arrive at an authoritative decision to change the light bulb, six to hold a study circle to deepen about electrical safety, one to bring a ladder and hold it, one to change the bulb, and a nineteenth to make tea and prepare refreshments for all the others. The good news is that if it takes a month to recruit each one, it will still only add up to a year's work.
1. Q: What kind of car did the Bab drive?
2. A: A 4runner!
A Baha'i pioneer was blazing a trail through the jungle in a tropical country. Suddenly he found himself surrounded by naked men with bones through their noses, shouting and waving spears. They tied him up and threw him in a stew-pot, then started piling firewood underneath. Drums sounded. In desperation, the pioneer began reciting the remover of difficulties. Suddenly, the drumming stopped. One cannibal looked at another and said,
"Hey guys! I think we've just found the ninth member of our LSA!"
Q: If a Baha'i opened up a dry-cleaners, what would it be called?
A: "Blessed is the Spot."
Q: How did Baha'u'llah become a great interior designer?
A: By turning abasement into glory!
In heaven a long line of souls is waiting before Saint Peter. As each one comes to him he asks them who the Lord of the Age is. A succession of answers come in reply, and a long line of Buddhist and Hindus and Muslims and Christians and Jews walk away. The Baha'i at the end of the line is thinking Well, I know this one. Ill be the only one to get it right! When the Baha'i gets to Saint Peter, the Saint says, "Oh, a Bahai. Okay, here is your question. How do you spell Huququ'llah? Remember to pronounce the word correctly before spelling it aloud."
Q: Why is it that Baha'i never get headaches?
A: Because Baha'u'llah gave them tablets!
Q: How did Abdu'l-Baha pay for his travels in the United States?
A: He used his MASTER-card!
The Top Ten Golden Age Disney Remakes
10. The Egalitarian-Cats
9. Herbie Goes on Pilgrimage
8. The Shaggy Auxiliary Board Member
7. James and the Giant Seeker
6. 9 Dalmatians
5. Snow White and the Seven Assembly Members
4. Honey I Shrunk The House of Worship
3. The Apple Dumpling Gang Pays Huququ'llah
2. Beauty and the Feast
1. FAITHtasia
Q: What airline did Abdu'l-Baha fly?
A: UNITED!!!
Q: What's the Nightingale of Paradise named?
A: "Lo"
How to tell a Baha'i
The only smoke you envision when you hear the phrase "joint feast" is from overdone tadiq.
If you get more excited by LSA than LSD, you might be a Baha'i.
A movie star offers a shameless night of passion, and the response is, "Um... I need to investigate your character, get parental permission and wait 90 days." That one might be Baha'i.
You see "Some Assembly Required" on a box and think, "They probably need home front pioneers." You could be a Baha'i.
"You see a real estate billboard saying, "Fully Detached Community" and drive on, saying, "We're not needed here."
You think March Madness is the outcome of hunger from the Fast -- then you gotta be a Baha'i.
Q: What search engine should you use to find out how to give to the fund?
A: Ha-Google-ah
Q: Why doesn't Dracula become a Baha'i?
A: He can't stop backbiting!
Q. How many Baha'is does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A. Baha'is don't do that. They teach the light bulb, and if it wants to transform, it'll change itself!
You know you could use a little more deepening if:
"You take marshmallows to firesides."
"You're worried about your chances of getting audited by the Huququ'llah Committee."
Q: How many Baha'i Youth does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
A: All of them. Only one to hold it, but all the rest to move the world!
Terms of endearment, come-on lines and pickup lines for Baha'is:
"Baby, I just finished Book 2 and now I wanna pay you a home visit!"
"Can I do my year of service in your heart?"
"Baby, you're like Book 7: you complete me."
"Will you be my nightingale of paradise?"
Q: Why are Baha'i youth always running?
A: Because they are being "chaste."
If these jokes do not satisfy, try the longer collection at: http://bahaijokes.blogspot.com/
The following joke, among others, is at http://mynahbird.wordpress.com/tag/bahai-jokes/ Where they got it from I do not know, but I would not be surprised if it were true, as they claim:
True Story: The Master owned two donkeys. No other person wanted these two donkeys, but the Master loved them like his own children. The first donkey he named Lightning, and he had been rejected by everyone else because no one could get him to move - except the Master. The second donkey he named Thunder, he had stomach problems.
John Taylor
email: badijet@gmail.com
::
blog: http://badiblog.blogspot.com/
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
A Heavenly Consort's Story
Asiyyih Khanum, or Navvab
By John Taylor; 2008 Nov 12, 09 Qudrat 165 BE
Asiyih Khanum, titled Navvab, married some time between 24 September and 22 October 1835; died 1886; seven children, (of whom three survived childhood). (Universal House of Justice, 1995 Oct 23, Wives of Baha'u'llah, p. 2)
"And truly the humiliation and reproach which she suffered in the path of God is a fact which no one can refute. For the calamities and afflictions mentioned in the whole chapter (Isaiah 54) are such afflictions which she suffered in the path of God, all of which she endured with patience and thanked God therefor and praised Him, because He had enabled her to endure afflictions for the sake of Baha. During all this time, the men and women (Covenant-breakers) persecuted her in an incomparable manner, while she was patient, God-fearing, calm, humble and contented through the favour of Her Lord and by the bounty of her Creator." (Abdu'l-Bahá, quoted in Adib Taherzadeh, The Covenant of Baha'u'llah, p. 120)
During our children's classes we have been reviewing "The Promise of all Ages," a Canadian documentary with professional production values. The Haldimand Community also viewed the entire film biography of Baha'u'llah last night at our Birth of Baha'u'llah celebration. It provoked an enthusiastic reaction from those present and I highly recommend it. Here is some of what it says about it on the film's website.
"Now for the first time in a feature length documentary, The Promise of All Ages explores the Life of Baha'u'llah... Narrated by CBC's Michael Enright, The Promise of All Ages is a remarkable account of the birth of a new Revelation and the Life of its Founder. Herein lies a story, historically accurate, deeply moving, and as intriguing as the meteoric rise of the Faith that bears His name." (http://www.thepromiseofallages.com/overview.html)
As we were going through the first parts of the film, Silvie was inspired by the story of Navvab's (Baha'u'llah's wife) plight while Baha'u'llah was secluded in the Sulaymaniyyih Mountains. She made up a comic about the sad events, which are retold in the movie by a Canadian mother. She expresses dismay at the part of Navvab's to do with events leading up to the death of Navvab's seventh and last child (three survived childhood, Abdu'l-Baha, Bahiyyih and Mihdi). I have been looking for the source of this story about Navvab without success so far.
As depicted in the movie, Baha'u'llah upon leaving Baghdad to become a dervish, had asked Navvab to show the utmost obedience and consideration to Mirza Yahya, who was in hiding in their home. Yahya was deadly afraid to be recognized as the nominal leader of the Babis -- undoubtedly he had even stronger reasons to lay low, for, as told in "God Passes By", Yahya had also plotted the assasination of Dayyan and an uncle of the Bab, and more recently was wanted for, among lesser crimes, stealing the turbans of pilgrims to the Muslim holy shrines near Baghdad. When the baby -- who had survived in its mother's womb the arduous exile from Teheran -- caught a fever Navvab wanted to call a doctor but Yahya would not hear of it. It died as a result, and Yahya would only permit the door to be opened a crack to let the body of the babe be passed out to a hired fellow who buried it in a place unknown. Navvab was distressed that, not knowing its burial place, she could not mourn the loss.
No doubt this sad news of the death of thier infant added to Baha'u'llah's sufferings when He returned and found out about it. Baha'u'llah's Writings around this time (they are summed up in God Passes By) are lachrimos and anguished, not surprisingly.
In Silvie's comic she speculates on Yahya's reasons for refusing to allow a doctor to treat the baby. In the end, Silvie has Yahya take over the doctoring of the baby for himself. Silvie had noticed that earlier in the film it had mentioned that a half-brother of Baha'u'llah was a doctor and had treated some family members just before their exile from Tihran. This half-brother the doctor could not have been Mirza Yahya since they only met Yahya later on, during the voyage, cowering away in a small village near the border. Anyway, Silvie assumes in the comic that Yahya at least aspired to being a doctor.
All through the film Silvie would protest, "Hey, that is not how I imagined this." The world of her comics made the story a funnier, lighter thing than it was. But it is a creative, imaginative response to the Revelation and God surely will bless her for it.
| From SilvieandTommy |
--
John Taylor
email: badijet@gmail.com
blog: http://badiblog.blogspot.com/
::
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Seating myself on the seat of the self
The Seat of the Self; Philosophical Health Check, II
By John Taylor; 2008 Nov 11, 08 Qudrat 165 BE
Let us continue with the "philosophical health check" offered on the internet by a British philosophy magazine. You can take the quiz yourself at:
http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/check.htm
The automated philosopher that analyzed my answers was clearly designed and written my materialist academics (ones the Master mocked as "philosophers on the hoof") Among others, the machine picked out flaws in my logic about the following rather basic issues:
==========
What is the seat of the self?
Can we please ourselves?
Can I make choices for my own body?
==========
Let us today look at the first question, where the self is situated.
==========
43845 of the 139281 people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs. You agreed that:
Severe brain-damage can rob a person of all consciousness and selfhood
And also that:
On bodily death, a person continues to exist in a non-physical form
Analysis ... working ... beep, beep ... working ... stand by ... completed. Read handout below:
"These two beliefs are not strictly contradictory, but they do present an awkward mix of world-views. On the one hand, there is an acceptance that our consciousness and sense of self is in some way dependent on brain activity, and this is why brain damage can in a real sense damage 'the self'. Yet there is also the belief that the self is somehow independent of the body, that it can live on after the death of the brain. So it seems consciousness and selfhood both is and is not dependent on having a healthy brain. One could argue that the dependency of the self on brain only occurs before bodily death. The deeper problem is not that it is impossible to reconcile the two beliefs, but rather that they seem to presume wider, contradictory world-views: one where consciousness is caused by brains and one where it is caused by something non-physical."
==========
As a former atheist, it is amusing to see my old 15 year-old fallacies dredged up. The cyber-philosopher states:
"On the one hand, there is an acceptance that our consciousness and sense of self is in some way dependent on brain activity, and this is why brain damage can in a real sense damage 'the self'.
The computer cleverly slips in a presupposition not warranted by the proposition that, "Severe brain-damage can rob a person of all consciousness and selfhood." It concludes that mind is dependent upon brain. This can be refuted by a few parallel examples. Is a light bulb dependent upon the switch that turns it on and off? Is your car dependent upon the key that you use to start it?
In a sense, yes. Switch and key are Sine Qua Non, without which not, which is exactly what they are designed to be. But in another sense, absolutely not. Every time you pay your electric bill or stop at a gas station you are recognizing that the light from your light bulbs or the motive power of your vehicle do not come from switches or keys, they come from somewhere else.
In a sense, yes. Switch and key are Sine Qua Non, without which not, which is exactly what they are designed to be. But in another sense, absolutely not. Every time you pay your electric bill or stop at a gas station you are recognizing that the light from your light bulbs or the motive power of your vehicle do not come from switches or keys, they come from somewhere else.
Our mechanical philosopher has somehow forgotten the greatest contribution of the Greeks to knowledge (indeed it is a Sine Qua Non of calling oneself a scientist or philosopher), the understanding -- mined by Socrates and refined by Aristotle -- that there are four causes behind every phenomenon. A switch, a key or a brain are material causes of indoor illumination, running motors and the self. Nor are they the only material causes. There are many other causes, formal, efficient, final, and even more material causes, without which a phenomenon cannot take place. In order to be cogent, an argument needs at least to touch base on all four causes.
In no way is a relationship of dependency implied here. It concludes,
"The deeper problem is not that it is impossible to reconcile the two beliefs, but rather that they seem to presume wider, contradictory world-views: one where consciousness is caused by brains and one where it is caused by something non-physical."
As mentioned, this amphiboly conflates at least two of the four meanings of the word "cause." Cause has a narrow material sense (the death of brains and minds) and a broader, more complete definition covering all four causes, MEFF, material, efficient, formal and final causes. Religious beliefs, insofar as they are explanations (actually they are not that primarily, they are points of faith), tend at least to cover all four causes.
The silicon cynic also nudges toward the assumption that damage is necessarily done when consciousness is extinguished. This is not necessarily so. In fact, most of the time the reverse is the case. The self seems not to be damaged but is actually helped by sleep, a total but temporary loss of consciousness. Sleep, this mysterious aid to consciousness, is still poorly understood but nobody doubts nowadays that the brain needs sleep. It cannot function at all without being periodically turned off, rebooted, and turned on again. And the strange thing is that all consciousness is not lost in sleep; indeed, during REM sleep the sense of self is often heightened.
That said, Baha'is do agree with materialists on one important point, that we do not understand self and consciousness. In fact, Baha'u'llah goes even further; He emphatically states that soul, mind and spirit constitute mysteries that we cannot understand and never will. In that sense, we are even more cynical than cow philosophers. Our stance that this question is a permanent mystery, in my opinion, implies that Baha'is should be willing to shut up about it. If the nature of the seat of self is not knowable you are wasting your time blabbing about it ad nauseam. Move on to mysteries that might be solvable. Baha'u'llah ordered us, after all, to avoid what begins and ends in mere words and to go on to spend our limited time on what will be of benefit to humanity.
-- John Taylor
email: badijet@gmail.com
blog: http://badiblog.blogspot.com/
::
Search for the Study Circle
Just wait until this guy becomes a Baha'i and has to find a feast in a different location every 19 days! Such is the Baha'i life...
Photos of Shoghi Effendi
This surely includes all the photos of the Guardian that are extant, including a movie clip. Dozens I have never seen before... Just amazing.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Home as mini-school
Family as School
By John Taylor; 2008 Nov 10, 07 Qudrat 165 BE
"Fill Thou, O God, our home with harmony and happiness, with laughter and delight, with radiant kindliness and overflowing joy, that in the union of our hearts Thy love may find a lodging place, and Thou Thyself mayst make this home of ours Thine Own!" (George Townshend, The Mission of Baha'u'llah, George Ronald, Oxford, 1952, #48, p. 147)
The Even More Particular Reform of Families.
Often we hear it said that family is the foundation of society, but what does that mean? Why do we always say that everything is built on it? Is this anything more than a pious hope, a mere idealistic sentiment without substance? If family is the ground of society, should we not take it more seriously? Instead we give family a passing nod and move right on to broader, graver issues. This reduces society's most basic institution, the one from which we all spring, to an isolated backwater. How many political thinkers actually take it to heart that the family is the root of all we do?
Only one in my experience.
It took the genius of Jan Amos Comenius to demonstrate not only that this foundation can be measured, but also that the same measuring tools for family reform are applicable to all other reform, from that of individuals to the whole planet. Comenius does this by going to first principles. Following Aristotle, he recognizes throughout the Panorthosia that everything is based on knowing, willing and acting, and that there are three institutions primarily devoted to each of these functions respectively, education, religion and politics. Hence in paragraph ten of his chapter on family in the Panorthosia he writes,
"To describe the order of the household in more detail, I should say that we shall have the best reform of every family if every home contains its school, its church, and its state on a small scale."
This functional definition is infinitely better than trying to define a family by who its members are, how they are related to one another (sometimes called natalism) or by the dwelling place where they happen to abide. As long as the members of a household perform together these three jobs, learning, worshipping and consulting, they are a family. Of course, this excludes a great many that think of themselves as families, and includes perhaps even more who would be surprised to hear themselves called a family. That does not matter. What is important is that this definition allows us to take seriously the proposition that family is the foundation of society. In addition, it offers three "handles" by which to connect the family to broader institutions specializing in education, faith and politics. This, Comenius assumes, should allow personal and social reformation to proceed in tandem with improvements in family households.
In the eleventh paragraph, Comenius proceeds to the first of three functions of the family, education. An institution cannot be an institution unless it has a history, some sort of shared knowledge. This is inherited like genes; it has to be gained by means of common effort. That is the mission of the family qua "school."
"It will have its School if every effort is made to see that every member of the household learns something useful every day..." (Panorthosia, Vol. I, p. 33)
There is a great deal packed into one sentence, so let us concentrate on this first part of it. To start off, Comenius suggests for families a modest, eminently doable goal for every member, young and old. What could be easier than to learn something useful on a daily basis? In his better known work, The Great Didactic, Comenius -- who is best known as the inventor of life-long learning -- described how daily learning could bolster general happiness, both personal and social,
"If, in each hour, a man could learn a single fragment of some branch of knowledge, a single rule of some mechanical art, a single pleasing story or proverb (the acquisition of which would require no effort), what a vast stock of learning he might lay by. Seneca is therefore right when he says: `Life is long, if we know how to use it.' It is consequently of importance that we understand the art of making the very best use of our lives." (John Amos Comenius, The Great Didactic, 1649, M.W. Keatinge, tr., http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/7905/web7005.html)
The family school, then, would reinforce the determination of individuals to expand their understanding ceaselessly. Presumably, then, a family school session would go beyond just adding another topic to gab about over the dinner table. A family school session would reserve enough time during the day for each member in an unhurried manner to share what they learned over the past 24 hours and clear up any questions or problems. In this way the practical daily lessons of each member would to the extent possible become shared, familial knowledge.
Second, this addition of education to the mandate of families would tend to alter the basic design structure of households. As it is now, homes devote a great deal of space and expense to kitchens, bathrooms and living rooms. I have argued elsewhere for high density housing where the kitchen, bathroom and garage would be offloaded to common areas with rented facilities and where work is done cooperatively. That leaves only bedrooms, dining rooms and living rooms in family dwellings. Comenius's idea here creates a need to accommodate daily, coordinated study in each home, which would require some kind of classroom. A small family might combine its study, worship and consultation in a single area, while a large, wealthy household could devote space for separate rooms for its school, church (or temple, or, for Baha'is, Mashriq) and governmental activities.
Let us now go on to the complete first sentence of paragraph 11,
"It will have its School if every effort is made to see that every member of the household learns something useful every day, both from God Himself, by reading a daily portion of His Word at morning and evening prayers, and from mankind by hearing about some famous event in history or receiving good advice on some aspect of morals."
The first part is religious, and I will not expand upon it, since it is already part of the daily duty of every Baha'i. I have written about daily prayer and reading of Holy Writ at length already. The second part, hearing historical events or homilies implies something unknown in families since the invention of electronic media: active control of the data flow into the home. Instead of passive recipients of information, families become active researchers and presenters of wisdom. This proposal alone makes Comenius the most radical reformer of modern times; he makes Proudhon and Marx look like shrinking violets. He continues, even more radically,
"Also it would be a very profitable daily exercise if good discussion groups (with the head of the house as chairman) were held regularly round the table, where as the occasion arises from the morning hymn or the reading of Scripture or some historical tale or the news of the day reported from various sources, everyone would put forward any good idea which occurred to him either in the form of a question or a statement."
Comenius, taking advantage of the relatively new invention of the printing press, was one of the first developers of the independent group study program conducted in the home. Elsewhere in the Panorthosia he lays it out in much more detail. This group discussion of the text technique later became prominent in Protestant Christianity, the socialist and adult education movements, as well as the "Ruhi Circles" so familiar in the Baha'i Faith.
Next time we will go on to Comenius's ideas about how the family can perform its job as mini-church, or, if you prefer, a domestic Mashriq.
By John Taylor; 2008 Nov 10, 07 Qudrat 165 BE
"Fill Thou, O God, our home with harmony and happiness, with laughter and delight, with radiant kindliness and overflowing joy, that in the union of our hearts Thy love may find a lodging place, and Thou Thyself mayst make this home of ours Thine Own!" (George Townshend, The Mission of Baha'u'llah, George Ronald, Oxford, 1952, #48, p. 147)
The Even More Particular Reform of Families.
Often we hear it said that family is the foundation of society, but what does that mean? Why do we always say that everything is built on it? Is this anything more than a pious hope, a mere idealistic sentiment without substance? If family is the ground of society, should we not take it more seriously? Instead we give family a passing nod and move right on to broader, graver issues. This reduces society's most basic institution, the one from which we all spring, to an isolated backwater. How many political thinkers actually take it to heart that the family is the root of all we do?
Only one in my experience.
It took the genius of Jan Amos Comenius to demonstrate not only that this foundation can be measured, but also that the same measuring tools for family reform are applicable to all other reform, from that of individuals to the whole planet. Comenius does this by going to first principles. Following Aristotle, he recognizes throughout the Panorthosia that everything is based on knowing, willing and acting, and that there are three institutions primarily devoted to each of these functions respectively, education, religion and politics. Hence in paragraph ten of his chapter on family in the Panorthosia he writes,
"To describe the order of the household in more detail, I should say that we shall have the best reform of every family if every home contains its school, its church, and its state on a small scale."
This functional definition is infinitely better than trying to define a family by who its members are, how they are related to one another (sometimes called natalism) or by the dwelling place where they happen to abide. As long as the members of a household perform together these three jobs, learning, worshipping and consulting, they are a family. Of course, this excludes a great many that think of themselves as families, and includes perhaps even more who would be surprised to hear themselves called a family. That does not matter. What is important is that this definition allows us to take seriously the proposition that family is the foundation of society. In addition, it offers three "handles" by which to connect the family to broader institutions specializing in education, faith and politics. This, Comenius assumes, should allow personal and social reformation to proceed in tandem with improvements in family households.
In the eleventh paragraph, Comenius proceeds to the first of three functions of the family, education. An institution cannot be an institution unless it has a history, some sort of shared knowledge. This is inherited like genes; it has to be gained by means of common effort. That is the mission of the family qua "school."
"It will have its School if every effort is made to see that every member of the household learns something useful every day..." (Panorthosia, Vol. I, p. 33)
There is a great deal packed into one sentence, so let us concentrate on this first part of it. To start off, Comenius suggests for families a modest, eminently doable goal for every member, young and old. What could be easier than to learn something useful on a daily basis? In his better known work, The Great Didactic, Comenius -- who is best known as the inventor of life-long learning -- described how daily learning could bolster general happiness, both personal and social,
"If, in each hour, a man could learn a single fragment of some branch of knowledge, a single rule of some mechanical art, a single pleasing story or proverb (the acquisition of which would require no effort), what a vast stock of learning he might lay by. Seneca is therefore right when he says: `Life is long, if we know how to use it.' It is consequently of importance that we understand the art of making the very best use of our lives." (John Amos Comenius, The Great Didactic, 1649, M.W. Keatinge, tr., http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/7905/web7005.html)
The family school, then, would reinforce the determination of individuals to expand their understanding ceaselessly. Presumably, then, a family school session would go beyond just adding another topic to gab about over the dinner table. A family school session would reserve enough time during the day for each member in an unhurried manner to share what they learned over the past 24 hours and clear up any questions or problems. In this way the practical daily lessons of each member would to the extent possible become shared, familial knowledge.
Second, this addition of education to the mandate of families would tend to alter the basic design structure of households. As it is now, homes devote a great deal of space and expense to kitchens, bathrooms and living rooms. I have argued elsewhere for high density housing where the kitchen, bathroom and garage would be offloaded to common areas with rented facilities and where work is done cooperatively. That leaves only bedrooms, dining rooms and living rooms in family dwellings. Comenius's idea here creates a need to accommodate daily, coordinated study in each home, which would require some kind of classroom. A small family might combine its study, worship and consultation in a single area, while a large, wealthy household could devote space for separate rooms for its school, church (or temple, or, for Baha'is, Mashriq) and governmental activities.
Let us now go on to the complete first sentence of paragraph 11,
"It will have its School if every effort is made to see that every member of the household learns something useful every day, both from God Himself, by reading a daily portion of His Word at morning and evening prayers, and from mankind by hearing about some famous event in history or receiving good advice on some aspect of morals."
The first part is religious, and I will not expand upon it, since it is already part of the daily duty of every Baha'i. I have written about daily prayer and reading of Holy Writ at length already. The second part, hearing historical events or homilies implies something unknown in families since the invention of electronic media: active control of the data flow into the home. Instead of passive recipients of information, families become active researchers and presenters of wisdom. This proposal alone makes Comenius the most radical reformer of modern times; he makes Proudhon and Marx look like shrinking violets. He continues, even more radically,
"Also it would be a very profitable daily exercise if good discussion groups (with the head of the house as chairman) were held regularly round the table, where as the occasion arises from the morning hymn or the reading of Scripture or some historical tale or the news of the day reported from various sources, everyone would put forward any good idea which occurred to him either in the form of a question or a statement."
Comenius, taking advantage of the relatively new invention of the printing press, was one of the first developers of the independent group study program conducted in the home. Elsewhere in the Panorthosia he lays it out in much more detail. This group discussion of the text technique later became prominent in Protestant Christianity, the socialist and adult education movements, as well as the "Ruhi Circles" so familiar in the Baha'i Faith.
Next time we will go on to Comenius's ideas about how the family can perform its job as mini-church, or, if you prefer, a domestic Mashriq.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)