Another Question

I made a big mistake yesterday, and I'm sorry for it. When I was writing, I was a bit disturbed by some comments that were made to me over the past weekend at a craft fair. As you may know, I make chain-mail artwork for a living. It's an odd, but fun, profession, and I really enjoy it. (There's a sample below.)

So there I was, with a star on the table, and someone asked me about it. They asked me if it was a religious symbol. I explained that it was, for me, a symbol of the Baha'i Faith. Well, this led to quite the tirade and I really had to ask this person to leave, or I was going to call for security. Although I had thought that I put that behind me, it seems that I was still reacting a bit when I wrote yesterday's article.

And one commenter, "Me", thought that I was reacting to them. Although I apologized in the comments below them, I wanted to be a bit more public about it.

I also wanted to draw attention to an observation they made in another comment. It was quite a good one. They reiterated my statement that I am a Baha'i because I consider Baha'u'llah's view of the world better than my own.

Well, let me go into that a bit more, for my answer may seem a bit glib, or maybe even shallow. And that just won't do (he says, in his best Victorian accent). So let me go back a bit, and maybe even offer an analogy.

To start, I do not believe that my view of the world is perfect. Not at all. I see many things that I have learned over the years, and there are many more things that I would love to learn. If my view were perfect, then I could never learn anything new.

Some say that the wisest philosopher of all time was Socrates, because he knew what he was ignorant of. (I was about to say that he knew what he didn't know, but that just sounds like a zen thing.) And so I went into my study of religion without the presupposition that I knew it all. That's not to say that I went in blindly accepting everything. Of course not. I went into it with the various faculties and talents that I have been endowed with, such as reason, intelligence, compassion, sincerity, humility and so on. I also went in with my own personal life experience.

One of the first things I recognized was that most people don't actually read their own sacred texts. The second thing was that most people's actions actually contradicted what their sacred books said.

And that led me to use one of the greatest tools I've even been given: the ability to read things for myself. Instead of taking other people's "word for it", I actually went back to the teachings themselves. Now I can't read Greek, Aramaic, Sanskrit, Persian, Arabic or any other language except for English, so I've had to make do with translations. But if you get enough translations, and read some of the commentaries on the them, you often get a good idea of what was trying to be conveyed. That's what I went with.

I also made the decision, which was quite conscious, to accept that there were wisdoms that were not readily evident in the literal reading of the various sacred texts. I figured that they must be considered sacred for a reason. Especially if they've been considered so for so long. Therefore, when I read the order of creation in Genesis, and recognized that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 give a different order of creation, I had a choice. I could either dismiss the whole thing as silly, or I could presume that there is a wisdom in telling the story in a different way.

Rather than throwing out the walnut with the shell, to use a phrase, I decided to look further into it.

Yes, there was a contradiction, but so what. It doesn't impact how we live our life, does it? Well, it may, but I don't believe it should. At least, it doesn't impact how I live mine.

Oh wait. Yes it does.

How?

I'm so glad you asked, dear Reader.

I see this as a clue that there are things about the sacred that are not able to be understood by the rational mind. It's not that they are irrational, but rather non-rational. Or perhaps super-rational. They make a sense that is more than the mere literal sense we have come to value too highly in the West. (Oh, it's not that the literal and linear perspective is bad, but it is not the only perspective. Other ways of seeing things are good, too.)

In other words, how you perceive the order of creation depends on your point of view. There is more than one way to understand it. From a purely biological perspective, we can see that animals came about before humanity. And yet from a philosophical perspective, we could argue that they weren't really animals until humanity had reached a point where we could define them as such.

In some of His talks, 'Abdu'l-Baha refers to humanity as having always existed. As the earth is only a few billion years old, how could humanity have existed before the planet? Is He wrong? Or is He speaking in a different sense? A more poetical sense? Or perhaps in a more universal sense? And is this denying the concept of evolution?

In one of His talks He admits the reality that evolutionary change has occurred. But then He goes on to say, "Man from the beginning was in this perfect form and composition, and possessed capacity and aptitude for acquiring material and spiritual perfections, and was the manifestation of these words, 'We will make man in Our image and likeness.' He has only become more pleasing, more beautiful, and more graceful." So here He seems to be talking about the latent qualities that make Man distinctive, not the form.

In other words, it all goes back to how we define our terms.

But let me point out something else, too. This sense of humility, recognizing that we don't know everything, is something that we all do. We go to see a doctor because they know more about medicine and the body than we do. But I, for one, won't just accept any doctor's word for it. They may be a total bozo, for all I know. Or maybe they are in the pocket of the drug corporations and will prescribe something for any reason at all. I just don't know. And so, before I commit myself to the care of a physician, I do a bit of research. I check out their references, usually on-line. I go in and talk to them. While they may think that they are interviewing me to see if I can be their patient, I am also interviewing them to see if they can be my doctor. Once I am satisfied that they are competent, than I will prefer their opinion about my health to my own. Of course, this also requires that I am honest with them and give them regular feedback, for doctor's can make mistakes, too. If a physician prescribes some medicine, I will take it in all faith. But if, by some odd chance, I have an adverse reaction to it, then I will inform them immediately and they will prescribe something else.

The same goes for teachers. If I want to enroll in a course, I want to be sure that the teacher actually knows their subject. I'll look into their credentials and if I am satisfied, then I will take the course, investing both my time and my money. One of the reasons we have universities is so that we don't need to do all that footwork. Once I trust the university's criteria, then I will trust all the professors there.

It was with this open-minded, humble approach that I began my investigation into religions. It took me over 5 years to become convinced that Baha'u'llah's perspective was far superior to my own. There were many things during that time that I disagreed with, but I kept looking. His explanations of other religions convinced me that the differences we see today are either due to the climate in which they were revealed, or misunderstandings after the fact.

Let me give some examples that were used in the comments the other day (just because they were so good). Look at the Trinity. While this may be a fundamental part of some sects of Christianity, it is not part of the original doctrine. It wasn't until the end of the fourth century, after much debate, arguing and even killing, that this concept was formulated in the way we know it today. And so I would argue that it is a sectarian understanding, and not part of the original teachings. You only need to read the New Testament to recognize that the word "trinity" isn't even in there, although it is easy to see some of the basic concepts that led to it. It is easy to pick out the seeds that grew into that tree.

Baptism is another example. While most Christian sects agree that baptism is a good thing, there was much debate over how to do it. Do you sprinkle the water on? Do you immerse the person? And who really cares? Do the one that feels right to you, is my opinion. Does that mean that one is right and the other way is wrong? I don't think so. I believe that it is the intention by which one does the act that is significant.

It was also mentioned that Jews don't accept  that a Messiah has appeared, and therefore the Baha'i Faith denies this basic doctrinal part of Judaism. Well, no. We agree that Jews don't recognize a Messiah, and that is why they are still Jewish. This is part of free-will. We will not force them to accept Jesus, or Muhammad, or even Baha'u'llah. This is their path, and we encourage it. When talking about the importance of the interfaith movement, the Universal House of Justice said, "Far from challenging the validity of any of the great revealed faiths, the principle has the capacity to ensure their continuing relevance." From my understanding, it seems that our role, as Baha'is, is to ensure the relevance of all people's Faiths, and not to try and force them to wear our team jacket. And so many Jews are awaiting the promised Messiah. We encourage them to keep looking, especially in light of their own teachings. But we encourage them to investigate for themselves, and not merely take their leader's word for it, nor even the general feeling of their community. Investigate for yourself, is a primal part of the Baha'i Faith.

Also, in regards to the "finality" is Muhammad within Islam, again this is not part of the doctrine. The Qur'an refers to Muhammad as the Seal of the Prophets. What we understand by that is personal interpretation. Many Muslims see it as a statement of finality, whereas I see it as a statement of position. Sort of like the seal on a bottle of wine. At some point you remove the seal and pour the wine out to drink it. (Unless you're Muslim, Baha'i or a member AA.)

Anyways, this was quite lengthy, but I hope it better explains what I mean when I say that Baha'u'llah has a better perspective than I do. I am not merely giving over all responsibility in my life to Him, for that would be a denial of free-will and... well, responsibility. Instead, it is a recognition that if He says something I don't understand, then I will presume He is correct and seek to try and understand what He means, especially in relation to the rest of His teachings.