Transformation

Such is the potency of the Divine Elixir, which, swift as the twinkling of an eye, transmuteth the souls of men!

...consider the substance of copper...

...the (divine) elixir will, in one instant, cause the substance of copper to attain the state of gold... Could this gold be called copper? Could it be claimed that it hath not attained the state of gold, whilst the touchstone is at hand to assay it and distinguish it from copper?

            Baha'u'llah - Kitab-i-Iqan, paragraphs 164 - 166

 

As some of you may know, a friend and I have been studying the Kitab-i-Iqan for a little while. Well, "a little while" means something like 24 years and counting.

    Aside - Wow. It's been ages since I've had an aside like this. So, back in the day, my friend Samuel and I were sharing an apartment. He was a relatively new Baha'i at the time and asked if, as long as we were living together, we could study the Writings. Naturally I said, "Of course. What would you like to study?" I presumed he would say something like the Hidden Words, or some other short excerpt from the Writings. Nope. "How about the Kitab-i-Iqan?" And so we did. Minimum 2 hours a week, plus any extra time we had in the apartment together. After a few months I ended up getting married, he moved out, and we put our study on hold. When we began again, we realized we had no idea where Baha'u'llah was in His argument in the book, and so we began again. My son was born, so we put it on hold again, and had to start all over again as we, once again, failed to understand where He was in His argument. But this time we decided to keep a record of our study, which you can find here. Anyways, long story short, 24 years later we are still at it, hoping to finish at some point before we are called to the great yonder beyond.

Over the past week, we have been looking at those paragraphs dealing with copper turning into gold. As you can imagine, these paragraphs have been raising a lot of questions, especially as we (humanity) has learned more about what constitutes the various elements. As it smacks of alchemy, many people have outright dismissed it as mere fable, but we've been diving deeper into it.

As you can see from the parts I have chosen to excerpt above, we believe that He is primarily referring to the transformation of the human heart, going from being like base copper to noble gold. You can read more about our thoughts on that in the blog on the Iqan. I am not going to go into it here.

Instead, I want to talk about a thought that occurred to me this morning.

My dear friend Azin made a comment, and asked a question, about the melting points of the two metals, and could this also, somehow, explain what He was referring to. I suspect not, I replied, as heating up the elements to their melting points merely affects the outer electron layers, not the nucleus itself, which is where the transmutation of elements would need to occur.

The nucleus.

The heart.

Hmmm.

    Aside number 2 - As long as I'm putting asides in here, let me just tell a little story about Azin. We were both living in Winnipeg at the time and were standing in the front hall of the local Baha'i Centre, a building chock filled with great memories for me. Anyways, as we were chatting, one of the dear Persian elderly ladies came up to us and, beaming, said how wonderful it was to see "two lions of Faith" talking together. We were both a bit embarrassed as being called such a thing, so I replied, "Yes. Azin is a lion because of his spirit. I'm only a lion because of my hair."

Once again the metaphors Baha'u'llah uses seem to become even more profound the more we dive into them.

It is very easy to make copper look like gold, for a short time. All you need to do is polish it, heat it, or even alloy it. All of these techniques can help. But it will still tarnish. To truly get copper to become gold, you need to add an additional 50 protons and 83 neutrons to the nucleus. Good luck. I mean, we know it's possible, and have even done it in nuclear reactors, but it's difficult. Really difficult. And not worth it, financially.

In other words, superficial changes are easy, but not all that effective or long-lasting.

To really make it change, you need to transform the heart.

And that, dear Reader, is the same for people.

But once the heart has really changed, then it is done. The individual has moved from being like copper, and easily tarnished, to being like pure gold, and ever-shining.

Now I'm also thinking about the tests involved in this, and how a simple chemical reaction is like the everyday tests we all face in our life. But a nuclear reaction is so much more severe, more profound, and I can't even imagine what those tests would be like.

Ah well, that's enough for me to meditate on the rest of this beautiful day, and probably for many more days to come.

I was hoping to end with something witty this morning, but nothing is coming to mind. Sorry. Just pretend I did, smile, perhaps even chuckle a bit, and enjoy the rest of your day.

Oh, and if you have any thoughts of passages for me to consider in this blog, please comment with them. Thanks. :)

The Right Stuff

I woke up this morning about an hour earlier than usual, thinking about the arts and the Right of God.

Strange, eh?

Well, not too strange. I was talking with a friend of mine a few days ago, an artist I'm collaborating with, and she was telling me how the Board of Trustees for Huququ'llah were meeting and talking about integrating the arts. She told them about our collaboration, and how we are basing it on a phrase from the Writings, and that got them thinking. And she wanted to share that with me.

It got me thinking, too, I guess.

It also got me realizing that I've been wanting to get back to writing on this blog on a regular basis, and no time like the present, so I figured this extra hour this morning is a gift, which is a present, right? Let's get to it.

Too often in various communities, the integration of the arts means having a song during prayers. But that isn't integration. It's more like an application, as in how you would apply a bandage to a cut.

Back on 27 December 2005, the House of Justice talked about how a "graceful integration of the arts into diverse activities enhances the surge of energy that mobilizes the believers". Sounds good, right? But what is a "graceful integration"? For that matter, what is integration?

To integrate something means to blend it in so that it becomes part of the whole. In other words, when we add in a song during devotions, we are not integrating the arts. We are just using the arts in one portion. To integrate them, we would need to have our presentation done artfully. We would need to learn to have the room organized in an artful and beautiful way. We would need to offer our contributions in a similarly artful and beautiful manner.

For clarification, art is defined in the Oxford dictionary as "the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination... producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power". When presenting something for the Faith, don't we want it to have "beauty and emotional power"?

In addition to this, Baha'u'llah also tells us in Epistle to the Son of the Wolf that the arts should be "productive of good results, and bring forth their fruit, and (be) conducive to the well-being and tranquility of" all people.

Ok. This all sounds great. But what does it look like?

Great question. Thanks.

For me, if I were being asked to talk about the Right of God, how would I do it?

I guess I would begin with the compilation, and look at the Writings.

When I do this, the first thing I notice is the second quote (don't ask), which tells us "the first duty is to recognize the one true God—magnified be His glory—the second is to show forth constancy in His Cause and, after these, one’s duty is to purify one’s riches and earthly possessions according to that which is prescribed by God."

Recognition first? That sounds familiar. And then constancy, which can be seen as a form of obedience. Recognition and obedience. First paragraph of the Kitab-i-Aqdas. Oh, incidentally, it can also be seen as the part 1 (recognition) and part 2 (obedience) of the Kitab-i-Iqan. Hmmm.

But then, the very next thing after these two is to purify our stuff. So, I guess it can be seen as purify yourself and then purify your stuff.

Now I'm reminded of the Bab's quote about how everything in creation "hath its own heaven".

When I get to the third quote, what strikes out to me is the various Names of God. The Fashioner (the arts?). The Omniscient, the All-Informed (the sciences?). The Beneficent, the Gracious, the Bountiful (how we are to spread these two wings of knowledge?). And then the last set in that paragraph are the Gracious, the Bestower, the Generous, the Ancient of Days.

I also note that these titles are mathematical. First there is 1, then 2, then 3, and then 4. Hmmm.

Ok. From here I continued to read, looking for phrases that jumped out that I could use to create a work of art. But I got all the way to number 9 and nothing really stood out to me. So I went back to number 3 and found "after this fleeting life, your souls soar heavenwards and the trappings of your earthly joys are folded up" and thought yeah, I could work with that.

But then in number 10, I found "the Springtime of benevolent deeds".

Look at these two phrases. Can't you just see the beauty and promise latent within them? How would a dancer portray this? What about a painter? What imagery would she paint?

A farmer could talk about how it reminds her of sowing in the spring. Cast the seeds of this fleeting life in the spring and watch the harvest unfold. Oh, I just love the image.

And I have to tell you, I would find this sort of a presentation far more inspiring than a mathematical one where we learn to calculate 19%.

Beauty. Emotional power. Good results. Bringing forth its fruit.

By looking for an artistic handle to grab onto, the theme of springtime has really leapt out of all this for me. And I have to say, I had never likened the Right of God to the sowing of the seeds in the spring, but I like it.

Yeah, when we truly learn to have a "graceful integration of the arts", I think we will see many more profound and beautiful connections in the Writings.

But graceful, though? I haven't thought of myself as graceful. Especially this early in the morning, and before coffee at that. Maybe I'll leave this here and gracefully head off into my day.

Greetings on this fine and beautiful morning from just north of Quebec City.

Pronoun Troubles

Contrary to what you may think, this is not an article about Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck. Instead, it's about the concept of social capital.

"What is social capital?" I hear you, dear Reader. Social capital is the wealth that is generated from the relationships between people, those networks that enable society to work better, more fluidly.

A recent study looked at the relationship between the common use of pronouns and the social capital in a community. Its findings were intriguing enough for me to write a bit about it, and share how it might relate to the Baha'i writings.

The use of pronouns can tell us a lot about social perspectives. When the first person singular, "I", is used a lot more than the average, it shows a focus on the individual. When the first person plural, "we", becomes dominant in use, it shows a greater tendency towards awareness of the group, or the society.

Seems basic, right?

Well, this remarkable study I mentioned scoured the recent plethora of archives that have been put on the internet and studied just that issue. What they found really surprised me. (I'm sure it surprised others, too, but I can only speak for myself.)

What they noticed was that the use of "we" was prevalent in the US up until the late 1800s, when the use of "I" began to take over. The reasons and implications of this are numerous. For starters, this was the time of the so-called robber barons, who amassed tremendous wealth at the expense of the workers. There was also a general belief in social Darwinism, which held that we shouldn't help the poor, as that would just stave off the natural development of humanity. By letting the poor starve, they believed we were helping advance humanity. Crazy, right? "Let the poor starve and the average wealth goes up." "Let the sick die, and the stronger, healthier genes will win out." It totally overlooks that many advantages of diversity and interconnectedness. But hey, this was the US in the late 1800s. What do you expect?

As you can imagine, though, there were other reasonable people who saw the world differently. They understood that we need to arise to help others. They saw the value of community. And they began to write articles that focused more on the "we".

This is when social clubs, libraries, charities, and all sorts of other community groups really began to take off in great numbers. (Before you go there, yes, we had them before this, but the sheer numbers began to skyrocket at this point.) And you know what? They held out until the mid-1950s. This was when the number of people involved in these activities began to decline. By the 50s, in the US, joining Elks or Rotary, or hanging out at your local community centre began to be seen as uncool. Only nerd went to the library, or so the thinking went.

Interestingly enough, this is also the time when more and more companies began to look at ever-increasing profits. It was only the beginning, mind you, but it was starting.

As we move forward, we can see the number of references to the first person singular begin to jump at an alarming pace.

Oh, one more example. When they were advertising the polio vaccine in the 1950s, that heyday of communal social settings (racism within those settings aside), the ads all talked about helping "protect your neighbours" or "the children in your community". Contrast that to the many ads regarding Covid-19 vaccines, which mostly spoke about the dangers to yourself. You see the problem, right? "Help others" versus "you might get hurt". My, how things have changed.

Today, as you may have guessed, the use of "I" is significantly higher than it was even in the late 1800s. At this point I can just imagine the robot from Lost in Space swinging his arms wildly shouting out "Danger! Danger, Will Robinson." (The old series, not the new one.)

Anyways, more and more of us are becoming aware of the implications of this study, and doing what we can to shift the conversational style back to the "we".

Back around 1900 there was an awareness of the dangers of amassing this great wealth at the expense of others, thinking only about yourself and neglecting the community. More and more people wrote about the importance of community, began studying the benefits of a strong community, focused on the true meaning of social Darwinism that helps the whole community grow, instead of just a few select. After all, Darwinism is not, as commonly believed, survival of the fittest. It is the survival of the species best able to adapt, and community connection helps the whole society adapt more easily.

Today, we are seeing this shift once again.

While there is a significant portion of the population that rabidly believes in the supreme importance of the individual, even at the expense of others, there is a growing awareness of how dangerous this view is. More and more people are beginning to realize that social growth comes from a healthy balance between the rights of the individual, the rights of the society, and the rights of the institutions. And they see that the greatest challenge before us is to find that healthy balance.

There is a reason that the focus of the Baha'i community has moved from individual teaching to the  teaching of communities. As the entire community becomes aware of these teachings, overall conditions improve. As we learn how to work with and encourage each other, to help us all through our many problems and difficulties, the entire society will be on the rise.

But when we live in fear, and focus only on ourselves, then we weaken the bonds of society.

All of this to say that the statement reported by Howard Colby Ives (Portals to Freedom, page 71), now makes far more sense to me

"Any reference to the ego, ('Abdu'l-Baha) once remarked to a small group of the New York friends, any use of "I," "Me," "Mine," will in the future be considered as profanity.

Now I feel like I need to watch some Bug and Daffy cartoons just to lighten the mood a bit.