One of my many joys in life is walking my son to his bus every morning. And while I'm there with him, we get a chance to talk about all sorts of wonderful things.
Today we were talking about math, which, in my mind, is a wonderful thing. We began by talking about the word "abide", which came up in one of our prayers this morning. You remember, in one of the morning prayers, "abide within the sanctuary of Thy protection"? Anyways, we talked about what the word meant, and I related it to his going through some math flash cards last night. He hadn't wanted to do it, claiming they were too difficult. I insisted and there were only 4 or 5 that he didn't know. He abided with my decision to do them, and he discovered that they were a lot easier than he had thought.
This led to a conversation with one of the other parents about how important it is to memorize the basic math tables, and she pointed out other useful skills, like reading a map. I mentioned a friend of ours who cannot read a map, and how he relies on his GPS. "What if it stops working", I asked.
"He'll be lost", replied Shoghi. "And all because he can't read a map. He really should learn."
Well, the conversation went on from there, with the other lady asking me if I had a GPS. "Nope", I replied. "I use a map."
We talked about the reasons for this, and while we both agreed that it is a useful technology, a map is really much easier in many ways. A typical GPS costs around $100, as far as we know, and requires electricity, a satellite connection, and all sorts of other stuff, as opposed to a simple $5 map.
From there we began talking about other "useful" gadgets, like a dishwasher. Presuming that you don't have a large family, neither of us really saw the need for one. A good one costs about $400, takes a lot of resources from the earth, requires maintenance, special soap, and so on and so forth. But what really intrigued her was the idea that it also takes away an opportunity for service to the family.
If we really want to raise a generation that values service to humanity, probably the easiest way to begin is in the home. And in our home, one of the things we do is encourage the simple washing of the dishes.
"O my dear children..." said 'Abdu'l-Baha. "A degree of joy was attained that is beyond words or writing that, praise be to God, the power of the Kingdom of God hath trained such children who, from their early childhood, eagerly wish to acquire Bahá'í education that they may, from the period of their childhood, engage in service to the world of humanity."
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
Monday, January 27, 2014
More on Meditation
I always love the question that come in from friends. They not only help remind me that real people are out there reading this (which I can easily forget sitting here in the office just typing away), but also serve to remind of questions I had long ago that I had forgotten about. (They also help start conversations with friends that I love and probably miss dearly.)
Just yesterday a friend (who is both dearly loved and missed) sent me a wonderful question that had actually never been on my radar. She said, "I've been wanting to 'learn' how to meditate forever but I vacillate from feeling like I should innately know how to do it to wanting to take a class- but not knowing which are 'Baha'i Compatible' which I don't even know what that means!"
The reasons that this was never on my radar are because first of all meditation wasn't really on my radar until I began teaching a workshop on it at UVic, and secondly because it never occurred to me that one would need to learn how to meditate, just as it never occurred to me that one might need to learn to pray. Oh, and a third reason is because it's never occurred to me that something might not be "Baha'i compatible". Whatever that might mean.
To start, let's look at the question of meditation itself and how one might learn it. (And this, of course, just my own opinion and nothing official, so feel free to take it or leave it. I won't be offended.) Well, when learning to do something, one presumes that there is a "correct" way to do it. But I don't think that's the case here. Meditation, as you know, is part of prayer. Shoghi Effendi, in his now-famous five steps of prayer, refers to the first step as prayer and meditation. They are a single step, not two. (For a little bit more about that, click here.) And prayer, presumably along with meditation, is described by 'Abdu'l-Baha as "conversation with God". While there may be some general rules in a conversation, such as allowing the other person to speak, listening attentively, thinking about what you will say before speaking,and so on, there is no hard and fast way to have a conversation. There is no "correct" way. Some styles of conversation may be more effective with some people, but not all methods of communication work for all people. So when learning to meditate, we should keep in mind that there is no "correct" method, just that some methods may be more effective for us.
But even though there is no one "correct" way to meditate, this does not mean that we can't learn anything from others. When I began doing my workshop, I immediately went to the internet and searched out various meditation techniques. One style is to sit in a group and chant a mantra together. Another style is to sit in front of a candle and stare at the flame, trying to clear your mind of any extraneous thoughts. You can do the same thing with a flower. (Staring at the petals, not the flame. If the flower is on fire, that might be more disturbing than anything else.) Another method is to sit quietly in the room and try to listen to absolutely every sound you can. You can take a sip of tea, focusing all your attention on the taste, the scent, the colour, and all other aspects of it. You can walk a labyrinth. The methods are endless.
With most styles of straightforward meditation, the general idea is to quiet that inner voice, that on-going running monologue, and learn to pay more conscious attention to the world both around you and within you. That can often take practice to become better and better at it, so we shouldn't become discouraged. Nor should we expect perfection at it. In fact, we should leave our inner perfectionist at the door.
When I combine this with prayer, it generally looks something like this: There is often something I am praying about, or for. I will select an appropriate prayer from the Writings, for they tend to be more conducive to my state of prayer than if I use my own words. Oh, and using your own words is a totally valid and legitimate way of praying. There are many Baha'is who have told me that we are not allowed to use anything but the revealed prayers of the Central Figures of our Faith, but nobody has ever been able to show me anything in the Writings that supports this view, so I only regard that as their own opinion and not binding. So, I say a prayer, and then I sit in quiet contemplation for a few moments. It is during this time that I allow myself to be even more open than usual for a response. It often takes the form of some random idea that just sort of pops into my head. But again, go back to that other article for more information on that process.
So there we have it. While we may "innately" know some methods of meditating, we can learn new ones by talking with others, and they are all good. I have yet to find any that are not. Some may not be all that useful to me, but I am certain that they are good for others. Unless there is a method I don't know about that goes against some law in the Writings, I would endorse all styles. (Ok. I've never heard of a method that endorses drinking whiskey until you can't think anymore, but if there is one, I would suggest that you skip it and try something else.)
But what about classes? Are there any that are not "Baha'i compatible"? I would interpret that as asking if there are any classes that go explicitly against the Writings. I'm not aware of any. (Well, except for the Jack Daniels meditation method.) But there is a bit of a caution. Some groups use the teaching of meditation to try and convert others to their religion. They are not teaching meditation for the sake of helping others. They have what we would call an ulterior motive, or a hidden agenda. This can make many of us feel uncomfortable. Of course, it is only a problem if you are not strong in your own faith. If you are, you can attend a course like that, learn what you want, and then leave when you are satisfied, all the while ignoring the overt attempts at conversion. And if it annoys you, you are free to leave any time you want.
Aside - This is also a problem for us to be aware of with things like our core activities. When we insist on everyone only using Baha'i Writings in a devotional gathering, then we give the strong feeling that we only accept what we believe in. This can make others uncomfortable. If we are expecting people to become Baha'i in a study circle, then that is our hidden agenda, and others can sense it. Clearly. If we teach children or junior youth with the expectations that they will join the Faith at some point, there is no way that the parents would allow us to help shape their spiritual capacities. So we, too, must be aware of this and avoid it like the plague.
For more information on prayer and meditation in general, you can look at the compilation from the Baha'i World Centre entitled Prayer, Meditation and the Devotional Attitude, or the book The Divine Art of Living, compiled by Paine. Both are excellent resources.
So thanks go to my friend who asked this question. It really got me to think a bit more about it. And now I need to go off and do my workshop, Meditation 101.
Just yesterday a friend (who is both dearly loved and missed) sent me a wonderful question that had actually never been on my radar. She said, "I've been wanting to 'learn' how to meditate forever but I vacillate from feeling like I should innately know how to do it to wanting to take a class- but not knowing which are 'Baha'i Compatible' which I don't even know what that means!"
The reasons that this was never on my radar are because first of all meditation wasn't really on my radar until I began teaching a workshop on it at UVic, and secondly because it never occurred to me that one would need to learn how to meditate, just as it never occurred to me that one might need to learn to pray. Oh, and a third reason is because it's never occurred to me that something might not be "Baha'i compatible". Whatever that might mean.
To start, let's look at the question of meditation itself and how one might learn it. (And this, of course, just my own opinion and nothing official, so feel free to take it or leave it. I won't be offended.) Well, when learning to do something, one presumes that there is a "correct" way to do it. But I don't think that's the case here. Meditation, as you know, is part of prayer. Shoghi Effendi, in his now-famous five steps of prayer, refers to the first step as prayer and meditation. They are a single step, not two. (For a little bit more about that, click here.) And prayer, presumably along with meditation, is described by 'Abdu'l-Baha as "conversation with God". While there may be some general rules in a conversation, such as allowing the other person to speak, listening attentively, thinking about what you will say before speaking,and so on, there is no hard and fast way to have a conversation. There is no "correct" way. Some styles of conversation may be more effective with some people, but not all methods of communication work for all people. So when learning to meditate, we should keep in mind that there is no "correct" method, just that some methods may be more effective for us.
But even though there is no one "correct" way to meditate, this does not mean that we can't learn anything from others. When I began doing my workshop, I immediately went to the internet and searched out various meditation techniques. One style is to sit in a group and chant a mantra together. Another style is to sit in front of a candle and stare at the flame, trying to clear your mind of any extraneous thoughts. You can do the same thing with a flower. (Staring at the petals, not the flame. If the flower is on fire, that might be more disturbing than anything else.) Another method is to sit quietly in the room and try to listen to absolutely every sound you can. You can take a sip of tea, focusing all your attention on the taste, the scent, the colour, and all other aspects of it. You can walk a labyrinth. The methods are endless.
With most styles of straightforward meditation, the general idea is to quiet that inner voice, that on-going running monologue, and learn to pay more conscious attention to the world both around you and within you. That can often take practice to become better and better at it, so we shouldn't become discouraged. Nor should we expect perfection at it. In fact, we should leave our inner perfectionist at the door.
When I combine this with prayer, it generally looks something like this: There is often something I am praying about, or for. I will select an appropriate prayer from the Writings, for they tend to be more conducive to my state of prayer than if I use my own words. Oh, and using your own words is a totally valid and legitimate way of praying. There are many Baha'is who have told me that we are not allowed to use anything but the revealed prayers of the Central Figures of our Faith, but nobody has ever been able to show me anything in the Writings that supports this view, so I only regard that as their own opinion and not binding. So, I say a prayer, and then I sit in quiet contemplation for a few moments. It is during this time that I allow myself to be even more open than usual for a response. It often takes the form of some random idea that just sort of pops into my head. But again, go back to that other article for more information on that process.
So there we have it. While we may "innately" know some methods of meditating, we can learn new ones by talking with others, and they are all good. I have yet to find any that are not. Some may not be all that useful to me, but I am certain that they are good for others. Unless there is a method I don't know about that goes against some law in the Writings, I would endorse all styles. (Ok. I've never heard of a method that endorses drinking whiskey until you can't think anymore, but if there is one, I would suggest that you skip it and try something else.)
But what about classes? Are there any that are not "Baha'i compatible"? I would interpret that as asking if there are any classes that go explicitly against the Writings. I'm not aware of any. (Well, except for the Jack Daniels meditation method.) But there is a bit of a caution. Some groups use the teaching of meditation to try and convert others to their religion. They are not teaching meditation for the sake of helping others. They have what we would call an ulterior motive, or a hidden agenda. This can make many of us feel uncomfortable. Of course, it is only a problem if you are not strong in your own faith. If you are, you can attend a course like that, learn what you want, and then leave when you are satisfied, all the while ignoring the overt attempts at conversion. And if it annoys you, you are free to leave any time you want.
Aside - This is also a problem for us to be aware of with things like our core activities. When we insist on everyone only using Baha'i Writings in a devotional gathering, then we give the strong feeling that we only accept what we believe in. This can make others uncomfortable. If we are expecting people to become Baha'i in a study circle, then that is our hidden agenda, and others can sense it. Clearly. If we teach children or junior youth with the expectations that they will join the Faith at some point, there is no way that the parents would allow us to help shape their spiritual capacities. So we, too, must be aware of this and avoid it like the plague.
For more information on prayer and meditation in general, you can look at the compilation from the Baha'i World Centre entitled Prayer, Meditation and the Devotional Attitude, or the book The Divine Art of Living, compiled by Paine. Both are excellent resources.
So thanks go to my friend who asked this question. It really got me to think a bit more about it. And now I need to go off and do my workshop, Meditation 101.
Sunday, January 26, 2014
Disappointment
"The Baha'is will disappoint you."
I could not, for the life of me, figure out why she was telling me this.She had been slowly and patiently teaching me the Faith for years and I had just declared less than an hour earlier. And now, here she was, telling me that the Baha'is would disappoint me. Was she trying to discourage me from staying within the Faith?
"No matter what happens", she went on, "always look to the Writings, not the people. The Writings will never disappoint you. Baha'is will disappoint, but Baha'u'llah never will."
To say that this was drilled into me may, perhaps, be a bit of an understatement. But you know what? She was right. And I praise her wisdom and foresight in warning me. (I also thank God, but she was the one who really carried that message to me, so I thank my teacher, too.)
Time and again over the years, I saw the truth of this. Over and over I found the Baha'is disappointed me. And I'm sure that I've disappointed my fair share across the years, too.
Now, to be fair, there are more times that the Baha'is impressed me far beyond belief (perhaps not the best phrase to use here, but I already typed it). Throughout my years within the Faith I have been very impressed with the quality of love, unity, insights, action, and I can really go on and on, but I don't want to tempt anyone out there with their ego.
But I have also had my share of disappointments. And if my teacher had not drilled into me the fact that this would happen, I might not be here today typing this.
From Ruhi Book 1, we all know the famous line from Baha'u'llah, "Nothing whatsoever can, in this Day, inflict a greater harm upon this Cause than dissension and strife, contention, estrangement and apathy, among the loved ones of God", but that doesn't warn us about the tests we seem to impose upon each other.
Baha'u'llah, in a few of His writings, points this out to us this test that we will likely face. "The imprisonment inflicted on this wronged One, O Dhabih, did to Him no harm nor can it ever do so; nor can the loss of all His earthly goods, His exile, or even His martyrdom and outward humiliation, do Him any hurt. That which can hurt Him are the evil deeds which the beloved of God commit..." "My captivity cannot harm Me. That which can harm Me is the conduct of those who love Me, who claim to be related to Me, and yet perpetrate what causeth My heart and My pen to groan." "My captivity can bring on Me no shame. Nay, by My life, it conferreth on Me glory. That which can make Me ashamed is the conduct of such of My followers as profess to love Me, yet in fact follow the Evil One."
We never really think of ourselves as those who could possibly commit those evil deeds. And while He may be referring to some other things, some heinous deeds perpetrated by the friends, such as that ludicrous attempt on the life of the Shah by some depraved Babis, we should also recall that He considers backbiting "grievous error". He says that it "quencheth the light of the heart, and extinguisheth the life of the soul." "How
couldst thou forget thine own faults", He writes, "and busy thyself with the faults of others? Whoso doeth this is accursed of Me." "Accursed" is a very strong term, and may seem too strong, but if we look at the results of being accursed, then it is quite appropriate.
"If any soul speak ill of an absent one," says 'Abdu'l-Baha, "the only result will clearly be this: he will dampen the zeal of the friends and tend to make them indifferent. For backbiting is divisive, it is the leading cause among the friends of a disposition to withdraw... (I)t would make the dust to settle so thickly on the heart that the ears would hear no more, and the eyes would no longer behold the light of truth."
So why am I writing about this? Because I think it is important.
I have seen too many friends pull away from the Faith because of something another Baha'i did.
Aside - I was once asked to breakfast with a couple of friends and their daughter. She was struggling with some issue and they wanted to know if I could answer her. It was a very common problem, and she explained it really well. But then, out of nowhere, she said that she had been told all people who do this thing would "go to hell".
"Who said that", I asked.
"My Sunday class teacher."
"Well, I think your teacher was wrong. First, we don't believe in a hell in that way, and second, there is nothing that says that people who do that will go there. This is what it says in the Writings", and I handed her some quotes. I was prepared for that question, but not in that way.
"Well, yes," she replied, "but my teacher said this."
"So who are you going to believe? Your teacher or the Writings?"
"My teacher."
What can you say to that? She was putting her faith in her teacher, instead of in the Writings. I tried to explain that we individuals are prone to error, present writer perhaps moreso than others, but that the Writings are always true. And while she didn't accept that, it did serve to remind me that we have to be extremely careful not to include our personal opinion when teaching, especially when teaching children.
Another friend of mine has become quite antagonistic towards the community, even though he still loves the Writings, prays regularly, and on and on. Over the years certain Baha'is had said some very bozoid things to him, and he has just decided that he can really live without the community.
Now, in both of these cases the people involved have severed themselves from the community, and it seems to me that it is because of what we in the Baha'i community did to them. We either said something silly, or did something thoughtless, and the effect was to turn someone away. And these were people who were actually within the embrace of the Faith. Imagine how our friends from the Greater Community must feel?
So, when I am teaching others, I always remind them that, yes, the Baha'is will disappoint you. For we will. Not on purpose, but through our carelessness.
The Writings, however, will not. They will never disappoint.
I could not, for the life of me, figure out why she was telling me this.She had been slowly and patiently teaching me the Faith for years and I had just declared less than an hour earlier. And now, here she was, telling me that the Baha'is would disappoint me. Was she trying to discourage me from staying within the Faith?
"No matter what happens", she went on, "always look to the Writings, not the people. The Writings will never disappoint you. Baha'is will disappoint, but Baha'u'llah never will."
To say that this was drilled into me may, perhaps, be a bit of an understatement. But you know what? She was right. And I praise her wisdom and foresight in warning me. (I also thank God, but she was the one who really carried that message to me, so I thank my teacher, too.)
Time and again over the years, I saw the truth of this. Over and over I found the Baha'is disappointed me. And I'm sure that I've disappointed my fair share across the years, too.
Now, to be fair, there are more times that the Baha'is impressed me far beyond belief (perhaps not the best phrase to use here, but I already typed it). Throughout my years within the Faith I have been very impressed with the quality of love, unity, insights, action, and I can really go on and on, but I don't want to tempt anyone out there with their ego.
But I have also had my share of disappointments. And if my teacher had not drilled into me the fact that this would happen, I might not be here today typing this.
From Ruhi Book 1, we all know the famous line from Baha'u'llah, "Nothing whatsoever can, in this Day, inflict a greater harm upon this Cause than dissension and strife, contention, estrangement and apathy, among the loved ones of God", but that doesn't warn us about the tests we seem to impose upon each other.
Baha'u'llah, in a few of His writings, points this out to us this test that we will likely face. "The imprisonment inflicted on this wronged One, O Dhabih, did to Him no harm nor can it ever do so; nor can the loss of all His earthly goods, His exile, or even His martyrdom and outward humiliation, do Him any hurt. That which can hurt Him are the evil deeds which the beloved of God commit..." "My captivity cannot harm Me. That which can harm Me is the conduct of those who love Me, who claim to be related to Me, and yet perpetrate what causeth My heart and My pen to groan." "My captivity can bring on Me no shame. Nay, by My life, it conferreth on Me glory. That which can make Me ashamed is the conduct of such of My followers as profess to love Me, yet in fact follow the Evil One."
We never really think of ourselves as those who could possibly commit those evil deeds. And while He may be referring to some other things, some heinous deeds perpetrated by the friends, such as that ludicrous attempt on the life of the Shah by some depraved Babis, we should also recall that He considers backbiting "grievous error". He says that it "quencheth the light of the heart, and extinguisheth the life of the soul." "How
couldst thou forget thine own faults", He writes, "and busy thyself with the faults of others? Whoso doeth this is accursed of Me." "Accursed" is a very strong term, and may seem too strong, but if we look at the results of being accursed, then it is quite appropriate.
"If any soul speak ill of an absent one," says 'Abdu'l-Baha, "the only result will clearly be this: he will dampen the zeal of the friends and tend to make them indifferent. For backbiting is divisive, it is the leading cause among the friends of a disposition to withdraw... (I)t would make the dust to settle so thickly on the heart that the ears would hear no more, and the eyes would no longer behold the light of truth."
So why am I writing about this? Because I think it is important.
I have seen too many friends pull away from the Faith because of something another Baha'i did.
Aside - I was once asked to breakfast with a couple of friends and their daughter. She was struggling with some issue and they wanted to know if I could answer her. It was a very common problem, and she explained it really well. But then, out of nowhere, she said that she had been told all people who do this thing would "go to hell".
"Who said that", I asked.
"My Sunday class teacher."
"Well, I think your teacher was wrong. First, we don't believe in a hell in that way, and second, there is nothing that says that people who do that will go there. This is what it says in the Writings", and I handed her some quotes. I was prepared for that question, but not in that way.
"Well, yes," she replied, "but my teacher said this."
"So who are you going to believe? Your teacher or the Writings?"
"My teacher."
What can you say to that? She was putting her faith in her teacher, instead of in the Writings. I tried to explain that we individuals are prone to error, present writer perhaps moreso than others, but that the Writings are always true. And while she didn't accept that, it did serve to remind me that we have to be extremely careful not to include our personal opinion when teaching, especially when teaching children.
Another friend of mine has become quite antagonistic towards the community, even though he still loves the Writings, prays regularly, and on and on. Over the years certain Baha'is had said some very bozoid things to him, and he has just decided that he can really live without the community.
Now, in both of these cases the people involved have severed themselves from the community, and it seems to me that it is because of what we in the Baha'i community did to them. We either said something silly, or did something thoughtless, and the effect was to turn someone away. And these were people who were actually within the embrace of the Faith. Imagine how our friends from the Greater Community must feel?
So, when I am teaching others, I always remind them that, yes, the Baha'is will disappoint you. For we will. Not on purpose, but through our carelessness.
The Writings, however, will not. They will never disappoint.
Thursday, January 23, 2014
That Extra Mile
"There are so many things that we miss in the Bible, such as your interpretation of turn the other cheek, or like going the extra mile."
This was said by a dear friend of mine who grew up Christian. We talk about religion at least once a week, and this week he offhandedly mentioned how a lot of people misquote the phrase "go the extra mile".
Well, he had one on me there. I didn't know it came from the Bible. Or perhaps I did, somewhere deep down in the murky pit of my memory, but it sounded like new information to me. I must have mumbled something affirmative, and then, when I hung up the phone, made a quick search for that phrase.
And it surprised me. I mean, it's not like I think of myself as a Bible scholar or anything, but I'm not ignorant of it either.
So, where does "Go the extra mile" come from? Matthew 5:41. And that was what surprised me.
Why? Simple, really. This was actually a passage I thought I was familiar with. You may recall an article I wrote a while back about "turn the other cheek", and how it is really a much deeper phrase then we often think. (You can click here for that article.)
If you don't want to read the whole article, the relevant point in it is that "turn the other cheek" is not actually there in the Bible. Matthew 5:39, which is in the middle of the Sermon on the Mount, reads "but I say unto you, resist not him that is evil: but whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." And if you actually act it out, pretending to strike someone on the right cheek, then you notice that you have to use your right hand in a backhanded slap. It isn't an act of anger, but an act of insult. You can read the rest for yourself, but suffice it to say that it has a far deeper implication than the usual "If someone slugs you, let him slug you again."
The following verse amplifies this: And if any man would go to law with thee, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
Here we are talking about someone suing you in a court of law literally for the shirt off your back. This was legal at the time, and a fairly good way to get repayment for a debt since the shirt would have been handmade, and probably the most valuable possession someone had. The cloak, however, was more important, since it likely doubled as a blanket in the cold night. And it was not legal to sue for the cloak, it being protected by a law in Exodus 22:26 - 27 (see, I do know a bit about the Bible).
But here Jesus is saying that you should give them your cloak, too. Unasked. The net result of this would likely have you standing naked before your peers, as well as freezing your now-exposed buttocks off at night, thus elevating the situation to being at the point of discomfort for the one suing.
I go into this a bit in that article, so I won't do it here.
What I never noticed, though, was the very next verse, Matthew 5:41. "And whosoever shall compel thee to go one mile, go with him two."
When just looking at that phrase on its own, I guess I would think of it as the meaning I learned growing up: Do more than what is expected of you.
Now, however, seeing it in this context, I wonder. Could there be more to it than I suspected?
The simple answer is, "Of course."
You see, I googled it to try and get a bit of conetext, and what I didn't know was that it was fairly common for the Roman legions to "compel" people to do certain tasks. This was evidently a big issue for the Jewish rebels of the time, as I'm sure it would be for me today. It was, in fact, one of their main complaints about the Roman occupation of Jerusalem, and something they desperately wanted to get overturned. And just as they expected the Messiah to come as a warrior and physically boot the Romans out, they also expected that He would demand the cessation of this law.
And what does Jesus do? Practically the exact opposite. (This is one of the many reason why the whole "What would Jesus do" thing drives me up a wall. He's a Messenger of God, for His sake. There's no way we would know what He would do.) He tells us not only to do what is requested of us, no matter unjust it may seem, but to go beyond what is asked. It is, in a sense, radiant acquiescence.
Now, the reason we were talking about this is because we were reading a bit of the Kitab-i-Iqan, and ran across the story of Muhammad changing the Qiblih, the point towards which you face when praying. Like all before Him, He would face Jerusalem. But one day, some of the Jewish leaders were backbiting or gossiping about Him, and He began to resent it. Knowing that it doesn't really matter which way you turn your body, He wanted to change the point of adoration, but didn't. Later, when He was getting ready to pray, so the story goes, the Voice of Gabriel said to Him, "We behold Thee from above, turning Thy face to heaven; but We will have Thee turn to a Qiblih which shall please Thee." But even then, He still turned to Jerusalem. It was only later, after the backbiting continued, when the angel said to Him, "Turn Thou Thy face towards the sacred Mosque", that He faced Mecca. And then He did it in the middle of the prayer, as soon as He was told to do it.
What struck us was that He had the permission to choose His own Qiblih, but would not make the choice on His own. He would never do anything without God's express permission. So even though He wanted to face somewhere else, He waited until Gabriel told Him to turn to Mecca. And then His obedience was instant.
So, what does this have to do with that phrase from Jesus? Well, maybe not all that much. But we saw the connection because of the concept of obedience, to either the Messenger or to God, and the fact that both were tests to those who followed.
The question, though, is how can we go that extra mile?
This was said by a dear friend of mine who grew up Christian. We talk about religion at least once a week, and this week he offhandedly mentioned how a lot of people misquote the phrase "go the extra mile".
Well, he had one on me there. I didn't know it came from the Bible. Or perhaps I did, somewhere deep down in the murky pit of my memory, but it sounded like new information to me. I must have mumbled something affirmative, and then, when I hung up the phone, made a quick search for that phrase.
And it surprised me. I mean, it's not like I think of myself as a Bible scholar or anything, but I'm not ignorant of it either.
So, where does "Go the extra mile" come from? Matthew 5:41. And that was what surprised me.
Why? Simple, really. This was actually a passage I thought I was familiar with. You may recall an article I wrote a while back about "turn the other cheek", and how it is really a much deeper phrase then we often think. (You can click here for that article.)
If you don't want to read the whole article, the relevant point in it is that "turn the other cheek" is not actually there in the Bible. Matthew 5:39, which is in the middle of the Sermon on the Mount, reads "but I say unto you, resist not him that is evil: but whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." And if you actually act it out, pretending to strike someone on the right cheek, then you notice that you have to use your right hand in a backhanded slap. It isn't an act of anger, but an act of insult. You can read the rest for yourself, but suffice it to say that it has a far deeper implication than the usual "If someone slugs you, let him slug you again."
The following verse amplifies this: And if any man would go to law with thee, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
Here we are talking about someone suing you in a court of law literally for the shirt off your back. This was legal at the time, and a fairly good way to get repayment for a debt since the shirt would have been handmade, and probably the most valuable possession someone had. The cloak, however, was more important, since it likely doubled as a blanket in the cold night. And it was not legal to sue for the cloak, it being protected by a law in Exodus 22:26 - 27 (see, I do know a bit about the Bible).
But here Jesus is saying that you should give them your cloak, too. Unasked. The net result of this would likely have you standing naked before your peers, as well as freezing your now-exposed buttocks off at night, thus elevating the situation to being at the point of discomfort for the one suing.
I go into this a bit in that article, so I won't do it here.
What I never noticed, though, was the very next verse, Matthew 5:41. "And whosoever shall compel thee to go one mile, go with him two."
When just looking at that phrase on its own, I guess I would think of it as the meaning I learned growing up: Do more than what is expected of you.
Now, however, seeing it in this context, I wonder. Could there be more to it than I suspected?
The simple answer is, "Of course."
You see, I googled it to try and get a bit of conetext, and what I didn't know was that it was fairly common for the Roman legions to "compel" people to do certain tasks. This was evidently a big issue for the Jewish rebels of the time, as I'm sure it would be for me today. It was, in fact, one of their main complaints about the Roman occupation of Jerusalem, and something they desperately wanted to get overturned. And just as they expected the Messiah to come as a warrior and physically boot the Romans out, they also expected that He would demand the cessation of this law.
And what does Jesus do? Practically the exact opposite. (This is one of the many reason why the whole "What would Jesus do" thing drives me up a wall. He's a Messenger of God, for His sake. There's no way we would know what He would do.) He tells us not only to do what is requested of us, no matter unjust it may seem, but to go beyond what is asked. It is, in a sense, radiant acquiescence.
Now, the reason we were talking about this is because we were reading a bit of the Kitab-i-Iqan, and ran across the story of Muhammad changing the Qiblih, the point towards which you face when praying. Like all before Him, He would face Jerusalem. But one day, some of the Jewish leaders were backbiting or gossiping about Him, and He began to resent it. Knowing that it doesn't really matter which way you turn your body, He wanted to change the point of adoration, but didn't. Later, when He was getting ready to pray, so the story goes, the Voice of Gabriel said to Him, "We behold Thee from above, turning Thy face to heaven; but We will have Thee turn to a Qiblih which shall please Thee." But even then, He still turned to Jerusalem. It was only later, after the backbiting continued, when the angel said to Him, "Turn Thou Thy face towards the sacred Mosque", that He faced Mecca. And then He did it in the middle of the prayer, as soon as He was told to do it.
What struck us was that He had the permission to choose His own Qiblih, but would not make the choice on His own. He would never do anything without God's express permission. So even though He wanted to face somewhere else, He waited until Gabriel told Him to turn to Mecca. And then His obedience was instant.
So, what does this have to do with that phrase from Jesus? Well, maybe not all that much. But we saw the connection because of the concept of obedience, to either the Messenger or to God, and the fact that both were tests to those who followed.
The question, though, is how can we go that extra mile?
Monday, January 20, 2014
A New Day
"Why does the Baha'i day begin at sunset? Why not midnight? Or sunrise?"
While it would be easy to say that it just is because Baha'u'llah said so, I truly believe that everything within the Faith is far more profound than that.
And what perfect timing for the question. I'm just reading a book called "Time and the Baha'i Era" by Gerald Keil, and this is exactly the sort of question that seems to get addressed in this book. But, to be honest, the first 70 pages or so are an intensely scientific and historical discussion about the various mathematical and... uhm... historical stuffs involved in figuring out a calendar system. And while this is fascinating to some, it can get overwhelming or tedious for others. But trust me, it is well worth it. This is a book I highly recommend.
Anyways, back to the question. Why does the day begin at sunset?
Well, to start, taking a tactic from this book, let's ask ourselves why the day in our culture begins at midnight. Basically there are four distinct times that we can use to begin a day: midnight, noon, sunrise and sunset. Midnight is useful in that it allows us to change a date when most of us are asleep. But the problem is how do we calculate midnight? Without a clock, this is a far more difficult thing than I had ever considered. I mean, it's a chore, and dang near impossible. So unless you want to base your system on a man-made mechanical device, midnight ain't all that great an option. (Ok. If you really want to, you can take a very, very long string, tie it to a post and begin walking just as the sun sets. If you keep a perfectly even pace, then you can mark the string when the sun rises. Cut the string in half, wait a year, and walk again at exactly the same pace on exactly the same day the following year and when you get halfway, you'll know it's midnight.) (Never mind.)
So let's turn to noon for a moment. It is not all that difficult to calculate noon. You only need to measure the shadow of a stick and figure out when it begins to change direction. But without a clock, how can you easily calculate midnight? While noon is far easier, it has the downside of changing the date in the middle of the time when most of us are awake, so that is kind of not a good option.
Really, the only reasonable choices, if you want to base your system on some sort of natural phenomenon, are sunrise and sunset. And while the obvious problem is that sunrise and sunset change time each day, or are just absent in the polar regions, they have the advantage of being evident to the casual observer. And the changing time thing can be easily side-stepped by just ignoring it. In other words, have a clock that is not tied to the date (which is what Baha'u'llah has done).
So, sunrise? Reasonable, but sunset has far more interesting implications. And what are those implications? Well, let's take a look.
The Baha'i Faith is nothing if not optimistic. And everything within the Faith revolves around God. God, as you know, can be symbolized by the sun. So it only makes sense that everything within the Baha'i calendar is based upon the sun.
With me so far?
Well, the entire calendar system is solar based. Every other calendar system out there has some tie to the moon, usually through the months, but even some base their years on the moon. But not the Baha'i calendar. Our months, as you know, are 19 days long, which has no basis on anything except perhaps math (19 x 19, or 361, is the closet perfect square to 365) or the numerical values of some letters in Arabic (such as the word "vahid", or unity, totals 19). (In the tarot cards, the 19th card in the major arcana is also the sun, so it works there, too.)
So if the whole system is based on the sun, which is a symbol for God, then we can either say that we begin with the light and move towards the darkness of the evening, or we can begin in the dark and move towards the light. Guess which one it is?
So why sunset? Because the day is just like our life. We begin in the darkness of ignorance, and move gradually towards the light of certitude. (I could throw in all sorts of quotes and other analogies here, but I don't want to bore you.)
When I searched the Writings for such phrases as "the light of", and thought about them in terms of the day, this simple calendar system of ours became even more profound than I first thought.
While it would be easy to say that it just is because Baha'u'llah said so, I truly believe that everything within the Faith is far more profound than that.
And what perfect timing for the question. I'm just reading a book called "Time and the Baha'i Era" by Gerald Keil, and this is exactly the sort of question that seems to get addressed in this book. But, to be honest, the first 70 pages or so are an intensely scientific and historical discussion about the various mathematical and... uhm... historical stuffs involved in figuring out a calendar system. And while this is fascinating to some, it can get overwhelming or tedious for others. But trust me, it is well worth it. This is a book I highly recommend.
Anyways, back to the question. Why does the day begin at sunset?
Well, to start, taking a tactic from this book, let's ask ourselves why the day in our culture begins at midnight. Basically there are four distinct times that we can use to begin a day: midnight, noon, sunrise and sunset. Midnight is useful in that it allows us to change a date when most of us are asleep. But the problem is how do we calculate midnight? Without a clock, this is a far more difficult thing than I had ever considered. I mean, it's a chore, and dang near impossible. So unless you want to base your system on a man-made mechanical device, midnight ain't all that great an option. (Ok. If you really want to, you can take a very, very long string, tie it to a post and begin walking just as the sun sets. If you keep a perfectly even pace, then you can mark the string when the sun rises. Cut the string in half, wait a year, and walk again at exactly the same pace on exactly the same day the following year and when you get halfway, you'll know it's midnight.) (Never mind.)
So let's turn to noon for a moment. It is not all that difficult to calculate noon. You only need to measure the shadow of a stick and figure out when it begins to change direction. But without a clock, how can you easily calculate midnight? While noon is far easier, it has the downside of changing the date in the middle of the time when most of us are awake, so that is kind of not a good option.
Really, the only reasonable choices, if you want to base your system on some sort of natural phenomenon, are sunrise and sunset. And while the obvious problem is that sunrise and sunset change time each day, or are just absent in the polar regions, they have the advantage of being evident to the casual observer. And the changing time thing can be easily side-stepped by just ignoring it. In other words, have a clock that is not tied to the date (which is what Baha'u'llah has done).
So, sunrise? Reasonable, but sunset has far more interesting implications. And what are those implications? Well, let's take a look.
The Baha'i Faith is nothing if not optimistic. And everything within the Faith revolves around God. God, as you know, can be symbolized by the sun. So it only makes sense that everything within the Baha'i calendar is based upon the sun.
With me so far?
Well, the entire calendar system is solar based. Every other calendar system out there has some tie to the moon, usually through the months, but even some base their years on the moon. But not the Baha'i calendar. Our months, as you know, are 19 days long, which has no basis on anything except perhaps math (19 x 19, or 361, is the closet perfect square to 365) or the numerical values of some letters in Arabic (such as the word "vahid", or unity, totals 19). (In the tarot cards, the 19th card in the major arcana is also the sun, so it works there, too.)
So if the whole system is based on the sun, which is a symbol for God, then we can either say that we begin with the light and move towards the darkness of the evening, or we can begin in the dark and move towards the light. Guess which one it is?
So why sunset? Because the day is just like our life. We begin in the darkness of ignorance, and move gradually towards the light of certitude. (I could throw in all sorts of quotes and other analogies here, but I don't want to bore you.)
When I searched the Writings for such phrases as "the light of", and thought about them in terms of the day, this simple calendar system of ours became even more profound than I first thought.
Saturday, January 18, 2014
The Outstanding Characteristics of a Decadent Society
Ok. Let's check that last quote again.
That's quite the list, isn't it? 10 separate things, not including the sub-sections. Well, I don't know about you, but I'd like to look at them one at a time, perhaps see what they are and what we can do about them. (Addition: This was really hard to do. I felt overwhelmed during most of the writing of this one, but I think I got past that. Let me know what you think. Thanks.)
First, though, there is the beginning of the sentence itself: "The recrudescence". That just means the revival of, or breakout again, of something you thought had gone away, kind of like a disease. In other words, we thought we got rid of these things, but here they are again. Now on to the list itself.
1. "of religious intolerance, of racial animosity, and of patriotic arrogance" - This is the old habit of thinking that "we" are somehow better than "them". Whether it is based on our religion, the colour of our skin, or what particular stretch of land saw our birth, it doesn't matter. They are all barriers to peace, whether within the heart of the individual or between countries. And while we may have thought that these prejudices were on the way out, we have seen them come back with a vengeance in the past few years. We can all, however, take steps in our own lives to overcome this tendency that has rooted itself so deeply in our world. And while a few would argue that only the "oppressor" can be racist, anyone can show animosity. Our goal should be to show love to all, regardless of their background.
2. "the increasing evidences of selfishness, of suspicion, of fear and of fraud" - We only need to look at the increasing divide between the rich and the poor, and the subsequent dissolving of the middle class, to see that this is happening. There have been many more instances in the past few years of fraud by bankers, investors, and other high profile groups of people that suspicion is increasing faster than ever. The news stories that can be referenced here regarding people of all classes and societies defy description. For ourselves, we can strive to be trustworthy and beyond reproach, freeing ourselves from both the bane of materialism as well as stain of paranoia.
3. "the spread of terrorism, of lawlessness, of drunkenness and of crime" - These speak of personal behaviour on a more general level. While not everyone will be able to defraud a bank, or a nation, of millions of dollars, everyone can afford to get drunk to escape the problems in their lives. And while we may think of terrorism as an organized response to a perceived injustice, road rage can be just as terrifying for those involved. In response, we can try to maintain our calm and composure, not allowing anything to disturb us as we strive to live according to the laws of the land and the ideals of our faith. Deep heartfelt prayer, along with that companion of prayer, meditation, will go a long way to helping us find that sense of calm within our lives. Once we recognize this within our own life, then we can better help others find it within theirs.
4. "the unquenchable thirst for, and the feverish pursuit after, earthly vanities, riches and pleasures" - Black Friday. Need I say more? I mean, of course I can say more, but I think I'll leave it there. To overcome this, though, is to remain detached and recognize that all these "earthly vanities" are but dust in the end. And while it is ok to have possessions, and pursue noble goals, we should be satisfied with what we have and dedicate our time to more worthy ends.
5. "the weakening of family solidarity" - I find it interesting that 5, 6 and 8 are all separate, for I would have thought them tied together. But since the Guardian separates them, I'll look at them individually, although not comprehensively. For the longest time historically, our family was our closest bond. How often were things done to protect and secure the family, whether it was a brother or a parent, a sister or a child? We stood beside our family, through thick or thin, and they stood by us. It was a bond that could long be counted on. Today, however, it seems that we are almost estranged from our family. Many of us, myself included, live far from our families and don't see them on a regular basis. Perhaps our work takes us away from them for too many hours per week, or we no longer spend a reasonable amount of time with them on weekends. Maybe we're even working every weekend. Whatever the reasons, the solidarity of the family has been noticeably weakened. One solution to this is to be more moderate in our work, and spend more time with our family, especially being certain to pray together. That spiritual bond will conquer so much else in this world.
6. "the laxity in parental control" - It seems to me that we are afraid to discipline our children today. We almost seem to think that the rights of the individual secures the rights of children to behave however they wish. And while I am in no way advocating striking children to coerce them into some sort of semblance of good behaviour, I do believe that children need to learn appropriate boundaries from day one. A simple chastisement to a child who has been shown an abundance of love since they were an infant can do wonders for correcting behaviour, when needed. Without the time, however, to develop those intimate bonds of family love, any other sort of discipline will fall far short of being effective.
7. "the lapse into luxurious indulgence" - At first I would have thought this tied to number 4, but I now realize that it really is quite different. The former was a feverish pursuit after these things. Here it is a slip into it, almost accidental. The former you have to work for, while this one comes from not being aware. It is almost as if we take these luxuries for granted. I remember a friend of mine who lost their job and was having trouble making ends meet. But it never occurred to them to get rid of the cable tv. One solution for this, to me, is the Right of God. When we examine our lives, and consciously recognize what things we have that are necessary, then we become more aware of those things we have that are luxuries, and can then make more conscious choices about what we choose to spend our money and attention on.
8. "the irresponsible attitude towards marriage and the consequent rising tide of divorce" - Well, divorce is on the rise. There is no denying that. I shudder to think of the number of people I know who got on well, were perhaps in love with each other, and thought "Might as well get married". There was little or no getting to know each other's character, and the honest thought that if it didn't work out they could always get divorced. But when you see marriage as an eternal bond, you are less likely to just jump into it. So for me, studying what the Writings say about marriage, and taking one's vow more seriously, curbs this tendency.
9. "the degeneracy of art and music, the infection of literature, and the corruption of the press" - Again, we only need to look at the movies out there, or the books, or the art, to see this. We can even look at those so-called news outlets that are nothing more than obscene forms of entertainment, as opposed to being vehicles for information, to recognize their destructive nature. Baha'u'llah, in His tablet to the London Times says that they should "investigate the truth", and in Epsitle to the Son of the Wolf says that the arts should be "conducive to the well-being and tranquility of men". If we choose our arts and news sources carefully, then simple economics will move them back to where they belong, for those other media outlets will no longer find so willing an audience.
10. "the extension of the influence and activities of those 'prophets of decadence' who advocate companionate marriage, who preach the philosophy of nudism, who call modesty an intellectual fiction, who refuse to regard the procreation of children as the sacred and primary purpose of marriage, who denounce religion as an opiate of the people, who would, if given free rein, lead back the human race to barbarism, chaos, and ultimate extinction" -
Oh, there is so much in this last paragraph, and some surprising things that are not there. But looking at these one at a time revealed much to me that I was unaware of. Companionate marriage, which I had thought of as common law marriage, is actually often defined as "a marriage in which the partners decide not to have children, and to reserve the right to divorce amicably with mutual consent". This is quite different from a marriage in which the couple is unable to have children, for it is a conscious choice, as well as an apparently temporary arrangement.
One of the basic tenets of the philosophy of nudism is that modesty has no place in our culture. And while the Baha'i Faith does not condone "any form of asceticism, or of excessive and bigoted puritanism", it does place a high value on modesty, citing it as one of the ways we can help teach others.
While children are not the sole reason for a marriage, as is evidenced by the Guardian's own marriage, they are the primary reason. The institution of marriage is the foundation of the family. And this is to differentiate a marriage in the Baha'i sense from any other form of life-long companionship, which is often called a marriage in our culture. (I have a very difficult time expressing this, but trust that you can sense what I mean.)
Finally, religion should not be an opiate that dulls the senses. It should be something that stimulates the soul to greater heights, and carries us beyond what we ever thought possible. Whereas an opiate lulls into a sense of lifelessness, faith, as defined by the Master, is conscious knowledge in action. "By God, this is the arena of
insight and detachment, of vision and upliftment, where none may spur on their chargers save the valiant horsemen of the Merciful, who have severed all attachment to the world of being."
So this last paragraph reminds me of the high moral standard to which we are called, and that this is not a call to some sort of sitting around feeling good about ourselves. It is a call to action. And there is also the continual reminder that we are not to fall into fanaticism, but an upholding of the Baha'i standard with moderation and respect towards others.
The recrudescence of religious intolerance, of racial animosity, and of patriotic arrogance; the increasing evidences of selfishness, of suspicion, of fear and of fraud; the spread of terrorism, of lawlessness, of drunkenness and of crime; the unquenchable thirst for, and the feverish pursuit after, earthly vanities, riches and pleasures; the weakening of family solidarity; the laxity in parental control; the lapse into luxurious indulgence; the irresponsible attitude towards marriage and the consequent rising tide of divorce; the degeneracy of art and music, the infection of literature, and the corruption of the press; the extension of the influence and activities of those 'prophets of decadence' who advocate companionate marriage, who preach the philosophy of nudism, who call modesty an intellectual fiction, who refuse to regard the procreation of children as the sacred and primary purpose of marriage, who denounce religion as an opiate of the people, who would, if given free rein, lead back the human race to barbarism, chaos, and ultimate extinction -- these appear as the outstanding characteristics of a decadent society, a society that must either be reborn or perish.
That's quite the list, isn't it? 10 separate things, not including the sub-sections. Well, I don't know about you, but I'd like to look at them one at a time, perhaps see what they are and what we can do about them. (Addition: This was really hard to do. I felt overwhelmed during most of the writing of this one, but I think I got past that. Let me know what you think. Thanks.)
First, though, there is the beginning of the sentence itself: "The recrudescence". That just means the revival of, or breakout again, of something you thought had gone away, kind of like a disease. In other words, we thought we got rid of these things, but here they are again. Now on to the list itself.
1. "of religious intolerance, of racial animosity, and of patriotic arrogance" - This is the old habit of thinking that "we" are somehow better than "them". Whether it is based on our religion, the colour of our skin, or what particular stretch of land saw our birth, it doesn't matter. They are all barriers to peace, whether within the heart of the individual or between countries. And while we may have thought that these prejudices were on the way out, we have seen them come back with a vengeance in the past few years. We can all, however, take steps in our own lives to overcome this tendency that has rooted itself so deeply in our world. And while a few would argue that only the "oppressor" can be racist, anyone can show animosity. Our goal should be to show love to all, regardless of their background.
2. "the increasing evidences of selfishness, of suspicion, of fear and of fraud" - We only need to look at the increasing divide between the rich and the poor, and the subsequent dissolving of the middle class, to see that this is happening. There have been many more instances in the past few years of fraud by bankers, investors, and other high profile groups of people that suspicion is increasing faster than ever. The news stories that can be referenced here regarding people of all classes and societies defy description. For ourselves, we can strive to be trustworthy and beyond reproach, freeing ourselves from both the bane of materialism as well as stain of paranoia.
3. "the spread of terrorism, of lawlessness, of drunkenness and of crime" - These speak of personal behaviour on a more general level. While not everyone will be able to defraud a bank, or a nation, of millions of dollars, everyone can afford to get drunk to escape the problems in their lives. And while we may think of terrorism as an organized response to a perceived injustice, road rage can be just as terrifying for those involved. In response, we can try to maintain our calm and composure, not allowing anything to disturb us as we strive to live according to the laws of the land and the ideals of our faith. Deep heartfelt prayer, along with that companion of prayer, meditation, will go a long way to helping us find that sense of calm within our lives. Once we recognize this within our own life, then we can better help others find it within theirs.
4. "the unquenchable thirst for, and the feverish pursuit after, earthly vanities, riches and pleasures" - Black Friday. Need I say more? I mean, of course I can say more, but I think I'll leave it there. To overcome this, though, is to remain detached and recognize that all these "earthly vanities" are but dust in the end. And while it is ok to have possessions, and pursue noble goals, we should be satisfied with what we have and dedicate our time to more worthy ends.
6. "the laxity in parental control" - It seems to me that we are afraid to discipline our children today. We almost seem to think that the rights of the individual secures the rights of children to behave however they wish. And while I am in no way advocating striking children to coerce them into some sort of semblance of good behaviour, I do believe that children need to learn appropriate boundaries from day one. A simple chastisement to a child who has been shown an abundance of love since they were an infant can do wonders for correcting behaviour, when needed. Without the time, however, to develop those intimate bonds of family love, any other sort of discipline will fall far short of being effective.
7. "the lapse into luxurious indulgence" - At first I would have thought this tied to number 4, but I now realize that it really is quite different. The former was a feverish pursuit after these things. Here it is a slip into it, almost accidental. The former you have to work for, while this one comes from not being aware. It is almost as if we take these luxuries for granted. I remember a friend of mine who lost their job and was having trouble making ends meet. But it never occurred to them to get rid of the cable tv. One solution for this, to me, is the Right of God. When we examine our lives, and consciously recognize what things we have that are necessary, then we become more aware of those things we have that are luxuries, and can then make more conscious choices about what we choose to spend our money and attention on.
8. "the irresponsible attitude towards marriage and the consequent rising tide of divorce" - Well, divorce is on the rise. There is no denying that. I shudder to think of the number of people I know who got on well, were perhaps in love with each other, and thought "Might as well get married". There was little or no getting to know each other's character, and the honest thought that if it didn't work out they could always get divorced. But when you see marriage as an eternal bond, you are less likely to just jump into it. So for me, studying what the Writings say about marriage, and taking one's vow more seriously, curbs this tendency.
9. "the degeneracy of art and music, the infection of literature, and the corruption of the press" - Again, we only need to look at the movies out there, or the books, or the art, to see this. We can even look at those so-called news outlets that are nothing more than obscene forms of entertainment, as opposed to being vehicles for information, to recognize their destructive nature. Baha'u'llah, in His tablet to the London Times says that they should "investigate the truth", and in Epsitle to the Son of the Wolf says that the arts should be "conducive to the well-being and tranquility of men". If we choose our arts and news sources carefully, then simple economics will move them back to where they belong, for those other media outlets will no longer find so willing an audience.
10. "the extension of the influence and activities of those 'prophets of decadence' who advocate companionate marriage, who preach the philosophy of nudism, who call modesty an intellectual fiction, who refuse to regard the procreation of children as the sacred and primary purpose of marriage, who denounce religion as an opiate of the people, who would, if given free rein, lead back the human race to barbarism, chaos, and ultimate extinction" -
Oh, there is so much in this last paragraph, and some surprising things that are not there. But looking at these one at a time revealed much to me that I was unaware of. Companionate marriage, which I had thought of as common law marriage, is actually often defined as "a marriage in which the partners decide not to have children, and to reserve the right to divorce amicably with mutual consent". This is quite different from a marriage in which the couple is unable to have children, for it is a conscious choice, as well as an apparently temporary arrangement.
One of the basic tenets of the philosophy of nudism is that modesty has no place in our culture. And while the Baha'i Faith does not condone "any form of asceticism, or of excessive and bigoted puritanism", it does place a high value on modesty, citing it as one of the ways we can help teach others.
While children are not the sole reason for a marriage, as is evidenced by the Guardian's own marriage, they are the primary reason. The institution of marriage is the foundation of the family. And this is to differentiate a marriage in the Baha'i sense from any other form of life-long companionship, which is often called a marriage in our culture. (I have a very difficult time expressing this, but trust that you can sense what I mean.)
Finally, religion should not be an opiate that dulls the senses. It should be something that stimulates the soul to greater heights, and carries us beyond what we ever thought possible. Whereas an opiate lulls into a sense of lifelessness, faith, as defined by the Master, is conscious knowledge in action. "By God, this is the arena of
insight and detachment, of vision and upliftment, where none may spur on their chargers save the valiant horsemen of the Merciful, who have severed all attachment to the world of being."
So this last paragraph reminds me of the high moral standard to which we are called, and that this is not a call to some sort of sitting around feeling good about ourselves. It is a call to action. And there is also the continual reminder that we are not to fall into fanaticism, but an upholding of the Baha'i standard with moderation and respect towards others.
Friday, January 17, 2014
Religious Rights vs Human Rights
I was recently asked to write an article for a local paper regarding a story that has been in the news here in Canada. This is the article. I thought you might enjoy it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
