I don't like orange peel.
I love oranges, but really can't stand their packaging material. In fact, it would be preferable to chew a piece of aluminum foil to having a slice of the peel in my mouth.
A number of years ago I was at a party when a friend of mine came bouncing over and placed a piece of chocolate in my mouth. She was kind of funny that way, and very sweet about it. Unfortunately it happened to be a piece of chocolate covered orange peel. (I know I told a version of this story a few months ago, but it really did come up again the other day, so pardon me for repeating it here so soon.) (I think this is divine karma, as you will soon see.)
Now I've been told by some that it is very amusing to watch the various contortions my face undergoes when I have the unfortunate reality of having a piece of the peel in my mouth. That moment was no exception.
Naturally, she felt very bad about this and ran off to get me something to drink. Knowing that I was a Baha'i and never touched alcohol, she had a bit of difficulty finding me a safe to drink. It was that kind of a party. But after a few moments of eternity to me, she ran back with a cup of tea. I grabbed the cup and quickly sipped some of that steaming beverage.
It was Red Zinger, which has copious amounts of orange peel in it.
I still shudder in memory.
And yes, I'm sure my expression was amusing to all who witnessed.
Can't you just see me, with an expression of extreme gustatory repugnance, disgust, and general abhorrence, eager at the thought of getting something more palatable in my mouth? And then that moment of frozen shock when I realize that the situation has just been made worse?
In fact, there was one time I was visiting a friend at a health food store, and they had just received in a basket of fresh kumquats. Another worker there, in her red knit hat with black specks and a green foof on top that looked incredibly like a giant strawberry, was so enamoured of these "delectable little morsels" that she was bouncing around the store passing out free samples to all who cared to try them. I, of course, politely declined. "Oh, but they are so full of flavour, so fresh, and so delicious." While I didn't doubt the first two, I certainly questioned the last. "But kumquats taste nothing like oranges", both little miss strawberry-head and my friend insisted. I explained my problem with the peel, explaining that there is a rare mutation of the palette that enables those with it to taste a particular molecule found in orange peel, lemon peel, and within grapefruit millions of times stronger than normal. Hence my preference for foil to peel. It really is less painful to me. Just imagine that slight sharpness of zest that so many people love within their food, that seemingly random explosive burst of flavour that dissipates more quickly than the after-trails of fireworks, and magnify it by millions. It is sort of like the difference between that little sparkler given to kids on the 4th of July in the States, and a 50 megaton nuclear bomb that wipes out vast areas of desert, transforming the surrounding sands into sheets of glass which you can use to help read at night. We're talking a mouth full of peel-flavour so intense that my entire face feels like a 35 ton bronze bell that's just struck noon. This was not something I particularly cared to try.
But, as my friend pointed out, I had never had one. And while they are related to oranges, they are not the same.
So I relented, and with great trepidation popped one in my mouth. Whole, as they suggested.
And promptly blacked out.
Now, to be fair, I didn't really black out. I mean, I did, but I didn't. From my perspective, it's a blackout. From their perspective, it was a bit more terrifying. Evidently I scrunched my eyes shut very tightly. They could actually see how tight my eyes were scrunched. And my jaw was clenched. Really clenched. They could actually see the force of the clenching muscles. And then my hands became fists and I began to pound on the counter, seemingly in intense pain.
They were ready to call an ambulance.
While these symptoms only lasted for a few minutes, so they said, I could taste the "delectable little morsel" for the next few days. Literally.
Little miss strawberry head and my friend were both very apologetic, and agreed. I don't like orange peel.
But what does this have to do with the Faith? Well, aside from God loving laughter, what does it have to do with the Faith?
A few things, actually.
First of all, just a few days ago I was sitting at a friend's home waiting for the start of a meeting, talking with another friend who was there. (Don't worry Greg, I won't mention your name.) While we were chatting, I noticed a dish of food there. The host, an elderly Persian woman, always has lots of food for us, and encourages us to eat far more than is likely healthy. She would give my Jewish grandmother a run for her money, even though she has never called me "bubala". (I'll let you look it up.)
Now, this wasn't just a dish of food. It was a small dish with little squares of dark chocolate covered with a sprinkling of shredded coconut. For that, I needed no encouragement.
With a smile of joyous anticipation. I reached over and popped one of those beautiful squares into my mouth.
And discovered it was laced with orange peel.
You may remember up above where I said that some people say "that it is very amusing to watch the various contortions my face undergoes when I have the unfortunate reality of having a piece of the peel in my mouth". It took my friend, the anonymous Mr Bell, quite some time to stop laughing. In fact, I don't think I have ever seen him laugh so much in my life. It would have been great to see if the cause had been any less personal.
When the hostess came back in the room, she had a tray of tea, thankfully not orange peel, and placed it on the table while she went back to get the cream and sugar. I jumped up and ran to get that tray. "Sit", she called out, "I'll serve you. Don't worry." "Oh, that's ok. It's no problem", I replied. Really, it wasn't. I gave laughing boy his tea and proceeded to drink mine fairly quickly. He was a bit slower in drinking his, due to respiratory problems he developed while laughing so hard, for which I had little to no sympathy.
Then I proceeded to relate to him the whole story I outlined above.
There is, of course, another connection to the Faith, one which I like a lot more.
One day, it has been said, a man who really disliked olives was visiting Baha'u'llah. Knowing of this man's lack of appreciation for this venerated fruit, Baha'u'llah joked with him about how important a place this fruit has in the history of religion. After all, there are many references to the twin olive trees, to name just a single of these. "Haven't you read", Baha'u'llah is reported to have asked him, "of what the Prophet Muhammad said of olives?" "Of course", the man replied, to Baha'u'llah's great delight "but it's obvious He never tasted them."
There is also a pilgrims note that says 'Abdu'l-Baha encouraged us to take a bite of the rind whenever we eat an orange. And while I love all the stories of the Master, I am very grateful to the wisdom He showed in not putting this in writing anywhere else.
Monday, November 17, 2014
Monday, October 20, 2014
Personal Prayer
"But you should", she said. "You really are only allowed to read prayers from the Writings."
I had been talking about prayer, our habitual ways of saying prayers within the Baha'i community in North America, and how some people find this either boring, annoying or in any other way off-putting. I had described our monotonous manner in which many of us say our prayers in English, thinking, for some reason, that a monotone shows some sort of reverence, which it may, for some, but definitely does not for others. I spoke about how there are a few who come into our community, or join us for devotions in some setting, and proceed to say their prayers in a charismatic sort of way, only to receive a quick, unconscious glance of judgement. I explained that the judgement was not intentional, nor was the individual doing it aware of it, but that the effect was clear if you watched. I talked about how we, as a community, must really learn to be as open as possible to all styles of prayer, including those that arise naturally from the heart. All of this was not meant as any sort of criticism, for I often say my prayers in a monotone, too, but rather to help shed a bit of light on why some of our devotional gatherings may not have been as effective as we would have wished. I said that we really needed to examine this from an unbiased perspective, re-thinking what it is that we do, especially unconsciously.
"I have never", I confessed, "found anything in the Writings that says we should only use the prayers from the Baha'i Writings. Well, except for the devotional portion of the Feast, but that is the exception, not the rule, as far as I can tell."
That was when this woman said, "You really are only allowed to read prayers from the Writings."
I asked her where that was in the Writings, really wanting to know, but was told that we all just know it. It was obvious.
And so my quest continued. For years I've been looking for a quote that says we must either only read prayers from the Bab, Baha'u'llah, or 'Abdu'l-Baha, or one that clearly states that we can say prayers from our heart.
And for just as many years, I had never found anything, except circumstantial evidence.
Some of the Hands of the Cause, those eminent souls who "speak not without His leave", were known to have written some beautiful prayers. One of the most famous, the one that begins with the line "Make of me a hallow reed from which the pith of self hath been blown", inappropriately attributed to 'Abdu'l-Baha, was written by Hand of the Cause of God, George Townshend. Ruhiyyih Khanum wrote some beautiful prayers, in the form of poems, most notably after the Guardian's passing. And I say this because if prayer is "conversation with God", then those poems sure seem to count, in my opinion.
Baha'u'llah and the Bab both quoted prayers by some of the Imams.
Really, I could go on and on, but suffice it to say that I never found any direct quote.
Until yesterday.
At the end of section 31 in Selections from the Writings of 'Abdu'l-Baha, we read the following: "The brief prayer which thou didst write at the close of thy letter was indeed original, touching and beautiful. Recite thou this prayer at all times."
This is a very interesting selection, for in it the Master writes about the expansion of the Faith in England, and by extension the world. And at the very end, after some beautiful ideas, He mentions that this person beheld Baha'u'llah in Haifa, but did not recognize Him at the time. How incredible is that? Here we have the Master's own testimony that someone else from Europe beheld the Blessed Beauty!
Then, at the very end, the very last lines, is that quote I've been seeking for years. You wrote your own prayer, said the Master, and it is beautiful. "Recite thou this prayer at all times."
Now, why is this so important to me? Simple, really. I am always leery of how we may inadvertently set up conditions, rules, or rituals within our community that are not actually part of the Faith itself. What we take for granted, such as only reading prayers from the Writings, is actually cultural, not integral to the Faith itself. It's not bad, mind you, but just cultural.
If we are in the middle of prayers, and someone new comes into the room, should they wait by the door, either within the room or without? Should they sit down quietly? Should the reader stop reading the prayer and greet them, warmly welcoming them to the group? It doesn't matter. All those responses are both personal and cultural. I have seen each of these responses, and they are all beautiful. There is no right or wrong response.
The only problem is when we try to impose our cultural values upon others, and do so in the name of the Faith.
So it is with children. If we teach our children that we should only say prayers from the Writings, then we are inadvertently imposing a cultural bias on their Faith. If they only see us adults praying with prayers from the Writings, and never explain that it is ok to do otherwise, then we are, through omission, limiting their potential.
But when we say our prayers, consciously choosing to read and pray from the Writings, occasionally saying some from our heart, and carefully explain to our children that all prayer, all conversation with God, is totally acceptable, then we give them broader wings upon which their spirits can soar.
I had been talking about prayer, our habitual ways of saying prayers within the Baha'i community in North America, and how some people find this either boring, annoying or in any other way off-putting. I had described our monotonous manner in which many of us say our prayers in English, thinking, for some reason, that a monotone shows some sort of reverence, which it may, for some, but definitely does not for others. I spoke about how there are a few who come into our community, or join us for devotions in some setting, and proceed to say their prayers in a charismatic sort of way, only to receive a quick, unconscious glance of judgement. I explained that the judgement was not intentional, nor was the individual doing it aware of it, but that the effect was clear if you watched. I talked about how we, as a community, must really learn to be as open as possible to all styles of prayer, including those that arise naturally from the heart. All of this was not meant as any sort of criticism, for I often say my prayers in a monotone, too, but rather to help shed a bit of light on why some of our devotional gatherings may not have been as effective as we would have wished. I said that we really needed to examine this from an unbiased perspective, re-thinking what it is that we do, especially unconsciously.
"I have never", I confessed, "found anything in the Writings that says we should only use the prayers from the Baha'i Writings. Well, except for the devotional portion of the Feast, but that is the exception, not the rule, as far as I can tell."
That was when this woman said, "You really are only allowed to read prayers from the Writings."
I asked her where that was in the Writings, really wanting to know, but was told that we all just know it. It was obvious.
And so my quest continued. For years I've been looking for a quote that says we must either only read prayers from the Bab, Baha'u'llah, or 'Abdu'l-Baha, or one that clearly states that we can say prayers from our heart.
And for just as many years, I had never found anything, except circumstantial evidence.
Some of the Hands of the Cause, those eminent souls who "speak not without His leave", were known to have written some beautiful prayers. One of the most famous, the one that begins with the line "Make of me a hallow reed from which the pith of self hath been blown", inappropriately attributed to 'Abdu'l-Baha, was written by Hand of the Cause of God, George Townshend. Ruhiyyih Khanum wrote some beautiful prayers, in the form of poems, most notably after the Guardian's passing. And I say this because if prayer is "conversation with God", then those poems sure seem to count, in my opinion.
Baha'u'llah and the Bab both quoted prayers by some of the Imams.
Really, I could go on and on, but suffice it to say that I never found any direct quote.
Until yesterday.
At the end of section 31 in Selections from the Writings of 'Abdu'l-Baha, we read the following: "The brief prayer which thou didst write at the close of thy letter was indeed original, touching and beautiful. Recite thou this prayer at all times."
This is a very interesting selection, for in it the Master writes about the expansion of the Faith in England, and by extension the world. And at the very end, after some beautiful ideas, He mentions that this person beheld Baha'u'llah in Haifa, but did not recognize Him at the time. How incredible is that? Here we have the Master's own testimony that someone else from Europe beheld the Blessed Beauty!
Then, at the very end, the very last lines, is that quote I've been seeking for years. You wrote your own prayer, said the Master, and it is beautiful. "Recite thou this prayer at all times."
Now, why is this so important to me? Simple, really. I am always leery of how we may inadvertently set up conditions, rules, or rituals within our community that are not actually part of the Faith itself. What we take for granted, such as only reading prayers from the Writings, is actually cultural, not integral to the Faith itself. It's not bad, mind you, but just cultural.
If we are in the middle of prayers, and someone new comes into the room, should they wait by the door, either within the room or without? Should they sit down quietly? Should the reader stop reading the prayer and greet them, warmly welcoming them to the group? It doesn't matter. All those responses are both personal and cultural. I have seen each of these responses, and they are all beautiful. There is no right or wrong response.
The only problem is when we try to impose our cultural values upon others, and do so in the name of the Faith.
So it is with children. If we teach our children that we should only say prayers from the Writings, then we are inadvertently imposing a cultural bias on their Faith. If they only see us adults praying with prayers from the Writings, and never explain that it is ok to do otherwise, then we are, through omission, limiting their potential.
But when we say our prayers, consciously choosing to read and pray from the Writings, occasionally saying some from our heart, and carefully explain to our children that all prayer, all conversation with God, is totally acceptable, then we give them broader wings upon which their spirits can soar.
Tuesday, October 14, 2014
A Look at "Creation from the Intellect"
Back to the Writings.
I feel like it has been way too long since I've really explored a single text. So why not right now? My wife is sitting at her computer, arranging some music for the band (she's a musician in the Canadian military, in case I've never mentioned it before), and I've just finished working on a chain-mail piece for my son's Halloween costume (a glow-in-the-dark scale-mail mask) (ultra cool).
Now what? Well, I'll walk over to the bookshelf, grab a random book by Bahau'u'llah, turn to a random page, grab a passage and see what turns up. (I'll be right back.)
(Thanks for waiting. Now I'm going to grab something to munch on while I write. I won't be long. I promise.)
Ok. I'm back. Thanks.
I grabbed The Tabernacle of Unity, which I have to admit surprised me. I would have expected something like Gleanings, along with a nice familiar traditional quote to dissect. No such luck.
What I got was paragraph 2.51. But to better understand it, I needed to go back a bit and find the context. After all, this tablet is to Mirza Abu'l-Fadl, responding to Manikchi Sahib's complaint that Baha'u'llah didn't answer his questions in the first tablet. In this second tablet Baha'u''llah inserts Manikchi Sahib's original questions and then shows how He answered each and every one of them with characteristic conciseness and brilliance. And so, in order to better explore this paragraph, I feel I should go back a bit and begin with the question.
I am so grateful to reference.bahai.org for this. It makes life so much easier when studying the Writings.
To begin, the question. Manikchi Sahib is basically asking "Which creation story is correct?" Well, really, how can He answer that? No matter what He says it will be both incomplete and offend some. It is like earlier in the book when He is asked which of four schools of thought is correct. The short answer is none of them, but that "the second standeth closer to righteousness... One can, however, provide a justification for the tenets of the other schools..." In the end, through His wisdom, He replied, "Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age ye live in, and centre your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements." In other words, who really cares? What difference does it make in your daily life?
Here, he is asking are the claims of the Hindus and Zoroastrians correct? If He were to simply say "No", then virtually all Hindus and Zoroastrians would feel insulted. And yet all knowledge comes from God through the Manifestations, so it is likely that their claims are true in that regard. When you re-read the question in light of that, then we can readily see that there is a truth within their teachings.
The problem, though, is that they become exclusive in their assertions. "We're right and all others are wrong." He corrects that. He reminds us clearly, in paragraph 2.51, that we have all been created from "the Intellect", for we are all created by the same God. At no time should the story of our creation become divisive. "Know ye not", He asks us to consider in the Hidden Words, "why We created you all from the same dust? That no one should exalt himself over the other."
In paragraph 2.48, He reminds us of the essential mystery of creation, further emphasizing in the next paragraph that there is a difference between the creation of the universe and the other realms of existence. This whole thing about firstness and lastness, preexistence and so on, falls into insignificance when we consider what we know of the visible universe and the Big Bang. Time itself came into being with that Bang. And so to talk about anything "before" that is actually kind of silly. The very word "before" presupposes the concept of time and a chronological order to things. We have seen back to the beginning of time, and know that anything "before" that is pure mystery.
What we believe about anything before that moment is, in a very real sense, irrelevant. "Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age ye live in, and centre your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements." What we believe has no impact on our daily life.
What matters, He seems to say, is not what we believe about scientific reality, although it should be in accord with what we observe, but what really matters is how we respond to the divine Manifestation.
Now, looking at 2.51, which is where this all began for me, it is also a reminder to be free from the ego. No matter what our field of study, no matter what our expertise, we can never claim to have a knowledge that others are deprived of. People who study religion have one view of the world. And in a sense, their view is correct. "One can, however, provide a justification for the tenets of the other schools..."
As long as we do not claim exclusivity, somehow thinking that only our particular perspective is the "correct" one, then we can respect the views of others, and others can respect ours. If we, for some odd reason, believe that only our definitions are relevant, then we become exclusive, denying a greater understanding of the world around us. When we accept other perspectives, we can readily accommodate the ideas of both scientific creation with the Big Bang, or even the String theory, along side the above stories of the Hindu and Zoroastrian creation, as well as the creation myth from Genesis (either 1 or 2), for we see the beauty and truth within the poetry of each. And that leads to not only a greater sense of unity, but also a broader and more beautiful understanding of the world.
As for me, I personally like the idea of "creation... from bears and monkeys."
I feel like it has been way too long since I've really explored a single text. So why not right now? My wife is sitting at her computer, arranging some music for the band (she's a musician in the Canadian military, in case I've never mentioned it before), and I've just finished working on a chain-mail piece for my son's Halloween costume (a glow-in-the-dark scale-mail mask) (ultra cool).
Now what? Well, I'll walk over to the bookshelf, grab a random book by Bahau'u'llah, turn to a random page, grab a passage and see what turns up. (I'll be right back.)
(Thanks for waiting. Now I'm going to grab something to munch on while I write. I won't be long. I promise.)
Ok. I'm back. Thanks.
I grabbed The Tabernacle of Unity, which I have to admit surprised me. I would have expected something like Gleanings, along with a nice familiar traditional quote to dissect. No such luck.
What I got was paragraph 2.51. But to better understand it, I needed to go back a bit and find the context. After all, this tablet is to Mirza Abu'l-Fadl, responding to Manikchi Sahib's complaint that Baha'u'llah didn't answer his questions in the first tablet. In this second tablet Baha'u''llah inserts Manikchi Sahib's original questions and then shows how He answered each and every one of them with characteristic conciseness and brilliance. And so, in order to better explore this paragraph, I feel I should go back a bit and begin with the question.
| 2.47 |
A further question that he hath asked: “The Hindus assert that God fashioned the Intellect in the form of a man named Brahma, Who came into this world and was the cause of its progress and development, and that all Hindus are His descendants. The followers of Zoroaster say: ’God, through the agency of the Primal Intellect, created a man whose name is Mahábád and who is our ancestor.’ They believe the modes of creation to be six in number. Two were mentioned above; the others are creation from water, earth, fire, and from bears and monkeys. The Hindus and Zoroastrians both say that they are begotten of the Intellect, and thus do not admit others into their folds. Are these assertions true or not? That wise Master is requested to indicate that which he deemeth appropriate.”
|
| 2.48 |
The entire creation hath been called into being through the Will of God, magnified be His glory, and peerless Adam hath been fashioned through the agency of His all-compelling Word, a Word which is the source, the wellspring, the repository, and the dawning-place of the intellect. From it all creation hath proceeded, and it is the channel of God’s primal grace. None can grasp the reality of the origin of creation save God, exalted be His glory, Whose knowledge embraceth all things both before and after they come into being. Creation hath neither beginning nor end, and none hath ever unravelled its mystery. Its knowledge hath ever been, and shall remain, hidden and preserved with those Who are the Repositories of divine knowledge.
|
| 2.49 |
The world of existence is contingent, inasmuch as it is preceded by a cause, while essential preexistence hath ever been, and shall remain, confined to God, magnified be His glory. This statement is being made lest one be inclined to conclude from the earlier assertion, namely that creation hath no beginning and no end, that it is preexistent. True and essential preexistence is exclusively reserved to God, while the preexistence of the world is secondary and relative. All that hath been inferred about firstness, lastness and such hath in truth been derived from the sayings of the Prophets, Apostles, and Chosen Ones of God.
|
| 2.50 |
As to the “realm of subtle entities”16 which is often referred to, it pertaineth to the Revelation of the Prophets, and aught else is mere superstition and idle fancy. At the time of the Revelation all men are equal in rank. By reason, however, of their acceptance or rejection, rise or fall, motion or stillness, recognition or denial, they come to differ thereafter. For instance, the one true God, magnified be His glory, speaking through the intermediary of His Manifestation, doth ask: “Am I not your Lord?” Every soul that answereth “Yea, verily!” is accounted among the most distinguished of all men in the sight of God. Our meaning is that ere the Word of God is delivered, all men are deemed equal in rank and their station is one and the same. It is only thereafter that differences appear, as thou hast no doubt observed.
|
| 2.51 |
It is clearly established from that which hath been mentioned that none may ever justifiably claim: “We are begotten of the Intellect, while all others stem from another origin.” The truth that shineth bright and resplendent as the sun is this, that all have been created through the operation of the Divine Will and have proceeded from the same source, that all are from Him and that unto Him they shall all return. This is the meaning of that blessed verse in the Qur’án which hath issued from the Pen of the All-Merciful: “Verily, we are God’s, and to Him shall we return”. 17
|
| 2.52 |
As is clear and evident to thee, the answer to all of the questions mentioned above was embodied in but one of the passages revealed by the Pen of the Most High. Blessed are they who, freed from worldly matters and sanctified from idle fancies and vain imaginings, traverse the meads of divine knowledge and discern in all things the tokens of His glory.
|
I am so grateful to reference.bahai.org for this. It makes life so much easier when studying the Writings.
To begin, the question. Manikchi Sahib is basically asking "Which creation story is correct?" Well, really, how can He answer that? No matter what He says it will be both incomplete and offend some. It is like earlier in the book when He is asked which of four schools of thought is correct. The short answer is none of them, but that "the second standeth closer to righteousness... One can, however, provide a justification for the tenets of the other schools..." In the end, through His wisdom, He replied, "Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age ye live in, and centre your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements." In other words, who really cares? What difference does it make in your daily life?
Here, he is asking are the claims of the Hindus and Zoroastrians correct? If He were to simply say "No", then virtually all Hindus and Zoroastrians would feel insulted. And yet all knowledge comes from God through the Manifestations, so it is likely that their claims are true in that regard. When you re-read the question in light of that, then we can readily see that there is a truth within their teachings.
The problem, though, is that they become exclusive in their assertions. "We're right and all others are wrong." He corrects that. He reminds us clearly, in paragraph 2.51, that we have all been created from "the Intellect", for we are all created by the same God. At no time should the story of our creation become divisive. "Know ye not", He asks us to consider in the Hidden Words, "why We created you all from the same dust? That no one should exalt himself over the other."
In paragraph 2.48, He reminds us of the essential mystery of creation, further emphasizing in the next paragraph that there is a difference between the creation of the universe and the other realms of existence. This whole thing about firstness and lastness, preexistence and so on, falls into insignificance when we consider what we know of the visible universe and the Big Bang. Time itself came into being with that Bang. And so to talk about anything "before" that is actually kind of silly. The very word "before" presupposes the concept of time and a chronological order to things. We have seen back to the beginning of time, and know that anything "before" that is pure mystery.
What we believe about anything before that moment is, in a very real sense, irrelevant. "Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age ye live in, and centre your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements." What we believe has no impact on our daily life.
What matters, He seems to say, is not what we believe about scientific reality, although it should be in accord with what we observe, but what really matters is how we respond to the divine Manifestation.
Now, looking at 2.51, which is where this all began for me, it is also a reminder to be free from the ego. No matter what our field of study, no matter what our expertise, we can never claim to have a knowledge that others are deprived of. People who study religion have one view of the world. And in a sense, their view is correct. "One can, however, provide a justification for the tenets of the other schools..."
As long as we do not claim exclusivity, somehow thinking that only our particular perspective is the "correct" one, then we can respect the views of others, and others can respect ours. If we, for some odd reason, believe that only our definitions are relevant, then we become exclusive, denying a greater understanding of the world around us. When we accept other perspectives, we can readily accommodate the ideas of both scientific creation with the Big Bang, or even the String theory, along side the above stories of the Hindu and Zoroastrian creation, as well as the creation myth from Genesis (either 1 or 2), for we see the beauty and truth within the poetry of each. And that leads to not only a greater sense of unity, but also a broader and more beautiful understanding of the world.
As for me, I personally like the idea of "creation... from bears and monkeys."
Friday, October 3, 2014
Unity Feasts
I love my community. I said that at a recent gathering in Vancouver for all members of Local Spiritual Assemblies in British Columbia. I love them, I said. They're wacky.
"Last year", I announced at the microphone, "we celebrated 19 Feasts and are so proud of our achievement that this year we decided to see if we could celebrate 23."
And you know what? It's true.
As you are no doubt aware, the Baha'i Feast is reserved for members of the Baha'i community in good standing. Why? Well, to put it simply, it's because that is the time in which we have free and open consultation on the affairs of the community. It is sort of like a family meeting. As the Universal House of Justice has said, the Feast is "an entirely private religious and domestic occasion for the Baha'i community when its internal affairs are discussed and its members meet for personal fellowship and worship." It is "essentially domestic and administrative", and "No great issue should be made of it for there is certainly nothing secret about the Feast but it is organized for Baha'is only." And while we would "certainly not invite a non-Baha'i to attend", if someone does show up who is not a member of the Baha'i community, we would, of course, make them feel welcome.
In our community, as I'm sure you have seen in your own, there are a number of families in which one spouse is a Baha'i, and the other is not. This, of course, has led to some concerns, most of which were addressed in that letter from the Universal House of Justice a few years ago
We hope to be ever more open, while still being obedient to the guidance.
And so, in our community the question came up, once again, about having a Unity Feast. After all, we all know the importance of the Feast, and how we find ourselves "spiritually restored, and endued with a power that is not of this world." We know that is brings "bliss and unity and love", that it "rejoiceth mind and heart". How could we not want our loved family members to attend?
But the rules regarding attendance are still there.
So we looked at it again. We really wanted to see what the guidance was, and if there was any wiggle room that we could find,
While still being obedient, of course.
We looked at many Writings. We looked at lots of guidance. We looked at all sorts of aspects, from the three parts of the Feast to the guidance that the while non-Baha'is may be there for the devotional and social portion, those two parts are still considered part of the Feast and we would, of course, never think to invite someone who is not Baha'i. We even looked at the guidance about how if someone outside the community shows up, we could still have the administrative portion, given that most everything we discuss is not confidential in nature.
But still we could not invite.
And then we focused. Our attention was drawn to the line, "Feasts should be held on the first day of the Baha'i month, if possible."
What, we wondered, if we hold the Feast on another day? But it should be on the first day.
But what about a Unity Feast? No guidance there.
Hey! What if we have our Feast on the first day of the month, and a Unity Feast on another?
You mean, like a public meeting? No. A Feast. It would be modeled on the Feast, and follow all the guidance of a Feast, and the agenda of a Feast, but it would be on another day, and open to all.
Oh yeah, and then we can have a topic for consultation that is relevant to the greater community. We can see what others think about, for example, fostering the devotional character of the community.
And so, dear Reader, our community has set a goal for 23 Feasts this year. 19 regular Feasts, and 4 Unity Feasts, the first of which is this evening.
So how about you? Is this something that would be useful in your community? I'd love to hear your thoughts or experience.
"Last year", I announced at the microphone, "we celebrated 19 Feasts and are so proud of our achievement that this year we decided to see if we could celebrate 23."
And you know what? It's true.
As you are no doubt aware, the Baha'i Feast is reserved for members of the Baha'i community in good standing. Why? Well, to put it simply, it's because that is the time in which we have free and open consultation on the affairs of the community. It is sort of like a family meeting. As the Universal House of Justice has said, the Feast is "an entirely private religious and domestic occasion for the Baha'i community when its internal affairs are discussed and its members meet for personal fellowship and worship." It is "essentially domestic and administrative", and "No great issue should be made of it for there is certainly nothing secret about the Feast but it is organized for Baha'is only." And while we would "certainly not invite a non-Baha'i to attend", if someone does show up who is not a member of the Baha'i community, we would, of course, make them feel welcome.
In our community, as I'm sure you have seen in your own, there are a number of families in which one spouse is a Baha'i, and the other is not. This, of course, has led to some concerns, most of which were addressed in that letter from the Universal House of Justice a few years ago
We hope to be ever more open, while still being obedient to the guidance.
And so, in our community the question came up, once again, about having a Unity Feast. After all, we all know the importance of the Feast, and how we find ourselves "spiritually restored, and endued with a power that is not of this world." We know that is brings "bliss and unity and love", that it "rejoiceth mind and heart". How could we not want our loved family members to attend?
But the rules regarding attendance are still there.
So we looked at it again. We really wanted to see what the guidance was, and if there was any wiggle room that we could find,
While still being obedient, of course.
We looked at many Writings. We looked at lots of guidance. We looked at all sorts of aspects, from the three parts of the Feast to the guidance that the while non-Baha'is may be there for the devotional and social portion, those two parts are still considered part of the Feast and we would, of course, never think to invite someone who is not Baha'i. We even looked at the guidance about how if someone outside the community shows up, we could still have the administrative portion, given that most everything we discuss is not confidential in nature.
But still we could not invite.
And then we focused. Our attention was drawn to the line, "Feasts should be held on the first day of the Baha'i month, if possible."
What, we wondered, if we hold the Feast on another day? But it should be on the first day.
But what about a Unity Feast? No guidance there.
Hey! What if we have our Feast on the first day of the month, and a Unity Feast on another?
You mean, like a public meeting? No. A Feast. It would be modeled on the Feast, and follow all the guidance of a Feast, and the agenda of a Feast, but it would be on another day, and open to all.
Oh yeah, and then we can have a topic for consultation that is relevant to the greater community. We can see what others think about, for example, fostering the devotional character of the community.
And so, dear Reader, our community has set a goal for 23 Feasts this year. 19 regular Feasts, and 4 Unity Feasts, the first of which is this evening.
So how about you? Is this something that would be useful in your community? I'd love to hear your thoughts or experience.
Monday, September 29, 2014
Know Your Stuff
Ah, the summer's finally over. My market days are done for another year, and I can finally get back to work on this blog. I have to admit, though, that I'm going to miss it, like I do every year. It is such a joy to meet people from all over the world, and get to know more locals. Every season there seems to be a group of people who come by the booth on a regular basis and the conversations with them make it all worth my time.
A few weeks ago I had a beautiful conversation with a lady from somewhere in the US. She was very nice, and had a bit of a spiritual outlook on life that made talking with her truly delightful. During the course of our conversation, though, I made mention of working at UVic in MultiFaith Services. She got a bit serious and said that I should remember that in the Bible it says that we shouldn't add anything to the Word of God.
"Oh", I replied with enthusiasm, "you're a Deuteronimist. That's so cool."
She was, of course, a bit puzzled.
"Well, that verse", I explained, "is from Deuteronomy. So by following it, you get rid of everything in the Bible after Deuteronomy, like Psalms, Proverbs, the New Testament..."
She was a bit aghast at this, saying no, that's not what it meant.
"I know, but that's the implication of what you said." I didn't go into the history of the book of Deuteronomy and how it seems to have been added quite a bit later than the other books in the Torah. That would have been just too much info at once, I'm sure.
Instead, we got into a really interesting discussion about the "Word of God", and how you recognize it. She initially talked about how it's the Bible, and went on to realize that it was what she was raised to believe. After a few more minutes in which I agreed with her that the Bible was the Word of God, she came up with a few reasonable ideas about how she could tell for herself.
Once she did that, I then encouraged her to read the Upanishads, and the Qur'an, and the Dhammapada, and any other holy scripture that she can find and apply her test to those scriptures, too.
It was a very interesting discussion, and all because I happened to know where that particular quote was in the Bible. (Well, also due a large part to her openness of mind and heart.)
I was telling another friend of mine about this conversation a few days later and I was reminded of another instance like that.
A number of years ago I was staying at a friend's home and I happened to get up before everyone else one morning. I went downstairs, made myself a cup of coffee and was getting ready to read when a knock came on the door.
I went over and opened it, and there were two young ladies standing there. They were Jehovah's Witnesses. I didn't feel comfortable letting them into someone else's home, so I stood out on the porch to talk with them. They talked a bit about why they were there, and proceeded to tell me that I should re-read the Bible again from start to finish and take everything in it absolutely literally.
"Literally", I asked. "Everything literally?"
"Oh yes," they agreed. "Everything."
"Well", I enquired, "how do you explain 1 Timothy 2:12?"
After about a nano-second of a puzzled look, they whipped out their Bibles from their side-holsters, looking like nothing more than a pair of gunslingers facing off in the old West. They whipped over to first Timothy and skimmed straight down to chapter 2, verse 12: "But I suffer not a woman to teach... but to be in silence."
After a few moments of burbling, one of them meekly began to say, "Well, that's metaphorical..." And my friend, who had snuck up behind me said, "I don't know. It sounds kind of literal to me."
To put them at their ease, I explained a little bit about what I understood from the history of Paul, and his letter to Timothy, the troubles Timothy was facing, and Paul's solution for him. I also pointed them in the direction of a few instances where Jesus put the teaching of others in the hands of women, not to mention the importance of Mary being the one who was told to bring the message of His resurrection.
I helped them come to the realization that not everything in the Bible is meant to be literal, but that the general spirit of the teachings is of primary importance.
This, dear Friends, is what I mean by "know your stuff".
Many years ago 'Abdu'l-Baha said that we should know the Bible better then the Christians and encouraged the Baha'is in the West to really study it. In a famous pilgrim note (and yes, He said it elsewhere, too), we read "Study the Holy Words, read your Bible, read the Holy Books, especially study the Holy Utterances of Baha'u'llah; Prayer and Meditation, take much time for these two."
Besides, it's kind of fun to be able to toss these quotes back at people, and help them see the implications of just what it is that they are saying.
A few weeks ago I had a beautiful conversation with a lady from somewhere in the US. She was very nice, and had a bit of a spiritual outlook on life that made talking with her truly delightful. During the course of our conversation, though, I made mention of working at UVic in MultiFaith Services. She got a bit serious and said that I should remember that in the Bible it says that we shouldn't add anything to the Word of God.
"Oh", I replied with enthusiasm, "you're a Deuteronimist. That's so cool."
She was, of course, a bit puzzled.
"Well, that verse", I explained, "is from Deuteronomy. So by following it, you get rid of everything in the Bible after Deuteronomy, like Psalms, Proverbs, the New Testament..."
She was a bit aghast at this, saying no, that's not what it meant.
"I know, but that's the implication of what you said." I didn't go into the history of the book of Deuteronomy and how it seems to have been added quite a bit later than the other books in the Torah. That would have been just too much info at once, I'm sure.
Instead, we got into a really interesting discussion about the "Word of God", and how you recognize it. She initially talked about how it's the Bible, and went on to realize that it was what she was raised to believe. After a few more minutes in which I agreed with her that the Bible was the Word of God, she came up with a few reasonable ideas about how she could tell for herself.
Once she did that, I then encouraged her to read the Upanishads, and the Qur'an, and the Dhammapada, and any other holy scripture that she can find and apply her test to those scriptures, too.
It was a very interesting discussion, and all because I happened to know where that particular quote was in the Bible. (Well, also due a large part to her openness of mind and heart.)
I was telling another friend of mine about this conversation a few days later and I was reminded of another instance like that.
A number of years ago I was staying at a friend's home and I happened to get up before everyone else one morning. I went downstairs, made myself a cup of coffee and was getting ready to read when a knock came on the door.
I went over and opened it, and there were two young ladies standing there. They were Jehovah's Witnesses. I didn't feel comfortable letting them into someone else's home, so I stood out on the porch to talk with them. They talked a bit about why they were there, and proceeded to tell me that I should re-read the Bible again from start to finish and take everything in it absolutely literally.
"Literally", I asked. "Everything literally?"
"Oh yes," they agreed. "Everything."
"Well", I enquired, "how do you explain 1 Timothy 2:12?"
After about a nano-second of a puzzled look, they whipped out their Bibles from their side-holsters, looking like nothing more than a pair of gunslingers facing off in the old West. They whipped over to first Timothy and skimmed straight down to chapter 2, verse 12: "But I suffer not a woman to teach... but to be in silence."
After a few moments of burbling, one of them meekly began to say, "Well, that's metaphorical..." And my friend, who had snuck up behind me said, "I don't know. It sounds kind of literal to me."
To put them at their ease, I explained a little bit about what I understood from the history of Paul, and his letter to Timothy, the troubles Timothy was facing, and Paul's solution for him. I also pointed them in the direction of a few instances where Jesus put the teaching of others in the hands of women, not to mention the importance of Mary being the one who was told to bring the message of His resurrection.
I helped them come to the realization that not everything in the Bible is meant to be literal, but that the general spirit of the teachings is of primary importance.
This, dear Friends, is what I mean by "know your stuff".
Many years ago 'Abdu'l-Baha said that we should know the Bible better then the Christians and encouraged the Baha'is in the West to really study it. In a famous pilgrim note (and yes, He said it elsewhere, too), we read "Study the Holy Words, read your Bible, read the Holy Books, especially study the Holy Utterances of Baha'u'llah; Prayer and Meditation, take much time for these two."
Besides, it's kind of fun to be able to toss these quotes back at people, and help them see the implications of just what it is that they are saying.
Thursday, September 25, 2014
A Walk to the Bus
I haven't been able to go to the beach for dawn prayers for some time now. Dawn is just too close to when I have to take Shoghi to his bus for school.
So what to do?
Just last week, when Shoghi still wasn't in school yet, I asked him to come with me. He said he would, and the next morning he complained about being "so tired". Guess what? So was I. We went to the beach, said some prayers, watched the beautiful sunrise, and then he turned to me and asked if he could come again the next day.
Well, now it's school and sunrise is just too close to when he gets picked up by his bus. No luck there for now.
This morning, though, we were walking to the bus and we decided to play a math game. You see, he needs to work on memorizing his multiplication tables. I explained that we could make a game out of it, but sometimes just rote work gets the job done a lot faster. I said that I would make up some basic 12x tables for him, and have him fill them out. It's boring, but useful. I talked about how you could actually make it fun, even though there were many other ways that were much more fun. But this is the fastest way I know of to learn them.
He asked me about other ways, and so we explored a few.
"One way is to play 'math fish'. It's like 'go fish', but with math. We deal out 8 cards to each player, and you have to put down pairs of numbers that total 10."
"That's too easy, Papa."
"Okay. How about another game where you get 8 cards, and you have to put them down as equations."
"What do you mean?"
"Well, you can put down 4, 4 and 8. 4 + 4 = 8. Or you could put down 5, 5, 5 and 2. 5 x 5 = 25."
"That's cool."
So I asked him to pick 4 numbers, any 4, and we played that aloud for a little while.
Then I explained to him that this was the sort of game I played in my head when I was his age. I would do this while walking around by myself, and it helped me get better and better at math.
Then I told him how I would also play my metaphor game. I know I've explained it before, but I'll do it again, just in case you missed it. The basic premise is that everything in creation can be seen as a metaphor for a spiritual truth. We just have to figure it out.
I said, "Look at that fire hydrant. How can that be seen as a metaphor for some spiritual truth?"
"Well," he said almost immediately, "it's shaped like a cross. And if you open it up, you get a lot of water. The Water of Life."
I was impressed, and told him so.
And that, dear Reader, is what Shoghi is working on today: seeing what metaphors he can find in common everyday objects.
So what to do?
Just last week, when Shoghi still wasn't in school yet, I asked him to come with me. He said he would, and the next morning he complained about being "so tired". Guess what? So was I. We went to the beach, said some prayers, watched the beautiful sunrise, and then he turned to me and asked if he could come again the next day.
Well, now it's school and sunrise is just too close to when he gets picked up by his bus. No luck there for now.
This morning, though, we were walking to the bus and we decided to play a math game. You see, he needs to work on memorizing his multiplication tables. I explained that we could make a game out of it, but sometimes just rote work gets the job done a lot faster. I said that I would make up some basic 12x tables for him, and have him fill them out. It's boring, but useful. I talked about how you could actually make it fun, even though there were many other ways that were much more fun. But this is the fastest way I know of to learn them.
He asked me about other ways, and so we explored a few.
"One way is to play 'math fish'. It's like 'go fish', but with math. We deal out 8 cards to each player, and you have to put down pairs of numbers that total 10."
"That's too easy, Papa."
"Okay. How about another game where you get 8 cards, and you have to put them down as equations."
"What do you mean?"
"Well, you can put down 4, 4 and 8. 4 + 4 = 8. Or you could put down 5, 5, 5 and 2. 5 x 5 = 25."
"That's cool."
So I asked him to pick 4 numbers, any 4, and we played that aloud for a little while.
Then I explained to him that this was the sort of game I played in my head when I was his age. I would do this while walking around by myself, and it helped me get better and better at math.
Then I told him how I would also play my metaphor game. I know I've explained it before, but I'll do it again, just in case you missed it. The basic premise is that everything in creation can be seen as a metaphor for a spiritual truth. We just have to figure it out.
I said, "Look at that fire hydrant. How can that be seen as a metaphor for some spiritual truth?"
"Well," he said almost immediately, "it's shaped like a cross. And if you open it up, you get a lot of water. The Water of Life."
I was impressed, and told him so.
And that, dear Reader, is what Shoghi is working on today: seeing what metaphors he can find in common everyday objects.
Monday, September 8, 2014
The Meaning of Friendship
What is friendship? What does it mean to be a friend? How can I be a better friend?
These are some of the questions that went through my mind when I wrote the previous article, questions I didn't really answer. Hey, I didn't even begin to address them.
But they were there, and I've been thinking about them a lot lately.
Why? Well, in recent weeks I've had some interesting reminders of friendship. First of all, there is my very dear friend in Winnipeg with whom I've been writing another blog. (www.iqan-study.blogspot.ca)
(That is a blatant plug.) He's getting married in a few weeks, so I'm flying back there to be with him. We often speak of our friendship on the phone, but this is really making it hit home for me. Another instance is another friend who lives near me here in BC. He is self-confessed as being socially awkward, which he can be, I guess, but his heart is truly in the right place. I have come to treasure this man's friendship very deeply. This was further re-inforced when I received a postcard from him saying how hard it was for him to call anyone a friend, but that he used it for me. I was, and still am, very touched by this.
When thinking about friendship, and why I would consider anyone a friend, I am reminded of Hand of the Cause of God, William Sears, for whom I still think the tower in Chicago should be renamed after. He said that he was only friends with people to the extent that they showed forth the attributes of God. The more of these attributes that they showed, the closer he felt to them.
This is something I think about a lot: my friends and their virtues. Of course, it is a two-way thing. There are the attributes that they are showing, and then there are the attributes that I am seeing. No one, we should recall, is perfect. Everyone has flaws, especially me. And if we dwell on these flaws, focus only on what people are missing, we will never recognize what they have. We will never see their strengths. We are cautioned of this over and over in the Writings. Just look at those numerous Hidden Words about busying ourselves with the faults of others, or looking at their sins. Time and again the Master tells us to see His Father's face before others. "To look always at the good", says 'Abdu'l-Baha so pointedly, "and not at the bad. If a man has ten good qualities and one bad one, look at the ten and forget the one. And if a man has ten bad qualities and one good one, to look at the one and forget the ten." Not only is it a matter of my friend showing forth the virtues, but also a matter of me focusing my attention on them, noticing them, and treasuring them.
This, to me, answers that last question: How can I be a better friend? It also speaks to how I can be a better friend, for the very act of shifting my focus also makes me a better friend.
Another aspect of friendship is what we do together. There is that old thing about "friends don't let friends drink and drive", and you can even leave off the last two words, in my opinion, and it still holds true. Of course, I don't mean "be a fanatic", but just that I won't encourage my friends by going out drinking with them. The activities we choose to engage in together can also dictate how strong our friendship is. I will be far closer to someone I choose to serve humanity with than another person with whom I go to a movie with. And it doesn't mean that we don't go to movies together, but just that it is a part of the breadth of our friendship. One of my dearest friends is a co-teacher of children with me, and we strive to enjoy a movie once a month, but usually fail. (I mean, we fail to see one each month, not that we fail to enjoy the few we do get to see.)
All right. That last paragraph just reads weird to me. What I was trying to say is that we try to do things together that actually encourage each other in our spiritual development, joy being one of those virtues. When speaking of the loved ones of God, 'Abdu'l-Baha says that they should "...let their talk be confined to the secrets of friendship and peace."
Much better.
That seems to address the second question, "What does it mean to be a friend?" Quite simply, I think it means to help another develop their spiritual attributes.
But it still doesn't address my first question: What is friendship? In a clinical sense, we can say that friendship is a relationship between two people who care about each other.
That doesn't really cut it, does it?
We could talk about the joy we feel in the presence of our friend, how they can make even the most boring of routine things seem like fun. We can talk about how they remember our preferences, such as how I would rather chew aluminum foil than eat something with orange peel in it.
Aside - I have a very dear friend who was at a party with me a long time ago. We were all in a very joyous and playful mood, and in the middle of it all she came bouncing up to me and put a piece of chocolate in my mouth. I was very touched by her consideration. After all, giving your friend a piece of chocolate is a good thing, right? Well, this was a piece of chocolate covered orange peel. Bleah. My painfully wincing expression told her that this was not something I enjoyed. It was not the pleasurable culinary experience she was hoping to share with me. And so, being a good friend, she ran off to get me something to wash that taste out of my mouth. And being a good friend, she knew I didn't drink alcohol, which made it difficult, at that party, to find something for me. What she ended up grabbing was a cup of tea. Unfortunately it happened to be red zinger tea, otherwise known as orange peel tea.
Baha'u'llah, to me, gives us one criterion we can consider, when He says to prefer each other to ourselves. My good friends are those people whose preferences I generally prefer to my own. Now, I have to tell you, I often watch movies by myself (which is not in the same category of weirdness as those who drink by themselves). And I would far rather see a movie that a friend wants to see then make them watch one that I want to see that they don't.
There are certain virtues that I believe are conducive to making a friendship stronger, such as trustworthiness, trust, fidelity, honesty, caring, love, compassion, and joy, just to name a few. I think encouragement goes a long way, too. In fact, there is a wonderful little quote from 'Abdu'l-Baha in which He says, "When we find truth, constancy, fidelity and love we are happy."
And then there is that other quote from Him, found towards the end of that great prayer, in which He says of God, "Thou art more friend to me than I am to myself." Why would this be? Well, who else is truly worthy of our trust? Who can show greater love? Who is more wise, compassionate, and loving than God?
In he end, we will all fail each other in some way, for that is part of the nature of our being human. And if we can better learn to overlook the shortcomings of others, and help them overlook our own shortcomings, then the more our friendships will flourish. God, of course, is the absolute example of all these virtues, and is, therefore, more friend to us than we can ever be.
But really, if we can learn to be more generous, more forgiving, more worthy of the trust of our neighbour, and so on and so forth, then we will not only learn to be better friends with each other, but also better human beings. And we will, in the end, learn a lot more about making the world a far better place to live.
So, what is friendship? I think it is the application of the virtues in relation to each other.
These are some of the questions that went through my mind when I wrote the previous article, questions I didn't really answer. Hey, I didn't even begin to address them.
But they were there, and I've been thinking about them a lot lately.
Why? Well, in recent weeks I've had some interesting reminders of friendship. First of all, there is my very dear friend in Winnipeg with whom I've been writing another blog. (www.iqan-study.blogspot.ca)
(That is a blatant plug.) He's getting married in a few weeks, so I'm flying back there to be with him. We often speak of our friendship on the phone, but this is really making it hit home for me. Another instance is another friend who lives near me here in BC. He is self-confessed as being socially awkward, which he can be, I guess, but his heart is truly in the right place. I have come to treasure this man's friendship very deeply. This was further re-inforced when I received a postcard from him saying how hard it was for him to call anyone a friend, but that he used it for me. I was, and still am, very touched by this.
When thinking about friendship, and why I would consider anyone a friend, I am reminded of Hand of the Cause of God, William Sears, for whom I still think the tower in Chicago should be renamed after. He said that he was only friends with people to the extent that they showed forth the attributes of God. The more of these attributes that they showed, the closer he felt to them.
This is something I think about a lot: my friends and their virtues. Of course, it is a two-way thing. There are the attributes that they are showing, and then there are the attributes that I am seeing. No one, we should recall, is perfect. Everyone has flaws, especially me. And if we dwell on these flaws, focus only on what people are missing, we will never recognize what they have. We will never see their strengths. We are cautioned of this over and over in the Writings. Just look at those numerous Hidden Words about busying ourselves with the faults of others, or looking at their sins. Time and again the Master tells us to see His Father's face before others. "To look always at the good", says 'Abdu'l-Baha so pointedly, "and not at the bad. If a man has ten good qualities and one bad one, look at the ten and forget the one. And if a man has ten bad qualities and one good one, to look at the one and forget the ten." Not only is it a matter of my friend showing forth the virtues, but also a matter of me focusing my attention on them, noticing them, and treasuring them.
This, to me, answers that last question: How can I be a better friend? It also speaks to how I can be a better friend, for the very act of shifting my focus also makes me a better friend.
Another aspect of friendship is what we do together. There is that old thing about "friends don't let friends drink and drive", and you can even leave off the last two words, in my opinion, and it still holds true. Of course, I don't mean "be a fanatic", but just that I won't encourage my friends by going out drinking with them. The activities we choose to engage in together can also dictate how strong our friendship is. I will be far closer to someone I choose to serve humanity with than another person with whom I go to a movie with. And it doesn't mean that we don't go to movies together, but just that it is a part of the breadth of our friendship. One of my dearest friends is a co-teacher of children with me, and we strive to enjoy a movie once a month, but usually fail. (I mean, we fail to see one each month, not that we fail to enjoy the few we do get to see.)
All right. That last paragraph just reads weird to me. What I was trying to say is that we try to do things together that actually encourage each other in our spiritual development, joy being one of those virtues. When speaking of the loved ones of God, 'Abdu'l-Baha says that they should "...let their talk be confined to the secrets of friendship and peace."
Much better.
That seems to address the second question, "What does it mean to be a friend?" Quite simply, I think it means to help another develop their spiritual attributes.
But it still doesn't address my first question: What is friendship? In a clinical sense, we can say that friendship is a relationship between two people who care about each other.
That doesn't really cut it, does it?
We could talk about the joy we feel in the presence of our friend, how they can make even the most boring of routine things seem like fun. We can talk about how they remember our preferences, such as how I would rather chew aluminum foil than eat something with orange peel in it.
Aside - I have a very dear friend who was at a party with me a long time ago. We were all in a very joyous and playful mood, and in the middle of it all she came bouncing up to me and put a piece of chocolate in my mouth. I was very touched by her consideration. After all, giving your friend a piece of chocolate is a good thing, right? Well, this was a piece of chocolate covered orange peel. Bleah. My painfully wincing expression told her that this was not something I enjoyed. It was not the pleasurable culinary experience she was hoping to share with me. And so, being a good friend, she ran off to get me something to wash that taste out of my mouth. And being a good friend, she knew I didn't drink alcohol, which made it difficult, at that party, to find something for me. What she ended up grabbing was a cup of tea. Unfortunately it happened to be red zinger tea, otherwise known as orange peel tea.
Baha'u'llah, to me, gives us one criterion we can consider, when He says to prefer each other to ourselves. My good friends are those people whose preferences I generally prefer to my own. Now, I have to tell you, I often watch movies by myself (which is not in the same category of weirdness as those who drink by themselves). And I would far rather see a movie that a friend wants to see then make them watch one that I want to see that they don't.
There are certain virtues that I believe are conducive to making a friendship stronger, such as trustworthiness, trust, fidelity, honesty, caring, love, compassion, and joy, just to name a few. I think encouragement goes a long way, too. In fact, there is a wonderful little quote from 'Abdu'l-Baha in which He says, "When we find truth, constancy, fidelity and love we are happy."
And then there is that other quote from Him, found towards the end of that great prayer, in which He says of God, "Thou art more friend to me than I am to myself." Why would this be? Well, who else is truly worthy of our trust? Who can show greater love? Who is more wise, compassionate, and loving than God?
In he end, we will all fail each other in some way, for that is part of the nature of our being human. And if we can better learn to overlook the shortcomings of others, and help them overlook our own shortcomings, then the more our friendships will flourish. God, of course, is the absolute example of all these virtues, and is, therefore, more friend to us than we can ever be.
But really, if we can learn to be more generous, more forgiving, more worthy of the trust of our neighbour, and so on and so forth, then we will not only learn to be better friends with each other, but also better human beings. And we will, in the end, learn a lot more about making the world a far better place to live.
So, what is friendship? I think it is the application of the virtues in relation to each other.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
