Page 1 of 1

Posted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 9:41 am
by Baha'i Warrior

Are you an author? You should really be publishing this stuff. It's very insightful—something that should be read by everyone. How great will our world be when everyone comes to this level of spiritually understanding.

Best regards,


evolution of spirituality/consciousness

Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 1:25 am
by Sean H.

Thanks for insightfully praising Tawna's beautiful statement of the universalist nature of the Baha'i perspective on "salvation", and for explicating the general idea of universalism as it applies to recognition of a "higher authority" required for the elimination of religious exclusivity - on the way to world peace.

What you describe is a massive "paradigm shift", and many people have proposed theories about the nature of the paradigm shift. The field of consciousness studies is one area of study, systems theory is another, holistic theory, etc.

So, it would appear to be common that many people think that the elimination of "exclusivist" notions of religion is more enlightened.

However, I personally do not believe in an absolute model of equality on all levels, to do so makes it impossible to believe in evolution itself, or the idea that society develops to higher levels.

These quotes get to the heart of the issue:

(Dr. Graves was in competition with Maslow in the definition of "needs".)

Popular Quotations from Dr. Graves . . .

The Never Ending Quest

"At each stage of human existence the adult man is off on his quest of his holy grail, the way of life he seeks by which to live. At his first level he is on a quest for automatic physiological satisfaction. At the second level he seeks a safe mode of living, and this is followed in turn, by a search for heroic status, for power and glory, by a search for ultimate peace; a search for material pleasure, a search for affectionate relations, a search for respect of self, and a search for peace in an incomprehensible world. And, when he finds he will not find that peace, he will be off on his ninth level quest. As he sets off on each quest, he believes he will find the answer to his existence. Yet, much to his surprise and much to his dismay, he finds at every stage that the solution to existence is not the solution he has come to find. Every stage he reaches leaves him disconcerted and perplexed. It is simply that as he solves one set of human problems he finds a new set in their place. The quest he finds is never ending."

-- Dr. Clare W. Graves

Levels of Existence, Forms of Being

"I am not saying in this conception of adult behavior that one style of being, one form of human existence is inevitably and in all circumstances superior to or better than another form of human existence, another style of being. What I am saying is that when one form of being is more congruent with the realities of existence, then it is the better form of living for those realities. And what I am saying is that when one form of existence ceases to be functional for the realities of existence then some other form, either higher or lower in the hierarchy, is the better form of living. I do suggest, however, and this I deeply believe is so, that for the overall welfare of total man's existence in this world, over the long run of time, higher levels are better than lower levels and that the prime good of any society's governing figures should be to promote human movement up the levels of human existence."

-- Dr. Clare W. Graves

Copyright 2001 NVC Consulting

---end excerpts---

So, post-modern ("progressive") culture fully accepts the idea that religious "exclusivity" is "bad" (and that pluralism and relativism are better), but the question that remains is: what to do with the poor "traditionalists" that believe that salvation is "exclusive" (to their religion, interpretation, etc.)?

Can pre-modern metaphysical constructs such as "salvation" themselves be "saved" from the ravages of a modernist/post-modernist world? :)

As I probably previously stated, I think the issue of the relationship between spirituality and evolution is extremely critical to the emergence of Integral paradigms, which are the next stage of human social development after post-modern paradigms.

When religion (spirituality/mysticism) is "informed by" evolutionary theory (science), it becomes flexible and capable of adapting to the ever-changing circumstances of humanity.

In other words, science (or at least integral science), can be a "universalizing" force.

Modernism (conventional, non-integral, science) of course simply wants to destroy, or at least marginalize ("colonize" using Habermas) religions and *anything* spiritual, as part of its project to replace traditional authority and metaphysics with "rational", "enlightened" culture.

Unitive mysticism (e.g., perennial philosophy) offer "a significant critique of modernity and vital guidance for moving beyond it." Unitive mysticism of course appears in all cultures, thus it is "universalist". The problem with that is that post-modernism loathes universals.

Changing lanes a bit:

Here is my response to the question about "salvation" in the other thread:

re: slavery, freedom, & redemption/salvation

"Salvation" defined in comparative-religion terms:

The definition under the "Calvinism" section in the above article is probably what most americans and/or protestants would think of, so please note the existence of other definitions, including the "Universalist" definition.

Dr. Orlando Patterson (Sociology, Harvard) wrote a book about how the concept of "salvation" in western (christian) civilization was tied into the greek concept of freedom (from slavery).

In Baha'i terms, slavery is (in the context of this topic) being enslaved to evil, self, sin, ignorance, etc.

Generally speaking, "salvation" = "redemption".

Patterson's theory departs in some very interesting (and probably controversial) ways from the conventional approach in Christianity.


Sorry if any of the above seems disjointed.


_Ever Present Origin_ and "green meme"

Posted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 2:37 am
by Sean H.

I greatly appreciate the time and effort you put into your excellent response.

There are clearly "healthy" and "unhealthy" forms of post-modernism (the "green meme" to use Spiral Dynamics terms).

I would guess that you are an "exiting" green, and are quite ready to make the jump to "transcendant rationalism", or integralism.

The integral memes "transcend, but include" earlier memes, so there is no need to feel loss of the healthy form of green, just as there is no need to feel loss of "orange" modernism, or blue "universalism", etc.

They are all needed for the continual reinvention of human consciousness called the "great spiral" (a modification of the "great chain of being" in perennial philosophy).

While it would be obvious to you and me and a fair number of Baha'is and people of similar inclination that God the Universal Sovereign Father created evolution, such a notion isn't present, at least on an obvious level, in the scriptures of the Great Traditions. It would have been pointless for Jesus or Mohammed, praise be upon Their luminous Souls, to speak of evolutionary science (in "modern" terms) to the peoples of their times.

Nevertheless, traditionalists tend to not accept evolution "because it isn't in scripture". This obviously presents huge dilemmas for social stability in a changing world.

(btw, Baha'i theology also includes mystical images of the Divine Feminine {the "Maid of Heaven"}, which represents both the most ancient spiritual forms of fertility goddesses and the image of a "post-modern", nurturing, embracing, intimate Godess).

Anyways, apparently Maslow's later work was greatly influenced by Graves' arguments.

They are obviously pioneers in integral science (amongst many others in the 1940s/50s/60s), which at the simplest level means that they adjusted the paradigm of science/rationalism to allow for consideration of spirituality and mysticism (transcendance).

In Baha'i-speak, this is the actual working out of the "harmony of science and religion", but from an "authentic" standpoint that is actually informed by advanced scientific theory instead of superficial religious apologetics.

The first "giant" pioneer of integral science (or more correctly a holistic "integral" theory of consciousness) is probably Jean Gebser. Another was Sri Aurobindo (some of the legacy of his work is being carried out at )


Gebser notes that the various structures of consciousness are revealed by their relationship to space and time. For example, the mythical structure embodies time as cyclical/rhythmic and space as enclosed. Whereas the mental structure lives time as linear, directed or "progressive" and space becomes the box-like homogeneous space of geometry — a vacuum. But just as each consciousness structure erupts it also eventually becomes deficient. The deficient form of the mental structure Gebser called the 'rational' structure. Of particular significance is his realization that previous consciousness structures continue to operate. The rational structure of awareness seeks to deny the other structures with its claim that humans are exclusively rational.
. . .

The rational structure is known for its extremes as evidenced in various "nothing but..." statements. Extreme materialism claims that "everything is nothing but matter — atoms". Philosophy, the love of wisdom, is replaced with instrumental reason, the ability "to make". Contemplation — looking inward — is devalued in relation to what one "can do". "Wise men" fall out of favor and are replaced by the "man of action."
. . .

Some saw the cause of this despair as a lack of values or ethics. Gebser saw that it is the very consciousness structure itself which has played out to its inherent end. He saw that its metaphysical presumptions necessarily led to this ethical dead end. A "value-free" ontology like materialism leads of necessity to living "without value". Any attempt to remedy the situation by a return to "values" would ultimately fail. But it was through this very quagmire of "the decline of the West" that Gebser saw the emergence of a new structure of consciousness which he termed the integral.
. . .

Awareness is already integral. Gebser introduced the notion of presentiation which means to make something present through transparency. An aspect of integral awareness is the presentiation, or "making present", of the various structures of awareness. Rather than allowing only one (rational) structure to be valid,

[*] all structures are recognized, presented,
[*] one through the other.

This awareness of and acceptance of the various structures enables one to live through the various structures rather than to be subjected to them ("lived by" them in German).
. . .

Gebser traces the evidence for the transformations of the structure of consciousness as they are concretized in historical artifacts. He sought to avoid calling this process "evolutionary", since any such notion was illusory when applied to the "unfolding of consciousness." Biological evolution, as Gebser noted at length, was an enclosing process, that particularized a species to a limited environment. The unfolding of awareness is by contrast an opening-up. Any attempt to give a direction or goal to the unfolding of awareness is illusory in that it is based upon a limited notion of time, the mental, which is linear and hence implies "progress." To be sure, Gebser was fully aware that any notion of "human progress" was already played out. He notes that "to progress" is to move toward but is also a moving away from, and he knew that the question as to the fate of humanity is still open, that for it to become closed would be the ultimate tragedy, but that such a closure remains a possibility. Our fate is not assured by any notion of "an evolution
toward" any kind of ideal way of being.
. . .


Ken Wilber is probably today's leading integral theorists, and he has many critics, as well as supporters.

The holistic enchilada: ... index.cfm/


. . .
Integral Post-Metaphysics--and its corollary, integral methodological pluralism--is important, I believe, for many reasons. First and foremost, no system (spiritual or otherwise) that does not come to terms with modern Kantian and postmodern Heideggerian thought can hope to survive with any intellectual respectability (agree with them or disagree with them, they have to be addressed)--and that means all spirituality must be post-metaphysical in some sense. Second, as Einsteinian physics applied to objects moving slower than the speed of light collapses back into Newtonian physics, so an Integral Post-Metaphysics can generate all the essentials of premodern spiritual and metaphysical systems but without their now-discredited ontological baggage. This, to my mind, is the central contribution of an Integral Post-Metaphysics--it does not itself contain metaphysics, but it can generate metaphysics as one possible AQAL matrix configuration under the limit conditions of premodern cultures. That is, the AQAL matrix, when run using premodern parameters, collapses into the old metaphysics (as Einsteinian collapses into Newtonian, even though it itself is non-Newtonian). On the other hand, alter the holonic conditions of the matrix by adjusting it to the parameters of the postmodern world, and the metaphysics drops out entirely, even though there still remains an entire spectrum of consciousness, waves of development, evolution and involution, and a rainbow of awareness that runs unbroken from dust to Deity--but without relying on any pregiven, archetypal, or independently existing ontological structures, levels, planes, etc. In fact, the entire "great chain of being" disappears entirely from reality, but its essential features can be generated by the matrix if certain mythic-era assumptions are plugged into its parameters.

Of course, some sort of "great chain of being" has been central to spiritual traditions from time immemorial, whether it appears in the general shamanic form as the existence of higher and lower worlds, the Neoplatonic version of levels of reality (e.g., the amazing Plotinus), the Taoist version of realms of being (e.g., Lieh Tzu), the Buddhist version of a spectrum of consciousness (e.g., the 8 vijnanas), or the Kabbalah sefirot--and down to today's newer wisdom traditions, from Aurobindo to Adi Da to Hameed Almaas. All of them, without exception, postulate the existence of levels or dimensions of reality or consciousness, including higher or wider or deeper dimensions of being and knowing--some sort of rainbow of existence, whose waves, levels, or bands possess an independent reality that can be accessed by sufficiently evolved or developed souls. In other words, they all postulate the existence of metaphysical realities--which is exactly what is challenged (and thoroughly rejected) by modern and postmodern currents.

Therefore, what is required is a way to generate that essential rainbow of existence but without any metaphysical or ontological postulates. In other words, IF we can generate the essentials of a spiritual worldview without the metaphysical baggage, then we can generate a spiritual worldview that will survive in a modern and postmodern world. That, in any event, is one of the central aims of Integral Post-Metaphysics (and its practical application, called "integral methodological pluralism"), both of which will be outlined in these excerpts. If we can succeed in this endeavor, then all of those spiritual worldviews (from shamanism to Plotinus to Padmasambhava to Aurobindo) can be reanimated and utilized within a broader, non-metaphysical AQAL matrix, which can generate the same rainbow of existence but without the discredited metaphysical accoutrements, and thus one can still utilize their profound wisdom without succumbing to the devastating attacks of modern and postmodern currents.
. . .

Wilber is a Zen Buddhist, so some adjustment might be needed for people in the western traditions.

Basic stuff that explains Wilber's terminology:


On "politics": ... ew&id=2289

Shambhala Sun | July 1999

Liberalism and Religion - We Should Talk

By: Ken Wilber

Liberalism's objections to mythic forms do not apply to formless awareness. Thus liberalism and authentic spirituality can walk hand in hand.There are two major dialogues in the modern world that I believe must take place, one between science and religion, and then one between religion and liberalism.

The way it is now, the modern world really is divided into two major and warring camps, science and liberalism on the one hand, and religion and conservatism on the other. And the key to getting these two camps together is first, to get religion past science, and then second, to get religion past liberalism, because both science and liberalism are deeply anti-spiritual. And it must occur in that order, because liberalism won’t even listen to spirituality unless it has first passed the scientific test. (Showing how that might happen was a major theme of my book, Sense and Soul.)

In one sense, of course, science and liberalism are right to be anti-spiritual, because most of what has historically served as spirituality is now prerational, magic or mythic, implicitly ethnocentric, fundamentalist dogma. Liberalism traditionally came into existence to fight the tyranny of prerational myth and that is one of its enduring and noble strengths (the freedom, liberty, and equality of individuals in the face of the often hostile or coercive collective). And this is why liberalism was always allied with science against fundamentalist, mythic, prerational religion (and the conservative politics that hung on to that religion).
But neither science nor liberalism is aware that in addition to prerational myth, there is transrational awareness. There are not two camps here: liberalism versus mythic religion. There are three: mythic religion, rational liberalism, and transrational spirituality.
The main strength of liberalism is its emphasis on individual human rights. The major weakness is its rabid fear of Spirit. Modern liberalism came into being, during the Enlightenment, largely as a counterforce to mythic religion, which was fine. But liberalism committed a classic pre/trans fallacy: it thought that all spirituality was nothing but prerational myth, and thus it tossed any and all transrational spirituality as well, which was absolutely catastrophic. (As Ronald Reagan would say, it tossed the baby with the dishes.)

[*] Liberalism attempted to kill God and replace
[*] transpersonal Spirit with egoic humanism,
[*] and as much as I am a liberal in many of
[*] my social values, that is its sorry downside,
[*] this horror of all things Divine.

Liberalism can be rightfully distrustful of prerational myth, and yet still open itself to transrational awareness. Its objections to mythic forms do not apply to formless awareness, and thus liberalism and authentic spirituality can walk hand in hand into a greater tomorrow. If this can be demonstrated to them using terms they find acceptable, then we would have, I believe for the first time, the possibility of a postliberal spirituality, which combines the strengths of conservatism and liberalism but moves beyond both in a transrational, transpersonal integration. The trick is to take the best of both, individual rights plus a spiritual orientation, and to do so by finding liberal humanistic values plugged into a transrational, not prerational, Spirit. This spirituality is transliberal, evolutionary and progressive, not preliberal, reactionary and regressive. It is also political, in the very broadest sense, in that its single major motivation, compassion, is pressed into social action. However, a postconservative, postliberal spirituality is not pressed into service as public policy, transrational spirituality preserves the rational separation of church and state, as well as the liberal demand that the state will neither protect nor promote a favorite version of the good life. Those who would transform the world by having all of us embrace their new paradigm, or particular God or Goddess, or their version of Gaia, or their favorite mythology, these are all, by definition, reactionary and regressive in the worst of ways: preliberal, not transliberal, and thus their particular versions of the witch hunt are never far removed from their global agenda. A truly transliberal spirituality exists instead as a cultural encouragement, a background context that neither prevents nor coerces, but rather allows genuine spirituality to arise.

But one thing is absolutely certain: all the talk of a new spirituality in America is largely a waste of time unless those two central dialogues are engaged and answered. Unless spirituality can pass through the gate of science, then of liberalism, it will never be a significant force in the modern world, but will remain merely as the organizing power for the prerational levels of development around the world.
. . .

Posted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 2:34 am
by majnun
Dear Richard:

There is no god sir, and by the way,
life is not that complicated. The Urantia book is a fine
piece of litterature, but for modern people, it is obsolete.


Urantia, Utopia

Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:48 pm
by majnun
Dear Richard;

Because I know where you are on the road of life,
I wont try to convince you with my personal concepts.
I have no "doubts" about the god you like to mention, I am certain,
with all the atoms that compose me, that it does not exist.

However, to say my spiritual evolution, or the evolution of my mind is slowed down,or stopped or nullified simply because I dont beleive in a god like you do, it is simply bigotry and a projection from your own mind.

No scriptures are eternal Richard, no even baha'is. When saying Urantia book is the top notch and its eternal, you make the same mistake christians, muslims and others did. At least baha'is know their scriptures is not eternal, and those who say it will last half a billion years, they swim in illusion. We are quicker than turtles to learn new principles.

I read the Urantia book and because it invites people to return to the doctrine of Jesus, it is like wishing to go back into the womb. To my eyes the UB is like this automatic writing plot, Conversation with God, an invention from men. The american word for it is bull... something.


Who was that friend Moses saw face to face ?

Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 8:59 pm
by majnun
You should write books Richard.

Moses saw the guy face to face, and
so did Joshua and a few others. Yahweh
is the chief of the team of extraterrestrials who
planted humanity here. He is not a god.

If this is too complex for you to understand,
well, I cannot add anything here.


Posted: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:12 am
by Baha'i Warrior

See? You should write books! The world can benefit from the rare wisdom that you possess. I would be the first to buy your book, I'm sure Claude also. Please consider it :)

Richard, I agree with you when you said: "The existence of God can never be proved by scientific experiment or by the pure reason of logical deduction." Being a college man, I come across many text books/books that try to disprove the existence of God (but mostly trying to disprove the existence of a human soul), in very simplified ways (this is the P.C. thing to do these days). (I made reference to this book in another post) I read a book by Steven Pinker (prominent psychologist) called The Blank Slate where he gave a very weak argument trying to disprove God. One major piece of evidence that there is no God is his reference to some schizo mother who drowns her sons and says she is doing the will of God. Look....SHE IS SCHIZOPHRENIC! She has a mental condition. Her words don't represent all spiritual truth :roll: At least I have a little bit of respect for a well thought out attack on God...but this new age oversimplified atheism stuff? Lol.

"And i would add that the non-existence of God can never be proved..."

Again, I wholeheartedly agree. God is not material, He is not a man. Men are animals with a soul that can rise above the flesh. There is very little we can know about God, but what we can know is that He exists. We think everything that is True has to be obvious, that a banana is obviously a banana because it looks like one, tastes like one, etc. But what if all of our senses went away, then how would we know it is a banana? Should be take a relativistic viewpoint, that since we cannot detect it that it does not exist? If we open our spiritual eye, we will see God. Except we see Him in a different way. A sixth sense if you will. "Close one eye, and open the other," as Baha'u'llah put it. If God revealed Himself, the whole universe, mankind, would be obliterated. This is why He sends to us Messengers. (There is no other way.) They tell us about God. Is it true that we can't see Him? Wrong, we can see Him if we "Close one eye, and open the other," (as Baha'u'llah instructs us) or close one ear and open the other to Baha'u'llah's Words. If we don't listen, we can't know. How is it that scientists, who know the physical laws better than we do, can also acknowledge the existence of God (as is a trend that is developing among prominent scientists)? Because, by using both eyes, they have discovered physical laws (or truth) and spiritual truth. They see that unless they use their spiritual eye, the whole picture will be very blurry. They know there is a lot of stuff that science is powerless to explain, no matter how advanced it is/how much more advanced it will get.

The smartest men (scientists, etc.) in history have acknowledged that there is a God. Take Einstein's statement:

    I do not think that it is necessarily the case that science and religion are natural opposites. In fact, I think that there is a very close connection between the two. Further, I think that science without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without science is blind. Both are important and should work hand-in-hand. Souce: <>

He wasn't necessarily a very spiritual person (I read he had many girlfriends while he was married), but even he, one of the most intelligent men to live, could not speak against reason.

(And that quote speaks to the Baha'i principle of the harmony of science and religion....he knew that science is not science if it rejects God.)

Anyway, sorry for my intervening, I don't know if it contributed anything but I hope it did :)

Posted: Tue Sep 05, 2006 12:34 pm
by Baha'i Warrior

Thank you for your encouraging and inspiring messages. I always look forward to your posts. From someone like you who has seen a lot, experienced a lot, and gained a lot of wisdom, such words are very heartening.

May God bless you with good health (both physical and spiritual), and vouchsafe to you a high station in the Abha Kingdom.


Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 12:48 pm
by Baha'i Warrior
richard wrote:Thank you again for your kind words, BW,

No, thank you. :)

richard wrote:Well BW, I see physical health as desirable for now, but spiritual health is eternal, so my focus is spiritual. And, rather than being in search of a high station in the Abha Kingdom, i seek to become an increasingly true and good servant humble to the God that has given me life and the hunger to be good, true, and helpful in my relations with all persons i encounter.

I can't find this quote online (it relates to the second sentence in the above paragraph), but in a Baha'i compilation called Unto Him Shall We Return, there is a quote by Baha'u'llah where He says that a good deed is in itself the reward. I have also read elsewhere that we shouldn't do good deeds thinking that this will benefit us in the next life. There are many things that can act as barriers between man his Creator.

About the Abha Kingdom: that's true, spiritual health is more important.

One the one hand, we should attach much more importance to our "spiritual bodies." On the other, if we are granted physical health in this world, we are better able to serve Baha'u'llah while still mortals, as your yourself are doing. At least that's to the extent of my knowledge.

richard wrote:Indeed, i take this to mean that the Abha Kingdom of God is here and now, even in our hearts, minds, and souls this very minute, and forever, if we choose to follow the True and Good will and ways of God...

Yes, I have seen that quote. Since all the worlds of God are not confined to the constraints of time, space, etc., then we could very well be among those worlds as we speak.

richard wrote:P.S. It is amazing to find so much universal and eternal spiritual truth and goodness in the extensive writings and teachings of the Baha'i Faith...

I agree. It has been said that if you read just one Baha'i book (take the Iqan, for example), upon successive readings (even beyond the 100 count) you will, each and every time, discover something new. How much more so with the wealth of Baha'i scripture out there...

do we need adaptable spectacles (glasses).

Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 2:07 pm
by majnun
In our eastern Canada, we have a
jewish community, and before college,
the teachings they receive is all about the
Torah. No psychology, no english classes, no
mathematics. Studying religious books is not a
crime, but these young students are deprived of
some useful features necessary to live in our society.
Their vision of us is distorted then, well to my eyes,
it is.

On television, a teacher in Pakistan said with sincerity: what can
help Pakistan now is an islamic revolution, like the one that happened in Iran. To my eyes, it is a distortion.

Richard tells me, the Urantia book is the best for us. This is a distortion.
Other people say, the books Conversation with God is top notch modern spirituality. This is a distortion.

We have a bahai shcool here, founded by Mr Schopflocher, and the same
sort of distortions, circulating in a closed religious environement, could be transfered to these students.

When students come out in the real world, what they think is just
what Dylan composed his song with: The world is sh...

When we write in here, we include in our "talks", our distorted views too.


Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 2:50 pm
by Baha'i Warrior

That is true what you say, that we all hold some distortions: me, you, everybody. Surely we wish that we didn't, but through meditation and experience perhaps we may freed from many of our distortions, especially the more negative ones. As with the Pakistan example you gave, we can readily see that some distortions can lead to very grievous consequences.

But I am of the opinion that if we see something we ourselves believe to be a minor distortion in others, we may overlook it.

With the Baha'i Faith, when we give importance to a certain Baha'i books (i.e. the Iqan or the Aqdas), we usually do so with supporting quotations from one of the Central Figures, for example, 'Abdu'l-Baha or Shoghi Effendi. And it is usually done with good intentions. I wonder what you mean specifically when say the Baha'i school students are prone to distortions. Perhaps you can give some examples of the types of distortions that you have in mind?

When students come out in the real world, what they think is just
what Dylan composed his song with: The world is sh...

There are many factors that lead to this pessimism you refer to. There is no one single factor that we can easily point to. One key factor, though, that may influence such a view when students come into the real world is when they come unprepared (e.g. without emotional and financial support from their parents). This unreadiness may in part cause the student to adopt harsher views of reality, compared to the more benign views held by those better equipped.

What your beliefs are (i.e. religion, philosophy) really influence the way you see the world and others. It's like the cup example; is the cup half empty or half full? Are people generally good or bad? That kind of thing. If people act badly toward you, should you, as 'Abdu'l-Baha instructs, see His face in them—see them as a child of God, further—or should you see them as the miserable, wretched people you think they are?


Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:32 pm
by majnun
Well, I could also say, Oprah is a distortion.
Dr Phil is a distortion. Both are gods, for some.

For students, like those of the jewish community,
it is unfair to these young jewish students to be turned
onto only one subject, their religion, and nothing else.
Its like preparing a whole nation to become rabbis, or imams or
preasts. Fortunately it is not like that in the bahai schools.

On the other hand, to be protected from changing trends,
is not a bad thing. About these ways students present themselves
half-naked at college, we in Quebec adopted good rules :
students must wear uniforms. No more hip-hop styles, no more : yo ! man…

These almost half naked styles have been inserted by the hip-hop pop
culture, to which identifies the negroid youth who trives on tom-tom
music, and who have a natural tendency toward indecendy, nudity and drugs.
As for the financial inegalities, it is one factor in the resultant lifestlyles.

If we face people who act badly, or agressively, our bahai peculiar style should be the only weapon we use to charm the hidden person, in that person.


Full moon toughts

Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:18 pm
by majnun
Hello Richard :

A simple phenomenon called intellectualisation, is used
to express ideas and concepts. However, hyper-intellectualisation
leads to rethoric, theorification, and non-action. It’s like a “sit and wait”
policy, into which we secure ourselves, for any reason we may have, or hide. We tie facts together, and we explain the relation that unites them.

Did you notice how, like in a cycle, people around us, even television staff,
suddenly all look a bit older, at each passing of the full moon ? If you are physionomist a bit, you will see it, every time. In newspapers, known faces sagging a bit more, the eye contour changes, and a fatigue appears on faces. It happenned a few days ago.

If my theory is correct, what should we do ?
I suggest 2 solutions. One is radical and drastic, the other one, scientific.

1- Lets get rid of the moon.
2- Lets find scientifically that inner timer inside our bodies,
that hidden thing which makes our human cells to
grow older physically, much too quickly.


being a baha'i is fun

Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 3:15 am
by majnun
Hello Richard :

I should have been clearer, the intellectualisation
I meant was that one step after we reach the 9th valley,
when we naturally abandon some inner things I will not
mention here.

The second hypothesis, that the moon cycle is attached to
the human slow physical degradation, is a phenomenon I observed
for many years. It is slow, almost imperceptible, but each time, it surprises me to see so many faces moving toward the end, in one step.

Next, I just came out from our 19th day feast, where we celebrated, by
reading texts attached to the visit of Abdul Baha in our town, because he
stayed here in Montreal from August 30th to September 9th, 1912.
The friends know my position on the god topic, and that I go to raelian meetings, because a baha’i hides nothing to nobody, he cannot lie. But we rarely talk about religion when we meet. We simply enjoy life, at that moment.
What Abdul Baha means to us, because we also know he was not the prophet, it is a special thing, he is not our idol, but what he brought to us is over what my words can convey. I don’t know how to say it.

In meetings we form a sort of family, and all bring their kids along, but it is not really a family, it is a society, or like some say, a brotherhood of man. Some could see it as a church meeting, like when we were children, but it is not quite like that.
You too Richard may also taste these moments of joy, because many assemblies welcome non-bahais to partake the food, and the spiritual food. I was not looking for another family, outside my family. The fun we have when together in a group, you cannot imagine. We may say it like this; there is a little magic in the air, something I did not found elsewhere. May I call it, in it's larger sense: love ?

On sunday’s, we have what we call here”coffee-break sundays”. This is designed for all bahai’s to meet and discuss, for bahai and non-bahai searchers to get the official writings.
Any person in need has a free meal, no questions asked, we do this to fight poverty in our town. We regulars members pay for this and we don’t argue on this, we just support it, it is a part of our fun.

The first time I entered that little bahai center, my goal was simply to buy pieces of official litterature, and I met many new faces. They invited me to eat with them, and a nice older lady brought me a coffee. I felt something was uniting them, but I did not know what, at the time.
It felt a bit like my first AA meeting in 1985. I could say what enticed me to continue with them baha’is, it was the joy I saw on their faces.

Note: baha'i is pronounced ba-ha-ee, the second a, a bit lower.


Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 4:47 pm
by Baha'i Warrior
One post on the old forum speaks to this topic about the existence of God. It was posted by a Stuart Gilman:

    The proposition that someone wrote an article which in some way "proves the existence of God" is a philosophical and theosophical absurdity. One might hypothesize that certain events in the universe are of such an inexplicable magnitude and comlexity - or that the statistical probability of life, for example, is zero - then there must be a God, or some "force" one might call God, necessitating a reconciliation of the two. However, God is unknowable, undiscoverable and, without doubt, unproveable. No logic can "prove God's existence". No evidence, however extraordinary, can prove God's existence. Believing in Baha'u'llah is an act of faith, not of logic, an answer to our need for spiritual enlightenment and of a higher order of understanding and morality. The truth of Baha leads to God, it is not proof of anything, but if you need proof, or seek proof, you have a serious problem with Faith. Anyone who waits for proof of God is lost.

    With affection and empathy,


Taken from:

Of course Majnun, as I take it (correct me if I'm wrong), doesn't seem to be waiting for any proof of God. I believe that there is no point in continuing a discussion that won't serve any purpose, besides the fact that such a discussion can only be detrimental to the interests of this forum. Each poster here seems to be set in his own ways. Let us (Richard and others) focus on the receptive, at least those who acknowledge the possibility of the existence God. Anyone who is a Baha'i member and disbelieves in God is surely in the minority minority; I have never heard of such a condition existing. Both the Koran and the Baha'i Writings speaks to this issue: that whoever God wishes to withhold knowledge from He will, and vice versa. We humans can only do so much.


Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:03 pm
by Baha'i Warrior
richard wrote:However, i will say that once one is convinced of the reality of their spiritual faith experience(s) of God, such reality will be seen as reasonable and logical to their spiritualized minds.

Exactly the way I feel, Richard. For me, at least, I understand the concept of free will (of course to a limited degree) and the consequences that it entails. I think a large problem with society is the relativistic view that is widely accepted as "truth." Some people really think, it seems (based on observations from limited philosophy courses I took, other social situations, etc.), that if one believes in God, for him God exists; and for the individual who has rejected God, that for him God does not exist. But that's narrow and extremely illogical, because the fact is: either there is a God, or there isn't one—it can't be both. And if you understand the concept of God, then you will know that exercising your free will in only one direction (the "right" direction) will ultimately lead to your eternal happiness. As to the other path: those who disbelieve (according to this concept) will tremble in the presence of God with a great trembling (using Koranic prose here 8)) and will be reduced to utter submission and will be in eternal remorse while looking at what they could have done, and what they did do. Then, as Baha'u'llah says, there is nothing they can do. A dismal idea—that two people may die, and one may live in eternal happiness, etc. It's not that simplistic, of course, but I think generally the concept of a balance between good deeds/bad deeds holds true...

where is the evidence ?

Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 11:20 pm
by majnun
Because many simple minds believe what
distorted and altered translations orders,
and in order to proove this imagined god
exist or not, we should put the best people
on the case.

Let's ask lieutenant Caine and his CSI team,
to find the evidences, the facts.


Re: where is the evidence ?

Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 10:26 am
by Baha'i Warrior
majnun wrote:Because many simple minds believe what
distorted and altered translations orders,
and in order to proove this imagined god
exist or not, we should put the best people
on the case.

It's somewhat peculiar...someone who talks about the Valleys a lot, and who indicates his belief in Baha'u'llah, is actually saying Baha'u'llah (and 'Abdu'l-Baha, Shoghi Effendi, etc.) was wrong when He referred to the One True God countless times.

By definition, a Prophet—the channel through which God speaks—cannot be wrong. If a Prophet is wrong about one thing, He is wrong about everything. He is the mirror reflecting what God wants us to see. Thus we cannot say Baha'u'llah was correct about this and incorrect about that. Our ignorance and limited and feeble minds doesn't = God or His Manifestation being in error. To be human, a human being has to understand and acknowledge his limitations. We are gifted with being able to know God, but some may choose to sever themselves from God. Pardon the somewhat extreme example, but, just as you have the free will to sever your own arm off (which would not be the wiset thing to do), similarly can you destroy the connection between you and God. Except in the former case, it is preceeded with a lot of physical pain and we know via pain receptors, etc., that what we are doing is hurting us; and in the latter case, our spiritual "pain" or "agony" is not as readily recognizable. However, though not as recognizable, it is much more dangerous because, as Baha'u'llah states, despite the fact that this life seems so real, it is merely an illusion; it is nothing but a test to weed out the spiritual weak, if you will, and allow the spiritually strong shine and progress.

(Illusion...think Matrix...)

It's important to read all the Writings so we can to get a better appreciation and understanding of these issues, including that of the existence of God. We needn't any CSI team to find "the evidences, the facts," for 'Abdu'l-Baha states that God is "incomprehensible" and "beyond the comprehension of man," Him not being of "common existence":

    Existence is of two kinds: one is the existence of God which is beyond the comprehension of man. He, the invisible, the lofty and the incomprehensible, is preceded by no cause but rather is the Originator of the cause of causes. He, the Ancient, hath had no beginning and is the all-independent. The second kind of existence is the human existence. It is a common existence, comprehensible to the human mind, is not ancient, is dependent and hath a cause to it. The mortal substance does not become eternal and vice-versa; the human kind does not become a Creator and vice-versa. The transformation of the innate substance is impossible.

    (Selections from the Writings of `Abdu'l-Bahá pp. 61–2)