Dear Sen
You quote Shoghi Effendi:
"It [the Bahai Faith] is neither eclectic in the presentation of its
truths, nor arrogant in the affirmation of its claims. Its teachings
revolve around the fundamental principle that religious truth is not
absolute but relative, that Divine Revelation is progressive, not
final. Unequivocally and without the least reservation it proclaims
all established religions to be divine in origin, identical in their
aims, complementary in their functions, continuous in their purpose,
indispensable in their value to mankind." (Shoghi Effendi, The World
Order of Baha'u'llah, p. 57)"
First, none of this is deconstructionism i.e. none of this supports the
foundational deconstructionist claims that all statements endlessly subvert
their own meanings and that therefore, attempt to fix a 'meaning' is not
only arbitrary but also an attempt to privilege a certain interpretation or
interpreter over all others.
Second, here is the portion of my paper "Relativism and the Baha'i Writings"
which deals with Shoghi Effendi's statement that religious truth is
"relative":
" The statement that "religious truth is not absolute but relative" cannot
have its seemingly obvious meaning since that would deny the statements that
immediately follow about revelation being a "continuous and progressive
process," that "all the great religions are divine in origin," that "they
differ only in nonessential aspects of their doctrines" and so on. These
claims - which are integral to the identity or essence of the Bahá'í
revelation - are obviously intended as absolute truths which are
foundational to the Bahá'í Faith, universal in scope and objectively true.
They are not relative statements in the sense that their opposites are
equally true or valid. In the philosophy embedded in the Bahá'í Writings,
deconstructing these statements will not bring us to equally valid
counter-truths; the denial of these claims is simply false. There is,
moreover, no way a Bahá'í can reject any of them and/or accept their
opposites and remain consistent with Bahá'í teachings. Of course Bahá'ís
accept the fact that non-Bahá'ís may reject some or all of these claims, but
this is regarded as error, rooted in the failure to take the next step in
humankind's religious evolution.
Just because we are all divine creations of God does not mean that all our
opinions and views are correct. As `Abdu'l-Bahá's says,
"The divine Manifestations have been iconoclastic in Their teachings,
uprooting error, destroying false religious beliefs and summoning mankind
anew to the fundamental oneness of God."
The fact that Manifestations have been "iconoclastic" means that They have
evaluated various truth claims, found them wanting and swept them aside as
erroneous. He also says,
"And shouldst destroy them which destroy the earth" means that He will
entirely deprive the neglectful; for the blindness of the blind will be
manifest, and the vision of the seers will be evident; the ignorance and
want of knowledge of the people of error will be recognized, and the
knowledge and wisdom of the people under guidance will be apparent . . .
In the words of Bahá'u'lláh:
"Twelve hundred and eighty years have passed since the dawn of the
Muhammadan Dispensation, and with every break of day, these blind and
ignoble people have recited their Qur'an, and yet have failed to grasp one
letter of that Book! Again and again they read those verses which clearly
testify to the reality of these holy themes, and bear witness to the truth
of the Manifestations of eternal Glory, and still apprehend not their
purpose. They have even failed to realize, all this time, that, in every
age, the reading of the scriptures and holy books is for no other purpose
except to enable the reader to apprehend their meaning and unravel their
innermost mysteries. Otherwise reading, without understanding, is of no
abiding
profit unto man.
For his part, Shoghi Effendi writes,
He [Bahá'u'lláh] insists on the unqualified recognition of the unity of
their purpose, restates the ***eternal verities**** they enshrine,
coordinates their functions, ****distinguishes the essential and the
authentic from the nonessential and spurious**** in their teachings,
separates the God-given truths from the priest-prompted superstitions
Thus it is quite possible for God's children to be blind and in error. These
statements undermines any assertion that the Writings espouse a simple
relativism which allows virtually any viewpoint to claim validity by
appealing to its own special standpoint. Indeed, the whole concept of
progressive revelation means that that not all standpoints are valid for all
times and for all places, that religious history shows progress from one
standpoint to the next which is why each Manifestation brings his own
solutions.
It almost goes without saying that any simplistic reading of
"religious truth is not absolute but relative" falls into the trap of
self-refutation and self-undermining. If this statement of "religious truth"
is meant to be taken absolutely, then it obviously refutes itself by
violating its own message. If, however, it is meant to be only relatively
true, then the door is open to the possibility that at least some religious
truth may be absolute, that is, universal, objective and foundational. That
would defeat the entire purpose of the statement. Thus, there are good
logical reasons for rejecting any simplistic reading of Shoghi Effendi's
declaration.
If Shoghi Effendi's statement about religious truth being relative cannot
mean that religious truth is relative in the sense of all possible
viewpoints on an issue being equally valid, what does it mean? If we read
the Guardian's entire statement, we find that it discusses progressive
revelation, the historical changes of presentation undergone by their
essentially unified principles. In other words, what changes are the
surface, historical, phenomenal forms of the divine teachings but the
essential teachings remain the same. In other words, what changes and is
relative is the adapted, phenomenal form of religions - not the "eternal
verities they enshrine," which are true for all time i.e., under all
conditions past and future and for all humans. In philosophical terms, they
are universal, objective and foundational.
From this we conclude that relativism does not apply to the "eternal
verities"(universal, objective and foundational) but only to the way they
may be expressed outwardly, or historically. Because they are "eternal,"
they are absolute, i.e. true independently of the standpoint, beliefs, hopes
and fears of any individuals or collectives. (Though they are true
independently of all standpoints, this does not prevent some from denying
them for reasons of their own.) The historical or, as we may call it, outer,
worldly, existential expression of the infinite potentials inherent in the
"eternal verities" is what varies, and not the essential teachings or the
"eternal verities" themselves. These remain constant and actualise their
implications for humankind through our evolution. It is obvious, of course,
that the Bahá'í model of absolute, essential and constant truths given
various existential expressions throughout human history cannot be
accommodated by a concept of relativism according to which no perspective is
essential or foundational, no concept is universal or applicable to all
peoples at all times and no concept is objective, or true for all
standpoints. Moreover, in violation of relativism, the Bahá'í Faith
*****"distinguishes the essential and the authentic from the nonessential
and spurious in their teachings, separates the God-given truths from the
priest-prompted superstitions."***** Making these distinctions assumes that
there is an Archimedean standpoint from which such judgments can be made - a
notion flatly denied by relativism. Another aspect is that the Bahá'í model
accepts the possibility that some views are simply erroneous. Such
assertions are irreconcilable with any form of relativism.
Although the Bahá'í position is not relativist but absolutist on
some issues - Bahá'u'lláh is the Manifestation for this age, that HIV is
related to AIDS - it rejects as contrary to the doctrine of progressive
revelation the absolutist suggestion that religious truth is revealed once
and for all in full by any Manifestation. In regards to epistemology, the
Bahá'í position may be described as 'evolutionary Platonic perspectivism.'
The reason for calling it 'Platonic' is because there are "eternal verities"
which obviously do not change and are true from all possible standpoints
(unless one chooses to be deceived, but that is a different issue). Because
they are eternal and unchanging, they resemble the Platonic ideas insofar as
they are absolutely universal, objective and foundational: "This is the
changeless Faith of God, eternal in the past, eternal in the future." Of
course, it is evident that we do, in fact, have some knowledge of these
"eternal verities" or other absolute truths but what and how much we know
depends on our perspective or standpoint in history, on our spiritual,
social, cultural development and what we learn from the Manifestations
throughout human evolution. Thus, throughout history, we attain partial
glimpses of the essential truths, the "eternal verities" as their various
previously hidden potentials become known to us. That is why this position
is described as evolutionary and perspectivist. " ("Relativism and the
Baha'i Writings"; sorry, the footnote citations didn't come through)
You quote,
"To them will the Mashriqu'l-Adhkar symbolize the fundamental verity
underlying the Bahá'í Faith, that religious truth is not absolute
but relative, that Divine Revelation is not final but progressive."
(Shoghi Effendi, Baha'i Administration, p. 185)
This seems to tell us that the religious discourse never reaches a
"stop" position: it is always re-inventing and quite often subverting
itself."
First, notice the self-contradiction if we read "relative" in a simplistic
way: how can there be a "fundamental verity" i.e. a changeless foundational
truth, if this itself is subject to change and is only relatively true? If
it is only relatively true - then the opposite might also be true in at
least one case - which destroys the meaning of Shoghi Effendi's whole
statement. The very identification of this "fundamental verity" as a
"fundamental verity" undermines (as shown in the selection above) any
simplistic reading of the term "relative."
Second, it is the "nonessential and spurious" and the "exoteric forms of the
divine teachings" (SAQ 75) that are subject to evolution, progress and
change not the "eternal verities." (How could they be "eternal verities" if
they did?) IOW, the historical accretions are cleansed, the historically
inappropriate forms of understanding are up-dated. As the Guardian writes,
Baha'u'llah
" restates the eternal verities they [previous religions] enshrine,
coordinates their functions, distinguishes the essential and the authentic
from the nonessential and spurious in their teachings, separates the
God-given truths from the priest-prompted superstitions"(The Promised Day is
Come 108)
Deconstructionism could never accede to this statement given its intrinsic
assumption of a privileged viewpoint.
Third, in regards to "progressive" we must not forget that the concept of
"progress" is not acceptable to relativism since the judgment that something
is progressive requires there to be an absolute standard against which we
measure. Also, if our understanding of truth is "progressive" our
understanding is partial - but partial does not mean 'incorrect.' Since
Baha'u'llah talks about erroneous doctrines, He recognises the distinction
between 'partial' and 'correct' - and this recognition of error puts His
teachings beyond deconstructionism and relativism neither of which can admit
the possibility of error since that would involve judgment from a privileged
point of view.
Fourth, let us remember that the "eternal verities" of "the changeless Faith
of God, eternal in the past, eternal in the future" (Gleanings, 136) are not
subject to change. This alone puts the Writings completely out of tune with
deconstructionism which does not recognise the existence of any
unchangerable truth, indeed, does not recognise the existence of truth at
all.
Fifth, aside from the fact that the eternal verities" are not re-invented,
"re-inventing" oneself and "subverting" oneself are not the same things. All
change is not necessarily subversion, i.e. logical contradiction. Change may
be the actualization of potentials - i.e. the logical outcome of the
possibilities inherent in an entity and therefore a coherent i.e.
non-self-subversive process of development.
You write,
"But it also tells us that we have to live where we are: we
cannot wait until an end point that never comes, and we live less
than optimally if we work with a stage of the discourse that has
already been subverted. It also tells us that religious truth (at
least) is relative, not absolute. Beckwith and perhaps other critics
of the Bahai teachings have said that this is a self-defeating
statement, but I do not think it is. It says that the discourse, our
apprehension of truth, is continually in process, changing, and this
very awareness (that there are no absolute truths we can grasp) has
been thrown up by the process of change. There are still some
religious believers who try to live in a universe of absolute truths:
this is the phenomenon of religious fundamentalism, which is quite
largely a reaction against the awareness that truth is relative.
Fundamentalism seeks to objectify what is inherently subjective, so
that it can be argued about in the same terms as one argues about
hard sciences (whereas one should talk about religious truths as one
speaks of the beauty of music or the meaning of poetry)."
Beckwith is logically correct - **if** we read the Guardian's statement
simplistically, i.e. without taking the context of progressive revelation
and the difference between the "eternal verities" and their exoteric
appearance into consideration.
The process of discovery only means that some of our understandings are
partial - but that does not mean incorrect.
To say, as you do that "truth is relative" is logical nonsense, i.e. is a
position that cannot be coherently maintained. If it is true, then even this
statement is relative - and thus leaves open the possibility of a truth
being absolute: this undermines the original statement. If it is false, i.e.
only some truth is relative, then we still have the possibility of at least
one absolute truth - in which case the statement is refuted.
The same problem arises with your statement, "Fundamentalism seeks to
objectify what is inherently subjective." If we take it at face value, then
it applies to itself as well - and therefore makes the same mistake it
refers to since it is trying to objectify a subjective judgment.
You write,
On the subjective nature of truths, Baha'u'llah writes:
In sum, the differences in objects have now been made plain. Thus
when the wayfarer gazeth only upon the place of appearance -- that
is, when he seeth only the many-colored globes -- he beholdeth
yellow and red and white; hence it is that conflict hath prevailed
among the creatures, and a darksome dust from limited souls hath hid
the world. And some do gaze upon the effulgence of the light; and
some have drunk of the wine of oneness and these see nothing but the
sun itself.
Thus, for that they move on these three differing planes, the
understanding and the words of the wayfarers have differed; and
hence the sign of conflict doth continually appear on earth. For
some there are who dwell upon the plane of oneness and speak of that
world, and some inhabit the realms of limitation, and some the
grades of self, while others are completely veiled. Thus do the
ignorant people of the day, who have no portion of the radiance of
Divine Beauty, make certain claims, and in every age and cycle
inflict on the people of the sea of oneness what they themselves
deserve.
(Baha'u'llah, The Seven Valleys, p. 20)"
These passages do not support relativism. The fact that some, the limited,
gaze on the place of appearance and yet others gaze on the light of the sun
and drink of the "wine of oneness" - shows that there exists absolute truth
i.e. the light, the sun and that some can even perceive it. This is utterly
incompatible with any form of relativism, according to which even the view
of the sun is simply another view among many. IOW, this passage is totally
incompatible with deconstructionism since even the view of the sun must be
(endlessly) deconstructed.
The same problem exists in the second paragraph which contrasts the false
views with the true view of those who have a "portion of the radiance of the
Divine Beauty." This is neither relativism nor deconstructionism since it
posits the existence of truth and error.
You write,
"The religions of transcendence have always taught that truth is
subjective, because they say that one must transform oneself to see
the truth, and then one finds one always knew it. Baha'u'llah (for
example) says:"
Now *you* are abandoning relativism and deconstruction! How can you make
such an assertion as if it were a truth, instead of just another viewpoint
among many?
What, precisely, do you mean by "truth is subjective"? Are you thinking of
Kierkegaard's "truth is subjectivity"?
I rather doubt the Writings intend this (in its obvious meaning) given their
awareness that the promptings of the heart may be 'satanic' rather than
'divine.': " But what are satanic promptings which afflict mankind? They are
the influx of the heart also. How shall we differentiate between them? The
question arises: How shall we know whether we are following inspiration from
God or satanic promptings of the human soul?" (PUP 21) or " its one crusade
is against the insistent self, the evil promptings of the human
heart."(Selections from the Writings of `Abdu'l-Bahá 256).
You quote:
"A pure heart is as a mirror; cleanse it with the burnish of love and
severance from all save God, that the true sun may shine within it
and the eternal morning dawn. Then wilt thou clearly see the meaning
of "Neither doth My earth nor My heaven contain Me, but the heart of
My faithful servant containeth Me." And thou wilt take up thy life
in thine hand, and with infinite longing cast it before the new
Beloved One."
This flatly contradicts your claim that truth is subjective. The very image
of the mirror belies any simplistic interpretation of truth as subjective,
since a mirror reflects objectively what is outside itself - and does so
only to the degree to which it rejects its own subjectivity. This Statement
is about the removal of subjectivity.
The fact that truth is known to us as individuals does not make the truth
that is known subjective. A mirror illustrates this situation perfectly.
Also we must beware of reading this in a pantheistic or monist sense of the
self becoming ontologically one with God - which violates the teaching of
the absolute distinction between the ontological status of man and God.
You quote:
"Whensoever the light of Manifestation of the King of Oneness
settleth upon the throne of the heart and soul, His shining becometh
visible in every limb and member. At that time the mystery of the
famed tradition gleameth out of the darkness: "A servant is drawn
unto Me in prayer until I answer him; and when I have answered him,
I become the ear wherewith he heareth...."
(Baha'u'llah, The Seven Valleys, p. 21)"
This also flatly contradicts your claim that truth is subjective. The self,
the subjective has been removed, in which only God remains both as the One
Who speaks and the One Who hears.
Of course relativism and deconstruction cannot accommodate these statements
since they assume that certain truths - the ones declared in this passage
- are privileged i.e. true - - and not merely just another point of view.
You write,
"This teaching is not new: what is relatively new for western
philosophy is that relativism, conditionality and subjectivity have
(again) leaked from religious teachings into current philosophies.
For a long time the contamination was the other way, with Greek
rationalist philosophy and then hard sciences being the high-status
paradigm within which much of western european theology was shaped. I
would like to think that relativism and subjectivism, as common
themes in theology and philosophy, may make a harmony between the two
disciplines possible"
The conditionality of knowledge is old hat in the western tradition and was
already debated by Plato and Protagoras (who outlined the relativist
position). Relativism didn't go anywhere in the western tradition (except
for occasional outbursts) because its logical problems made it untenable in
any coherent manner.
Aquinas put the conditionality of knowledge most succinctly in the 13th C:
"what is known is known in the manner of the knower."
As far as using subjectivity to reconcile science and religion is concerned,
the attempt has been made long ago by Feyerabend, who tell us that in our
science classes we ought to teach astrology, mythology, tarot reading and
such as equally valid methods of acquiring knowledge about the universe as
chemistry, astronomy etc ("Against Method").
Best wishes,
Ian Kluge
The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto ("e-mail")
is sent by the Johnson County Community College ("JCCC") and is intended to be
confidential and for the use of only the individual or entity named above. The
information may be protected by federal and state privacy and disclosures acts
or other legal rules. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are notified that retention, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail
in error please immediately notify JCCC by email reply and immediately and
permanently delete this e-mail message and any attachments thereto. Thank you.
__________________________________________________
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe: send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe: send subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe: http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/all_forums/subscribe?name=bahai-st
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
Mail - mailto:[email protected]
Web - http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/?forum=bahai-st
News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st
Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist
Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
