I notice that the first set of questions, in section 1, is not based on any passage from the Writings. Usually in Ruhi the questions are preceded by a passage, but here the questions are to be answered from the editorial comments provided. I'm not saying that editorial comments are necessarily going to be erroneous. It's just that this is not how Ruhi usually does things. In this case, however, I do think the editorial comments are in error, and I say this because of one of the answers we are apparently supposed to provide for question 1 (which is obviously supposed to be answered from the editorial comments). The question is "By teaching the Cause do we only mean enrolling new believers?" Above this it speaks about services we carry out in the field of teaching. Aside from what we would normally expect when we speak of teaching, like guiding new souls to the Faith, there is also the mention of our conducting children's classes. Surely from the way that paragraph is written and the following question, children's classes is meant to be included in "teaching the Cause." While teaching children's classes could be regarded as teaching the Cause, just as giving a talk to Baha'is that taught them something they didn't know about the Cause could be regarded as teaching the Cause, this is not something that falls under the intended meaning of teaching the Cause, as used in the Writings or Shoghi Effendi's letters. I suppose there may be non-Baha'is or new Baha'is at children's classes, which could thus make it a situation where the teacher would be teaching the Cause, but this is often not the case, probably all the more so when Shoghi Effendi was alive. There is nothing in the Ruhi editorial comments that would indicate who is supposed to be in the classes (though I have to assume longstanding Baha'is). Most children in children's classes have been Baha'is all along, and thus I don't see how teaching such children would fit under the definition of teaching the Faith as used in the Writings. These children may know a reasonable amount about the Cause. I thought teaching the Cause is restricted to teaching, by word or example, non-Baha'is, and deepening new-Baha'is until they attain to maturity. After that, you aren't teaching them, even if you increase their knowledge. You may be teaching them in a sense, but it wouldn't fall under "teaching," as we speak of it. Frankly, I don't think one would answer question 1 the same way if an actual passage was supplied which spoke of teaching the Cause. This is from Shoghi Effendi:
The matter of Teaching, its direction, its ways and means, its extension, its consolidation, essential as they are to the interests of the Cause, constitute by no means the only issue which should receive the full attention of these Assemblies. A careful study of Baha'u'llah's and Abdu'l-Baha's Tablets will reveal that other duties, no less vital to the interests of the Cause, devolve upon the elected representatives of the friends in every locality.
It is incumbent upon them to be vigilant and cautious, discreet and watchful, and protect at all times the Temple of the Cause from the dart of the mischief-maker and the onslaught of the enemy.
They must endeavor to promote amity and concord amongst the friends, efface every lingering trace of distrust, coolness and estrangement from every heart, and secure in its stead an active and whole-hearted cooperation for the service of the Cause.
They must do their utmost to extend at all times the helping hand to the poor, the sick, the disabled, the orphan, the widow, irrespective of color, caste and creed.
They must promote by every means in their power the material as well as the spiritual enlightenment of youth, the means for the education of children, institute, whenever possible, Baha'i educational institutions, organize and supervise their work and provide the best means for their progress and development.
They must make an effort to maintain official, regular, and frequent correspondence with the various Baha'i centers throughout the world, report to them their activities, and share the glad-tidings they receive with all their fellow-workers in the Cause.
They must encourage and stimulate by every means at their command, through subscription, reports and articles, the development of the various Baha'i magazines, such as the "Star of the West" and the "Magazine of the Children of the Kingdom" in the United States of America, the "Baha'i News" of India, the "Sun of the East" (Khurshid-i Khavar) in Turkestan, the "Star of the East" in Japan, the "Sun of Truth" in Germany.
They must undertake the arrangement of the regular meetings of the friends, the feasts and the anniversaries, as well as the special gatherings designed to serve and promote the social, intellectual and spiritual interests of their fellow-men.
(Shoghi Effendi: Baha'i Administration, Pages: 37-38)
As we see, children's classes is mentioned, but separately to teaching the Cause.
I was at work during the first three sections, so I am relying on someone else's book to see the answers we were supposed to give. These answers were quite predictable. Conducting a Baha'i class for a small group of children was something to be considered a teaching activity. I would say that this is not necessarily so, however. I assume that when it says "mark those that can be considered teaching activities" it means to mark those that are. Just because you are a teacher of children doesn't mean you are teaching the Cause. It's all a matter of terminology. Helping to form a Baha'i youth group was also something they thought was a teaching activity, but I don't see why. How is the mere act of forming a youth group, which involves just letting people know about it, teaching the Faith? We are assuming that teaching is a purpose of the group, but that comes later. Evidently that is what they are thinking of, and it's a matter of classification whether we regard the formation of the group as a teaching activity when no teaching has been done yet. This isn't an example I would use. I would have expected Ruhi, which tries to be so text-based, to follow the definition of teaching used elsewhere, but that's not what I see here.
After this I found the material fine for some time. Section 4, question 5 was interesting, in that everyone asked seemed to give a different answer, which is unusual. I think the phrase just means that the Word of God is firmly implanted if its growth is fostered.
Section 6, exercise 3 says, "Is a person who dedicates practically every hour of his life to his work detached from the things of the world?" The answer wanted is no, but I don't see this as so cut and clean. To be detached means to be detached from the things of the world. Those Baha'is referred to as detached in the Writings still do have some attachment to the world. The question is then, can we define exactly what is required for someone to be validly regarded as "detached." It seems to me from relevant passages on detachment that quite a number of Baha'is today would be regarded as detached. I personally do not see the spiritual standard required to be "detached" as anything that high, a standard that just about no Baha'is could attain. Of course, a person who dedicates just about all his time to work may not be detached from the things of the world, but aside from 'Abdu'l-Baha, no Baha'i will ever be detached from the things of the world. The important thing is how the Writings view detachment, and I think the Ruhi people are barking up the wrong tree referring to an imperfection as proving one isn't detached, when no one is totally detached. I don't like a question that condemns people who might fairly be regarded as detached. Detached people have their attachments. It's when the level of attachment gets too great that they aren't detached. Furthermore, I don't like the assumption that the person's work, which they are spending most of their time on, should greatly harm their detachment. Perhaps they are working tirelessly for an aid agency, making enormous personal sacrifices and living in terrible conditions to prevent death and suffering in backward countries? The question doesn't say if the person has family to take care of, and maybe they don't. Maybe they are taking little time to take care of themselves, worrying more about others? This question becomes further ridiculous when we consider the lives of many early Babi's and Baha'is. Let's remember that even now there exist missionaries (Christians) whose "work" is to teach people and serve their religion all the time. The Writings do say that teaching should be the dominating passion of our lives. There were several early Babi's and Baha'is who spent just about every hour in service to the Faith, whether acting as amanuenses or in some other task. Couldn't one even say that Baha'u'llah dedicated just about every hour of His life to His "work?"
In summary, a person may be spending most of his day in selfless service to humanity. It may be that they are neglecting themselves somewhat (which would make them like Haji Amin, right?), but would that be enough for them not to be fairly regarded as "detached?" Even if it counts them down a bit, I doubt it. I know an NSA Secretary who seemed to have to work at least 80 hours a week. I wouldn't regard his doing so as making him worldly.
The next exercise says, "Is a person who works only enough to satisfy his basic needs and spends the rest of his time doing nothing detached from this world?" I suppose this is a better question, and some might even regard my nitpicking about its clarity as silly, but I think questions like this, when answered how they want (in this case, no), can cause unfair prejudice. Those who work few hours may be looked upon badly. Those who might look upon them that way may not know much about the person and why they don't work more. Perhaps they are disabled or are having difficulty getting full time work, which they may actually want to do. I know of a situation in an old community where most of the LSA looked down on one of the adults for not working, thinking that he could. From what I found out not long ago, however, he at least had some injury or health problem. He works now. I think one also has to look at what the person does the rest of the time. What some people consider "doing nothing" might be seen quite differently by others. But again, given the spiritual level I think the Writings indicate when they speak of detachment, I wouldn't be willing to say that all people who work little and spend the rest of their time doing nothing aren't detached. Most wouldn't be, but I don't think all.
Exercise 5e seems poorly written. The question is to what you would be attached if you were a person who "Often spends money to go on outings and picnics, but never has money to go to Baha'i conferences." I think they are trying to indicate that the person does have money to go to Baha'i conferences, but just doesn't use spend his money on them. I'm not sure, though. I think rewording would be in order. Baha'i conferences can be quite rare, and if the person is often spending money on outings and picnics, it is easy to imagine them not having the money to go to conferences. Also remember that conferences would almost certainly cost more than outings and picnics. One might even have enough money for outings and picnics, but not enough for conferences. Where are the conferences, anyway? If they are out of town the cost difference could be substantial.
I was amazed when we got to section 7 just how liberal the tutor was in allowing for various answers. I find this problematic, given that the questions are worded in a way that assumes, or should assume, that there is only one answer. It was different to questions that just require true or false, in which they allow both as an answer if one can think of ways for both answer to be correct, as the tutor was allowing for answers that would have to be regarded as exclusive of the question. Take exercise 2. It says, "A farmer has an orchard of old trees which no longer bear fruit. He must cut them down in order to plant new ones. What is he sacrificing?" I answered this with "The trees." My partner answered with "Memories of the trees." There is nothing in what is written that would make us assume that the farmer would have fond memories of the trees, and frankly I don't think many farmers would be so sentimental. The question says what IS the farmer sacrificing, and assumes a singular answer. Since from what is written the old trees are the only thing referred to, that has to be what the farmer is sacrificing. The idea that memories of trees were sacrificed is not only the least likely answer, but is more an answer one might give if asked what MIGHT the farmer be sacrificing. I suppose there may be a few people who would have memories of trees, and so the tutor supported the answer, despite my objection that it wasn't based on the text, but I was surprised that the tutor did so. The tutor allowed more than one answer. If it is hoped that we give multiple answers I wish the book would tell us this, or change the wording on occasion.
The first and third questions are abysmal, in my opinion, as they use "sacrifice" in a way I know they don't mean, because it's obvious from what is written above. The first question says, "A young boy has a pocket full of stones. He comes across someone who offers him a handful of gems. He must throw away the stones in order to receive the gems. What is he sacrificing?" Unless he's got some really expensive stones in his pocket (if that's the case they haven't told us, and there's no reason to assume it), his throwing the stones away is not a sacrifice. I suppose it is in a sense, but not in the way they mean, or hope to mean. They say that in sacrificing you renounce that which is lower for that which is higher, and that this involves pain. Now, in their example with the stones and gems, the person is renouncing the lower for the higher, but the lower/higher comparison wouldn't be the same as in what they mention above, as there "higher" means what is best spiritually. It does not necessarily involve greater material wealth, and indeed they speak of expending some of our material means. That would mean one would be "higher" when they had less material wealth. To go from low to high spiritually may require a reduction in wealth. As far as sacrificing the stones for the gems, the stones are worthless and the gems costly, so this is hardly a sacrifice, and certainly wouldn't involve pain. A person with bad character would sacrifice stones for gems, just as they'd be happy to swap your $50 bill for a $5 bill. The idea that sacrifice is required to give away something, and would further our spiritual progress, is not accurate. The Ruhi people have apparently confused themselves. Number 3 says, "The seed accepts to be broken apart when it germinates. Why is it sacrificing itself?" I refused to give them the answer they wanted, answering "It doesn't have a choice!" Again, this is a poor example of sacrifice. How do we know that the seed accepted being broken apart? It is broken apart, but that doesn't mean it was happy about it. Can a plant sacrifice itself, and is it able to foretell the future (I'm not sure)? Given that this is all after a discussion of Baha'i sacrifice, and how it causes spiritual growth, a question about a plant, a member of the vegetable kingdom, appears a little out of place.
David
_________________________________________________________________
Surf the net and talk on the phone with Xtra Jetstream @ http://www.xtra.co.nz/products/0,,5803,00.html !
---------- You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st news://list.jccc.net/bahai-st http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public) http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public)
