They are not violating the Covenant. They are saying in various forms the Faith is all nonsense. It’s not a violation of the Covenant, where you accept Bahá’u’lláh but not His provisions for authority. But, it can be spiritually corrosive. It’s similar in some ways to pornography. I mean what do you do about pornography? There are various Internet filters. You basically depend on bringing up your kids so that they have the degree of internal restraint, so they won’t get wrapped up in pornographic sites. So it is in developing the self-restraint not to get involved in spiritually corrosive materials on the Internet.”

What do you think is better and more honest? A clean sanitised version of the Faith or a warts and all version? I think I prefer the warts and all version. Everyone has the right to know what goes on in the Faith so they can make an informed choice and so when they go teaching the Faith to others, they are honest about the status of the Faith.

Is it really spiritually corrosive to see the darker side of the Faith? What is spirituality anyway? Like I said before, I would say a spiritual person is someone who has mastered the base side of their nature, is honest, trustworthy, and helpful, has a sense of the divine and a close feeling of association with the departed in the afterlife. All Peter Khan is worried about is people turning away from the Faith or getting put off. All he cares about is conversion and retention. If thats the case, he really should address all the Baha’i fanatics that routinely swamp the solitary non-Baha’i at Baha’i events and give them the Baha’i bash.

The UHJ could take a systems approach to some of the problems within the Faith like business and industry does instead of playing the blame game (i.e. its all the believer’s fault, they’re not believing enough, they don’t love Baha’u'llah enough, they’re not faithful enough, they’re not spiritual enough, they’re not deepened enough, or they’re not firm enough in the Covenant). If there is a problem in industry there is a problem with the system and they try and address that problem by instituting appropriate changes or additions to the system. Sometimes it gets a bit silly, for example when someone comes in drunk to a processing plant and gets themselves killed, there isn’t a lot you can do apart from mandatory alcohol testing before they enter the door and putting up a ridiculous amount of safety equipment. Maybe if the UHJ took the stance “perhaps the person does have a legitimate gripe, what can we do to fix the problem?” you wouldn’t have all the grumbling on the internet.

Why is it that business, through evolution, natural selection and academic research, has advanced far beyond the Baha’i Faith in terms of people and systems management, when the Faith has the “pure word” all the way from God himself and the infallible guidance of the UHJ?

Another approach that could be taken with the Faith instead of doctrinal purity is letting everyone cherry pick and interpret for themselves. Its a scientific approach to any phenomena, people will pick a theory from a plethora of possibilities, one that can be tested, sounds the best, and provides good insight into the problem. Eventually science and scientific community comes to the truth of the matter. Why not do the same for the Faith? We have a set of guidelines, eventually people will come round if the guidelines and official interpretations are workable and provide the best explanation. Why structure everything to death so that evolution is impossible?

Dr. Khan would say that esoteric interpretation in the Bahai Faith is forbidden.

What is meant by esoteric? If he is meaning dreams and visions, didn’t the early Babis have a lot of these? Sometimes insights to any matter or problem can come through dreams, but if you’re thinking you’re being divinely guided and everyone should give credance to your vision etc, you should probably think again.

Douglas Martins statement something to the effect that “conscience is a dangerous delusion”, his point being that using conscience as a reason to disobey the UHJ has no place in Bahai practice or rationale.

Conscience is the reason we got into the Faith in the first place, we were using our intuition, intellect, or it just felt good. If we used our conscience to get us into the Faith, there is no reason why it can’t get us out again when things are happening that make us go “hang on!”. Douglas Martin can think again if I’ll put the UHJ ahead of my conscience.

Doctrinal purity is a cohesive force in any organization or society

Its only cohesive so long as you agree with the doctrine being expounded. In science we know that there are no real absolutes, just shades of grey and interpretations of phenomena depending on tools used, results gained, and the person doing the interpreting. Why not take a relativistic approach to Baha’i doctrine as well?

Its a persian name that begins with M, Mome or something like that. But their statement was in some summary work about the Bahai Faith that “all mystical experience in the new religion has been institutionalized in the assemblies”. I wish I could find the quote, but it strikes me as excessively biased in favor of the institutional structure as opposed to the capacity of individuals to experience anything of a mystical nature, which I think anyone who has had a mystical experience will see on the face is patently false.

Not Moojan Momen was it? I must confess, sometimes when I’ve met with the NSA and LSA, the feeling was almost mystical. Was that a psychological response to the situation or the feeling of there being something divine happening? Who knows? But I’ve also had personal mystical experiences at the shrines, temples and in churches, the feeling of being close to the divine. So I agree wholeheartedly, the institutions do not have a monopoly on mystical experience. Its like saying the only people who can talk to God on your behalf are the Catholic priests.

Another thought regarding critical mass of consciousness, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, may Gods Grace fall upon Him forever and ever(my sincere and personal wish expressed therein and not any kind of formal devoteeish thing - as I truly respect him and his work He is a saint), often pointed out that the square root of one percent of the worlds population was all that was necessary to effect a transformation of consciousness in the entire world. It comes to about 7 or 8000 people I think. That is what they practice when they have their group meditations in the TM movement.

You’re thinking about the phenomena of morphic resonance, where new ideas or skills get easier to comprehend or learn as more and more people have adopted it or learnt it previously. Interesting idea, it suggests that we’re all linked or part of one great conscience. Its one that I really like.

Re Peter Khan, re the need for people of capacity:

Second reason is the fact that the world is in a bigger mess than it was some years ago, which means our administrative bodies have to deal with far more complex problems than ever before.

How anyone say the world is in a bigger mess today than what it was in World War II? Anyone who knows their history knows that was a shitter of a time, let alone during the cold war with the nuke threat. Its pretty peaceful these days, except when old George Bush and certain radical Muslims are busy stirring the pot. Its all kind of like the Jehova’s witnesses coming knocking on your door asking “do you think the world is getting worse today?”. Of course not!

Its also interesting that he is wanting people of capacity when the institutions have pissed off anyone with some semblance of capacity (which usually means they’re independent thinkers).

Regarding drifting away from the Faith, I don’t think the price is high at all, provided your motives are pure. Only you can know that and God upstairs, if we get judged when we die as the writings say we do (I’m kind of suspecting now it’ll all be quite different to what any writings say).

I would say: Daily conscientious reflection on our acts and motives is one effective way. Meditation which we have discussed recently. Prayer. Recitation of the Writings. Service. Consultation. Teaching. Extreme loving kindness to all beings. That is the Bahai life. That was Abdul Baha’s life. He did not seek status or followers of himself, or personal wealth at someone elses expense.

Indeed, but I would say wisdom comes from many sources, not just Baha’i writings. E.g. Yoda and Luke Skywalker: Yoda, “Judge me by my size would you?” Luke, “No” Yoda, “And well you should not. Luminous beings are we, not this crude flesh.” Lets thank his holiness George Lucas or his writers for that wonderful piece of wisdom! What about the epic fantasies such as Lord of the Rings, or David Gemmell’s novels and their commentary on bravery, courage, strength of character and hope.

I learnt from the danger of that approach, and how important it is for us as Bahá’ís not to compartmentalise our thinking.

I have to compartmentalise all the time. The Baha’i writings on evolution are absolutely hopeless and out of date. Scientific evidence available is sufficient to disprove them.

Must dash! Great stuff!

As a big fan of the great Robert G.L. Waite, I am very much tempted to write a psychoanalytic analysis of the KMAN’s very telling public speeches all now laid out in living color on the Internet. In his endless personal opinions on every topic imaginable they are all an extremely public veritable Rorschach Ink Blot Test of this man’s very soul. An absolutely fascinating revelation of where the Institutions of the BF are a little over four decades in since getting to the Cosmic Exodus Moment.

The Baha’i Faith is now headed for a Joseph Conrad moment right out of “Heart of Darkness”. It is fascinating.

As such, he dooms bahai to backwardness.

Nothing he says gives the impression that he understands the real extent or nature of the problems within bahai culture.

Khan, the other UHJ members, the UHJ itself and its letter writers, have mostly said the same incomprehensible stuff for several decades since the “Dialogue Magazine” fiasco. They correctly, but incompletely, diagnose the ills of “liberalism”, “secularism”, etc., while failing to recognise the slide of 99% of the rest of bahai culture into far worse conditions.

It is simply maddening that they can’t see how obvious their own incompetence is to the rest of the world.

Khan is just babbling the usual mantra of bureaucratic reinvention of failed plans, ideas, paradigms without any concrete connection to the memory of how meaning has been constructed within bahai culture.

The “disconnect” between what Khan is presenting and the reality of a massive patten of dysfunctionality within the bahai system is stunning.

The reality is that bahai itself is its own worst enemy. Khan is just like all the other people that make stupid excuses for a system of belief that has collapsed and has become pervasively toxic to real change (for the better).

In order for any solution to work, the problem has to be examined in an unvarnished manner. Khan instead is worried about the balance between “saving face” (showing respect for decripit thinkers) and “dissent”.

Same old matra of “us vs. them”.

I’ve personally seen the BWC rescue “nondangerous” bahai nonconformists from vicious attacks by fundamentalists. The only reason it happened is because of the “special” relationships involved, not because the bahai system is capable of systematic correction of abuses of authority.

SF - I am very concerned that what I’ve seen happen to so many bright, well-meaning people who try to assume the best, and think that pushing reforms (new ideas) through the bahai system is possible and a good idea, will happen to you. I hope I’m wrong, but everything I’ve seen says that the probability of you being allowed to make anything other than very minor, insignificant change is almost ZERO.

The more likely scenario is that you will be marginalized. If you “get uppity” and push something against the “powers that be”, you will be targeted for an attack.

Even if you survive such an attack, you will be so emotionally destroyed over the fact that your pure spiritual contribution to the advancement of civilization was turned into someone’s sick little game of sociopathic power manipulation that you may not be able to sustain your interest in throwing more pearls before the swine.

There is a long list of egregious examples of abuse of authority within bahai that I’ve heard of, or seen. One pure woman was railroaded into CB status in the 60s/70s simply because her music was better than someone that had a relative on the NSA who could not stand the competition.

Most bahais here turned their backs on the “CB” for decades.

Upon her death, the BWC investigated the incident, and posthumously reinstated her membership/”good standing”, etc.

The “perpetrators” (in the AO) were gone, or went unpunished.

Disgusting and appalling.

No one will ever remember.

This is the problem when a system has no real accountability.

Regards,
ep

SF wrote:

“THIS IS THE EFFECT OF THIS BLOG TO SOME DEGREE I BELEIVE”

“You mentioned that certain individuals have set up Internet sites being opposed to the Faith, and you mentioned that by doing that they are digging their own grave. Aren’t they helping other individuals to dig their own graves too even though some of them are not Covenant-breakers?
They could help extinguish ones faith even though they are not Covenant-breakers. They are not violating the Covenant. They are saying in various forms the Faith is all nonsense. It’s not a violation of the Covenant, where you accept Bahá’u'lláh but not His provisions for authority. But, it can be spiritually corrosive. It’s similar in some ways to pornography. I mean what do you do about pornography? There are various Internet filters. You basically depend on bringing up your kids so that they have the degree of internal restraint, so they won’t get wrapped up in pornographic sites. So it is in developing the self-restraint not to get involved in spiritually corrosive materials on the Internet.”

In my view this site is not opposed to the Baha’i Faith. This site is oppsed to what these usurpers who have gamed the electoral processes of the Baha’i Faith have done to it.

History will decided who where the “spiritual pornographers”. History will decide who polluted the Faith. Mark my words, history will decide. We will see who “dug their own graves” as the World Age unfolds.

Study the Tablet of the Holy Mariner. What is Baha’u'llah talking about? I am with Jesus of Nazareth on this insight conveyed in the picture story of the Gospels: All Divine Judgment is Archetypal.

But, then, maybe that is a little too esoteric to state in public.

I read the entire talk by Dr. Khan and actually found it inspiring, even to the degree the degree that he seems to be honestly addressing some of the questions that this blog is hot about.

I think your conclusion from an earlier post that all esoteric interpretation is forbidden is not supported. He does address the issue of the necessity at this stage of the development of the Faith of keeping it free from the co-mingling of ideas from other lines of thought not based in some part in the Writings.

“Nevertheless, the Faith is subject to disproportionate influence due to superstitions, to pilgrim notes, to various fads and ideas, to the mixing of particular cultures with the basic teachings, and we need to avoid that. It’s difficult but it is a challenge to us. “

I think think this is valid. I have been in multicultural Bahai communities where the people were using the teachings to justify their own cultural perspective of how to act, with the inevitable results of a culture clash wherein each cultural group accused the others of not being Bahai.

The part about esotericism is true that some people read a bunch of books and maybe attend some lectures or study with someone and then think they are somebody special. That is a problem but it doesnt imply forbidding esoteric interpretation. What is a problem is distinguishing those who have genuine exalted states of mind or spirit from those that just think they do. Those with genuine experience have authority just like someone who has eminence in a profession or trade. that is the difference.

The rest of the talk was very interesting, inspiring and sensible and I felt that he concerned with many of the same questions as this blog, as per the following examples (TITLES ARE MINE).

ISSUES OF POLICE STATE LIKE RIGIDITY
“I remember when I first went to the USA, I worked for a brilliant scientist, my supervisor for a while, who was a Jehovah’s Witness. He believed the earth was created in 4004 BC and it was an instantaneous thing. He and I became good friends and I asked him: “ How in the world can you believe that stuff when you have such eminence in your professional field of science and engineering?” He and I would discuss it very openly and very warmly with each other, as very good friends. I realised he had compartmentalised his mind. He had one set of thinking for religious things that had said 4004 BC, and another set of thinking for scientific things for which he was professionally very competent. I learnt from the danger of that approach, and how important it is for us as Bahá’ís not to compartmentalise our thinking.
The House of Justice has described some of the material written by these disaffected people as “spiritually corrosive”. And so one needs to be aware of that. Every so often I travel around, and I meet some Bahá’í who is very anxious to prove something or other and they say “you know I’ve studied whatever (name one of these disaffected ex-Bahá’ís) writings on the Internet”. And I can see they are challenging me to read a disapproving lecture to them; of course one doesn’t do that but one tries to politely point out to them: “It’s your funeral, baby.” That is spiritually corrosive material. You want to have spiritually corrosive things, go for it. You want to rot your teeth with Coca-Cola, go for it. It’s up to you.
The third area is given this kind of movement outside the Bahá’í community, how do we avoid the creation of a counter-reaction which would give us some kind of a police state? How do we avoid reacting to these kind of nasty statements and criticism from these ex-Bahá’ís or turned off Bahá’ís or whatever, by becoming so tough and so tight that nobody dares say a word because of fear that they will get their head chopped off?
You find that that has occurred in history. You may find it interesting to study the history of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the 17th century. From what I understand, free settlers came over from England and settled in Massachusetts and they were very liberal and full of ideas. They got away from the constriction of the church in England. And then, lo and behold, their extreme ideas and creativity led to a counter reaction, and that counter reaction led to a puritanical tone in Massachusetts in those days: the scarlet letter and the Salem witch trials of 1692 and all the rest of it. I found the study of that period fascinating as an indication of how a vibrant dynamic society which aims to foster creativity finds that the creativity can get so far out of control that the only thing to do is to slam on the brakes hard, and you end up with the Salem witch trials and the scarlet letter and all the rest of it, a very rigid puritanical, tightly controlled society. How do we avoid that happening in the Bahá’í community, in reaction to the nasty things said by some of these so-called dissidents outside the Bahá’í community?
What is freedom within a Covenantal framework? What kind of freedom does the Covenant allow us? Janet wrote an article in the Journal of Bahá’í Studies in North America in March 2000, in which she relates the principles of the Covenant to the equality of the sexes. She makes an interesting point that the Covenant has a liberating effect upon creativity of thought, which is the very opposite from what you’d expect. You’d expect the Covenant to be intrinsically inhibiting to creativity of thought because of its “restrictions”.
We need more discussion amongst Bahá’ís of what are legitimate forms of disagreement in a Bahá’í community? How do you disagree without creating disaster, contention, disorder? What does it mean? What can you say at the Feast? What can you say about the National Assembly? What can you say about the Institutions of the Faith without getting into hot water. What is the legitimate limit on disagreement? If you say there is none, then I’ll say you have conceptualised a police state. There has to be disagreement, there has to be creativity of thought, there has to be the legitimacy of the expression of a diversity of views for there to be growth and development. How do you have this without creating havoc and factions and tensions and people throwing chairs at each other and the like?”

FREEDOM OF SPEECH, APPROPRIATE SPEECH.
“Finally on this point, how do you politely but legitimately disagree with a figure of eminence in the Bahá’í community? The only Hands of the Cause remaining are Dr. Varqá and Mr. Furutan who are both very elderly, but say a Counsellor comes here and makes a presentation to us and he or she speaks from their own perspective. We all know that they’re not infallible, authoritative and the like, but how do you disagree with what he or she said? What are the legitimate forms, given the fact that we should show respect for rank in the Bahá’í community. How do you express a different point of view within the limits of Bahá’í courtesy? If you say you can’t do it, then I say you’ve got a big problem. Because we’ve got to distinguish between the authoritative statements of the Universal House of Justice and the views of individuals – including House of Justice members – who are no more than individuals in their degree of authority in the expression of views.
How can we create a Bahá’í community in which respect does not inhibit creativity of thought and diversity of viewpoint? I submit to you that this is a difficult question. It’s great in theory. On this point also, I think one needs to anticipate and have more work going on by Bahá’ís such as yourself and others on what are the future opposition to the Faith. Let me give you a few examples.
What do we do about accusations of restrictions on freedom of speech in the Administrative Order? What do we do about restrictions on getting up and saying that a particular individual should not be on the National Spiritual Assembly and that we should chase him out of town? This kind of statement is not permissible in the Administrative Order. We do not allow it. Are we not restricting freedom of speech? Are not the Bahá’ís people who, on the one hand, appeal for freedom, human rights, liberation, yet, on the other hand, restrict what you can say? These are very good answers to such questions, and we need to identify and discuss them.”

THIS IS THE EFFECT OF THIS BLOG TO SOME DEGREE I BELEIVE
“You mentioned that certain individuals have set up Internet sites being opposed to the Faith, and you mentioned that by doing that they are digging their own grave. Aren’t they helping other individuals to dig their own graves too even though some of them are not Covenant-breakers?
They could help extinguish ones faith even though they are not Covenant-breakers. They are not violating the Covenant. They are saying in various forms the Faith is all nonsense. It’s not a violation of the Covenant, where you accept Bahá’u'lláh but not His provisions for authority. But, it can be spiritually corrosive. It’s similar in some ways to pornography. I mean what do you do about pornography? There are various Internet filters. You basically depend on bringing up your kids so that they have the degree of internal restraint, so they won’t get wrapped up in pornographic sites. So it is in developing the self-restraint not to get involved in spiritually corrosive materials on the Internet.”

HONESTLY ADDRESSING REAL PROBLEMS.

“As professionals, we’re all striving for excellence in our various fields and so spiritually we’re bound to do that, and we want to do that. Then comes the responsibility of a family and the need of the partner to interact. The children need their parents to be with them, to be examples and be reasonably sane after a hard day of work to devote to them the time and the attention that is needed. And then comes our responsibilities to the Faith and being involved in the community. My challenge with children, is how does one strike the balance and not neglect the children and still progress in our career and give to the Faith as well?

It is a problem that a lot of Bahá’í families have had, and in many instances it has been solved disastrously. Generally, it is the kids that get the short end of the stick. If you don’t want to have nightmares over Pacific Island archives, you can have nightmares over kids of Bahá’í families who grow up non-Bahá’í. Our batting record is pretty miserable in this regard.

We can identify Bahá’í families where generation after generation has remained committed to the Faith, but they are not as common as they should be. What is common is that we have super busy and active parents where the kids grow up burdened with resentment at the Faith at what it did to their family life, so when they’re old enough they get as far away from it as possible.

So we can easily see what not to do. The difficulty is to determine what to do. I think it centres around several things. One is the equality of the relationship of the couple in terms of their cooperative willingness; generally it depends on the willingness of the male to do mundane things to help out. If the male is willing to help with some of the cooking, the sweeping, to run the dishwasher and to help with the ironing. That sort of thing is a part of it, in resolving this issue.”

Thanks also for reminding us of the types of games that self seeking false humility human beings constantly pursue. I have seen it from time to time in many groups.

Baha u llah speaks also many times of “idle fancy, vain imaginings, and blind imitation” as being human traits that mislead the one involved in them and those who follow them. These are present in all human societies without exception. I am sure you can see them in the political theater of the election campaign.

The trait that you describe Dr. Khan as having, of this sense of fearfulness about his inner life: intentions, thoughts, desires, etc. is appropriate I think for someone in his position. I have seen it present in all of the Hands of the Cause that I have met, and most of the NSA members and UHJ members. In religion there is a genuine fear of God that is mentioned in the scriptures as a desirable thing. Scriptures also mention particularly undesirable states of being such as:

hypocrisy (a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.),

apostasy (the formal abandonment or renunciation of one’s religion, especially if the motive is deemed unworthy),

blasphemy ( contemptuous or profane act, utterance, or writing concerning God or a sacred entity. b. The act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God. 2. An irreverent or impious act, attitude, or utterance in regard to something considered inviolable or sacrosanct.)

these acts are committed first in thought and then by speech or action.

The disorienting effect of our western culture with its materialism and irreligious secular humanist base is that these three words for the most part - except perhaps for hypocrisy in a political sense, along with “perversion” have lost any significant meaning to the masses of people. This I believe is a cardinal sign of the degenerate moral and spiritual state of society with respect to religion.

All three of these conditions undermine the state of religion and the institutions of religion have an obligation to address them effectively or they will be swept away.

The problem remains of how to balance the obviously desirable purity of a religious life with honest freedom of thought and expression of an inquiring mind engaged in a search for reality within a religious society that has to maintain prescribed standards of teaching and morality without succumbing to psychological repression or human social dominance dynamics.

How do we do that? Please posters I think this is the essential question of this website?

I would say: Daily conscientious reflection on our acts and motives is one effective way. Meditation which we have discussed recently. Prayer. Recitation of the Writings. Service. Consultation. Teaching. Extreme loving kindness to all beings. That is the Bahai life. That was Abdul Baha’s life. He did not seek status or followers of himself, or personal wealth at someone elses expense.

SF wrote:

I am shocked to read Craig, that Dr. Khan would say that esoteric interpretation in the Bahai Faith is forbidden. That sounds like reaction to Douglas Martins statement something to the effect that “conscience is a dangerous delusion”, his point being that using conscience as a reason to disobey the UHJ has no place in Bahai practice or rationale. Perhaps Dr. Khan is addressing an issue related to authoritative statements, as it seems that what usually
challenges religious authorities the most is when people claim the authority of visions or mystic states, or political exception of conscience, both of which tend to have polarizing effects in any body politic. Controlling doctrinal purity now seems to be a major focus of the UHJ for which the Ruhi is serving as an effective vehicle.

Doctrinal purity is a cohesive force in any organization or society while esotericism and conscience tends to release creative forces that are not controllable by a hierarchical structure but are harmonizable through ritual(see comments on brain wave entrainment below).

The comment about the individual persons teaching transformation and meditation brings to mind some comment by a currently popular Bahai scholar whos name escapes me at the moment. Its a persian name that begins with M, Mome or something like that. But their statement was in some summary work about the Bahai Faith that “all mystical experience in the new religion has been institutionalized in the assemblies”. I wish I could find the quote, but it strikes me as excessively biased in favor of the institutional structure as opposed to the capacity of individuals to experience anything of a mystical nature, which I think anyone who has had a mystical experience will see on the face is patently false. Institutions after all are made up of individuals but there is a group effect noted by some researchers of entrainment of the brain waves when people pray or meditate or dance or sing together. The groups brainwaves syncronize.

If you Craig could be so kind as to provide a reference for Dr. Khans statement on esotericism I would very much like to read that statement by him.

Thank you.

P.S. Please dont use any of my statements as jumping off points for the usual complaints, okay friends. I am interested at getting to the heart of this issue about esotericism, we can examine the Writings on this one.

Hi SF,

Here is the link. It is a typical Peter Khan speech about how we MUST ALWAYS BE FILLED WITH FEAR about ourselves as Baha’is and, therefore, ALWAYS practice ruthless self censorship of every thought 24/7365/1000. I guess that is the price of being in the new top down science project of “Recreating Man” (Tm) with the UHJ at the controls giving their personal elucidations and interpretations on everything.

His speeches are always very, very curious psychological projection documents where he is always addressing a unique psychological AUDIENCE OF ONE: himself. His speeches are always a lecture to the mine canary of himself worrying if he, himself, will be found dead on the newspapers in his cage if he does not heed his own device.

Absolutely fascinating stuff!

His interpretation of that passage by Baha’u'llah is not my personal interpretation. I think it is about something else altogether. His interpretation of that passage by Baha’u'llah is, well, uh, down right esoteric! But I won’t give mine here lest perhaps another charge be added to the file surely opened on me by now in Haifa for on-going thought crimes. Someone may think I am “out-esotericizing” him and report me for thought crimes against the Covenant. That someone will say I am not, to use your term, “doctrinally pure” enough and it will be the Iron Maiden or the Rack for me in the NEWTHINK Baha’i Faith as opposed to the OLDTHINK Baha’i Faith.

http://www.bci.org/nnby/essays/need_for_bahais_of_capacity.htm

The KMAN says:

“There’s also a challenge to avoid the kinds of things that the Kitáb-i-Aqdas warns us about. The Kitáb-i-Aqdas has some really funny passages, and I find I laugh whenever I read them. There is one verse where Bahá’u'lláh speaks about the person who has great desire for leadership. He describes that person walking and hearing the tread of sandals of the devotees following in his footsteps, and Bahá’u'lláh then says something very nasty about him. I forget what it was but he obviously, he says to him this is nothing, you’re just consumed by your own ego in your desire for leadership.

And there is a delightful passage where Bahá’u'lláh speaks about the character with false humility who turns up in the room and sits with the sandals. We don’t have a lot of sandals around here tonight. Normally, from my understanding in Eastern homes, you leave your shoes at the door, the place of honour is deep in the room, and the person sitting by the sandals is in the cheap seats, where the hoi-polloi sit. This person comes and deliberately sits by the sandals saying: ‘I’m just nothing’ ‘I’m just sitting by the sandals’ but Bahá’u'lláh describes him as thinking: ‘I should be up there with the big guys.’ ‘I really belong up there in the seat of honour. But I’m just down here so people will see me and say: ‘look how humble he is, sitting down by the sandals. Let’s whistle him up here.’ And Bahá’u'lláh again condemns this person.

And the third one I remember from the Kitáb-i-Aqdas is where Bahá’u'lláh refers to the person who feels he has esoteric knowledge. He knows what the stuff really means, the real secret depths that you and I have no idea about. He really understands it. Bahá’u'lláh refers to this person who feels he has a level of insight that no one else has. And He says, what you have is just the ‘husks left to dogs’. You know when you have a pet dog that bites away at the bone and if he doesn’t bury it, there is a dead bone lying around; Bahá’u'lláh is saying that that is what you have, you don’t have fancy secret deep insights that no-one else has.

So Bahá’ís of expertise have those 3 dangers that Bahá’u'lláh speaks off. The danger of becoming a guru and feeling that you should be a guru and everyone else should hang on your every word. The danger of false humility, where you come in and say you’re no more than everyone else, but in fact you really think you are. And the third one, the danger of you believing that you have deep insights that the hoi-polloi don’t have and therefore you are in some way superior to them.

That is the second of the 3 general ideas of the dangers one faces.”

DANGER DANGER DANGER WILL ROBINSON! DANGER! BE ON ALERT AT ALL TIMES TO *NEVER* HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ABOUT ANYTHING LEST YOU BE SENT TO THE RE-EDUCATION CAMPS WHEN THE BAHA’I FAITH COMES TO POWER IN THE WORLD! NO INDIVIDUAL THOUGHT! NO INDIVUDUAL THOUGHT! NO INDIVIDUAL THOUGHT! ALLOWED! EVER! Must…self…censor…myself…now…(gasp)

…lest you believe “that you have deep insights that the hoi-polloi don’t have and therefore you are in some way superior to them.”

He is, of course, speaking to himself.

The whole top down “Ruhi Full Sequence of Courses” is ALL about telling the hoi-polloi in living color that the people that wrote these courses and the people that authorized their use HAVE deep insights that the rank and file don’t have!

Go figure?

So it goes.

“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.”

I share your perception that there is a lot of confusion that needs to be cleared away to get to a really clear and functional universal system of spiritual paradigm and development. What you were saying ,without realizing it perhaps, by pointing out the various names that various authors have given to states and stages of consciousness, etc. is that there is a fragmentation due to differences of terminology, in that there is not now one common mystical spiritual language.

What I think would be the best solution both to your stated problem in the quote of your previous post above and to the problem of a common language is to use scientific or proven means to attain and measure these various states. Then the first problem will be solved because people will know these things of their own knowledge, and not by intellectual abstraction, and then whatever tag of reference they want to put on it can be agreed in the same way that conventions for nomenclature is handled in scientific and technological fields, by forming a committee that compares all the systems and either invents or reduces the confusion to something workable.

So the Bahai principle of one universal language can be applied to mystic states, and perhaps through that exoteric authoritative doctrinal religion can find unity with esoteric experiencial religion. I think that that is truly possible and destined for our Faith.

I know there are references in the Writings to saints and sages that will come in following centuries to inspire, uplift and clarify these mystical things, but perhaps that time is beginning now with this new generations revival of interest in the subject.

Another thought regarding critical mass of consciousness, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, may Gods Grace fall upon Him forever and ever(my sincere and personal wish expressed therein and not any kind of formal devoteeish thing - as I truly respect him and his work He is a saint), often pointed out that the square root of one percent of the worlds population was all that was necessary to effect a transformation of consciousness in the entire world. It comes to about 7 or 8000 people I think. That is what they practice when they have their group meditations in the TM movement.