World Order/Series2/Volume 26/Issue 2/Text
←Issue 1 | World Order, Series 2 Volume 26 - Issue 2 |
Issue 3→ |
Return to PDF view![]() |
Winter 1994-1995
World Order
THE ENVIRONMENT—A PROBLEM
OF THE SPIRIT
EDITORIAL
UNITY AND CONSULTATION:
FOUNDATIONS OF SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT
NATIONAL SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLY OF THE BAHÁ’ÍS
OF THE UNITED STATES
PROTECTING HUMANITY AND ITS
ENVIRONMENT: A BAHÁ’Í PERSPECTIVE
JOHN J. COLEMAN
NANAK, THE FOUNDER OF SIKHISM
R. RAJ SINGH
A REVIEW OF JOHN HUDDLESTON’S
ACHIEVING PEACE BY THE YEAR 2000
GRACE CALÍ
A REVIEW OF CHARLES KIMBALL’S
STRIVING TOGETHER: A WAY FORWARD
IN CHRISTIAN-MUSLIM RELATIONS
SEENA FAZEL
World Order
VOLUME 26, NUMBER 2
WORLD ORDER IS INTENDED TO STIMULATE, INSPIRE, AND SERVE THINKING PEOPLE IN
THEIR SEARCH TO FIND RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CONTEMPORARY LIFE AND CONTEMPORARY
RELIGIOUS TEACHINGS AND PHILOSOPHY
Editorial Board:
FIRUZ KAZEMZADEH
BETTY J. FISHER
HOWARD GAREY
ROBERT H. STOCKMAN
JAMES D. STOKES
Consultant in Poetry:
HERBERT WOODWARD MARTIN
Subscriber Service:
RHONDA SPENNER
WORLD ORDER is published quarterly by
the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís
of the United States, 415 Linden Avenue, Wilmette,
IL 60091. POSTMASTER: Send address
changes to WORLD ORDER Subscriber
Service, Bahá’í National Center, Wilmette, IL
60091. The views expressed herein are those
of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the
opinions of the publisher, the National Spiritual
Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United
States, or of the Editorial Board. Manuscripts
can be typewritten or computer generated.
They should be double spaced throughout,
with the footnotes at the end. The contributor
should send four copies—an original and three
legible copies—and should keep a copy. Return
postage should be included. Send manuscripts
and other editorial correspondence to
WORLD ORDER, 415 Linden Avenue, Wilmette,
IL 60091.
Subscription rates: U.S.A., 1 year, $15.00; 2 years, $28.00; single copies, $3.00. Surface mail to all other countries, 1 year, $15.00; 2 years, $28.00; single copies, $3.00. Airmail to all other countries, 1 year, $20.00; 2 years, $38.00.
WORLD ORDER is protected through trademark registration in the U.S. Patent Office.
Copyright © 1995, National Spiritual Assembly
of the Bahá’ís of the United States. All
Rights Reserved. Printed in the U.S.A.
ISSN 0043-8804
IN THIS ISSUE
- 2 The Environment—A Problem of the Spirit
- Editorial
- 4 Interchange: Letters from and to the Editor
- 7 Unity and Consultation: Foundations of Sustainable
- Development
- A statement by the National Spiritual Assembly
- of the Bahá’ís of the United States
- 13. Dance of the Unheralded
- poem by Marlaina B. Tanny
- 15 Protecting Humanity and Its Environment:
- A Bahá’í Perspective
- by John J. Coleman
- 31 Nanak, The Founder of Sikhism
- by R. Raj Singh
- 37 Not Quite Afternoon
- poem by Terry Ofner
- 39 Taking Responsibility for Peace
- book review by Grace Calí
- 43 Bahá’í Riddles
- poem by Craig Loehle
- 45 A Jihad for All Seasons
- book review by Seena Fazel
- Inside back cover: Authors & Artists in This Issue
The Environment—A Problem
of the Spirit
HUMANITY inhabits a small planet that it shares with billions of living
beings: animals and plants. All are interconnected in a global symbiosis
that includes earth, water, and air. Within this biosphere every
living organism depends on other organisms in an endless chain, and all
organisms depend on earth, water, and air that ultimately sustain them.
Over the last century humanity has done much to upset the delicate
balances nature has evolved over millions of years. The Industrial Revolution,
starting in Western Europe and gradually spreading to the rest
of the world, turned out to be not only a benefactor but also a deadly
threat. Heaps of slag, oil-soaked ground, polluted waters, and air heavy
with poisonous vapors are the accompaniment of progress for which every
nation strives at any price.
There are limits to what nature will allow. The virtual extermination of tigers, rhinoceroses, or pandas may bother only a small circle of lovers of exotica, but the gradual disappearance of the humble frog may be a sign that the environment is unfit for human habitation as well. In earlier times coal miners took with them to the underground tunnels caged birds the visible discomfort of which would warn the miners of the presence of noxious gases. Now the yearly extinction of whole species sounds the toxin that humanity ignores at its own peril.
To save animals and plants, to clean the air and the waters, to protect wilderness, to limit the expansion of cities are not impossible tasks. We have the technology and the resources to reverse the disastrous course of the last hundred years. What we lack is will, an aspect of the human spirit.
The first prerequisite of global health is the realization of the unity of humankind. Problems of environment cannot be solved by individual nations. Only a joint effort can save the oceans, the land, and the atmosphere. But the realization of unity presupposes a restructuring of humanity’s spiritual life, the abandonment of prejudice, the rejection of a materialistic ethos that dominates the life of a majority of humankind in the closing years of the twentieth century. The issue of environment, seemingly the most “material” of all our problems, turns out to be a problem of the spirit.
Interchange LETTERS FROM AND TO THE EDITOR
THIS issue of WORLD ORDER centers on
the importance of the spiritual basis of
intelligently managed human relations if
the most vexing problems that beset the
world are to be solved. Several of the pieces
that follow demonstrate that the underpinning
of workable human relations is
the Bahá’í principle of consultation. Its
practical application is made abundantly
clear in a variety of specific situations.
The interdependence of spirituality and practical results can be discerned in the statement by the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States, “Unity and Consultation: Foundations of Sustainable Development.” In the words of the statement, “Patterns of sustainable development . . . will not emerge without systematic changes in the underlying ethos of societal institutions, and this in turn requires changes in the values and attitudes of individuals.” The ethos and values in question are fully developed in this impressive piece, as well as are the practical steps that will evolve from them. The statement was prepared for the annual conference of the Citizens Network for Sustainable Development, a group of more than four hundred U.S. Non-Governmental Organizations, organized in 1992 initially to exert an influence on the United Nations summit on the environment and development held in Rio de Janeiro.
Dr. John J. Coleman has written an impassioned essay on protecting the environment, in which he brings together arguments and evidence from a number of scientific areas to drive home the importance of efforts on every level, from the individual to the whole world, to cooperate in the preservation of our only habitat.
Grace Calí, in her review of John Huddleston’s Achieving Peace by the Year 2000, tells us about practical measures for the attainment of world peace as proposed by a man who has been in the thick of international organizations for a long time, a man without illusions but at the same time not disillusioned.
Dr. Seena Fazel, in his review of Charles
Kimball’s Striving Together: A Way Forward
in Christian-Muslim Relations, provides
hope-inspiring evidence for increased
understanding by Christians of the ethical
and theological beliefs of Islam. The book
was apparently addressed more to the
Christian community than to the Muslims;
the acceptance of the authenticity of
Christ’s message is part of the Islamic
creed, whereas the Christians have always
had difficulty with knowing how far to go
in accepting the message of Muḥammad.
Recognizing Him as a true prophet of
God would be inconsistent with belief in
the finality of the Christian dispensation—
much as belief in a certain interpretation
[Page 5] of Muḥammad as the “Seal of the Prophets”
has hindered Muslims in their understanding
of the Bahá’í Faith.
R. Raj Singh, in “Nanak, the Founder of Sikhism,” contributes a biographical and doctrinal sketch of the first Guru of the Sikhs. An important tenet of the Bahá’í Faith is that the divine message is twofold, consisting of the eternal spiritual principles that underlie all authentic religions and of laws governing the conduct of society and the relationship of individuals within that society, laws that are bound to exigencies of time and place. In Dr. Singh’s article Bahá’ís will recognize many of the principles of the Sikh Faith as belonging to the category of eternal spiritual truths that one finds, in different numbers and with varying emphases, in all the world’s religions.
Unity and Consultation:
Foundations of Sustainable
Development
A STATEMENT BY THE NATIONAL SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLY
OF THE BAHÁ’ÍS OF THE UNITED STATES
Copyright © 1994 by the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States.
In 1994 the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States prepared
“Unity and Consultation: Foundations of Sustainable Development” for the
annual conference of the Citizens Network for Sustainable Development, a group
of more than four hundred nongovernmental organizations that came together
initially to have an influence on the United Nations Conference on Environment
and Development (UNCED—often referred to as the Earth Summit) in Rio de
Janeiro in 1992. The 1994 conference, a follow-up to the Earth Summit and called
“Two Years after UNCED: Exploring Partnerships for Sustainable Development,”
focused on cooperative efforts by business, government, and nongovernmental
organizations to achieve sustainable development. “Unity and Consultation,” which
was published in a compilation distributed to all participants in the 1994
conference, was the first essay in the compilation and appeared in the opening
section on principles.
Soon after the 1992 Earth Summit the U.N. Secretary-General Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali stated that “After Rio, it is no longer credible to speak of the environment without putting it squarely in the context of economic and social development, nor is it possible to discuss development in isolation from the environment.” Indeed, a major contribution of the Summit was to place the spotlight on the inextricable linkages between environment and development issues. No longer can one field be discussed in isolation from the other. The term “sustainable development” is an expression of this relationship. It incorporates economic, social, and environmental factors into long-range planning. Sustainable development, according to the Brundtland Commission, “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
AS THE twentieth century draws to a close, the world community is experiencing
startling changes that are profoundly altering the character of
society. These processes of change presage a fundamental turning point in the
history of the human race. Unparalleled scientific and technological advances
[Page 8] have contracted the world into a mere neighborhood in which people are
instantly aware of each other’s affairs. Although these advances portend a great
surge forward in the social evolution of the planet, humanity is now confronted
with a series of interrelated problems that threaten both the fabric of
civilized life and the natural world itself. The resolution of these problems—
crushing poverty amidst vast sections of the developing world, oppression of
women and minority groups, intractable political, religious, and ethnic conflicts,
and disruption of global ecosystems, among others—will require unprecedented
levels of cooperation and coordination that surpass anything in
humanity’s collective experience.
The UNCED process marked the beginning of a vital enterprise of partnership among governments, international organizations, and ordinary citizens. Both the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development and Agenda 21 acknowledge the indispensable role of open dialogue and “broad public participation in decision-making.”[1] Indeed, the challenging objectives associated with sustainable development cannot conceivably be met without the involvement of representatives from all segments of the human family and all departments of human life—political, social, scientific, economic, and religious. It is through the interaction of people from all cultures, races, and socioeconomic and educational backgrounds that creative approaches to sustainable development will be found. And it is only through such interaction that the prejudices, misconceptions, and suspicions that currently govern human relationships can be overcome.
Patterns of sustainable development, however, will not emerge without systematic changes in the underlying ethos of societal institutions, and this in turn requires changes in the values and attitudes of individuals. Recognition of the fundamental interdependence between human life and the biosphere is only the first step toward creating this new consciousness. An ecologically sustainable civilization must cover the full range of human activities, from the social and political realm to the everyday relationships in our cultural, spiritual, economic, and community lives. It involves both an internal and external reordering, and such a reordering can only occur when the human heart is transformed.
The path toward sustainable development can only be built upon the deep
comprehension of humanity’s spiritual reality—a reality that lies at the very
essence of human beings. It is our spiritual nature that is the source of human
qualities that engender unity and harmony, that lead to insight and understanding,
and that make possible collaborative undertakings. Such qualities—
compassion, forbearance, trustworthiness, courage, humility, cooperation, and
[Page 9] willingness to sacrifice for the common good—form the invisible yet essential
foundations of human society.
In considering the connection between the spiritual dimension of human existence and sustainable development, it is helpful to recall how the world’s great religious systems have guided humanity in the past. The moral code of the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule (that we should treat others as we ourselves wish to be treated)—both of which find their expression in nearly every religious tradition—serve both as ethical guidelines and a summons to spiritual achievement. They have permeated human consciousness and regenerated cultures everywhere. Even for the nonbeliever, the value of such teachings is evident.
Today, our understanding of spirituality must embrace not only personal development and growth, but also the collective progress of humanity as a whole. More than a century ago, Bahá’u’lláh, Founder of the Bahá’í Faith, declared, “The well-being of mankind, its peace and security, are unattainable unless and until its unity is firmly established.” So long as disunity, antagonism, and provincialism characterize the social, political, and economic relations within and among nations, sustainable development will remain an unachievable goal. Only upon a foundation of genuine unity, harmony, and understanding among the diverse peoples and nations of the world can a sustainable global society be erected.
The chief vehicle for bringing about such unity is the recognition of the principle of the oneness of humankind. In appealing to humanity to accept the central truth of its oneness, Bahá’u’lláh urges, “regard ye not one another as strangers. Ye are the fruits of one tree, and the leaves of one branch.” “The earth is but one country,” He proclaims, “and mankind its citizens.” Although this principle of the oneness of the human family certainly implies a reawakening of the spirit of brotherhood and goodwill among all peoples, it suggests something much deeper: “an organic change in the structure of present-day society, a change such as the world has not yet experienced.”[2]
The concept of unity that underpins the Bahá’í vision of a peaceful and sustainable world is not a unity based on uniformity, but rather a unity that embraces diversity. Unity is the instrument whereby true justice can be established, whereby equality of opportunity and privilege can exist for women and men throughout the planet. The concept of the oneness of humankind is thus a statement of principle, and a basis for social organization. It implies the abandonment of prejudices—whether racial, ethnic, national, or religious— and the establishment of institutions and policies that safeguard the dignity and well-being of all peoples.
The acceptance of this principle will provide the ethical and motivational
[Page 10] imperative for each and every member of the human race to assume responsibility
for the fate of the planet. Without such a universal ethical imperative,
without touching the human spirit, the peoples of the world are unlikely to
become active, constructive participants in the global process of sustainable
development. The enormous financial, technical, human, and moral resources
necessary for creating a sustainable society will only be released when this ethic
of our fundamental oneness is fully embraced. Accordingly, the concept of
world citizenship, with its implications of brotherhood and true creative
fellowship among the peoples of the earth, should be universally proclaimed,
taught in schools, and constantly asserted in every part of the globe.
A key challenge raised by the UNCED process is the development of new collaborative efforts among government institutions, business associations, nongovernmental organizations, and citizens groups representing the perspectives of women, indigenous peoples, and youth.[3] Because environmental and development problems scale from the local to the global level, such partnerships are essential if innovative technical and social approaches to sustainable development are to emerge. New patterns of interaction and participation, especially among individuals and groups that have been historically excluded from decision-making, can open the door to new possibilities and novel solutions. Moreover, the creation of new patterns of participation can fundamentally alter the way power flows within and among communities, and thus can be an effective means for devolving authority to the most appropriate level of society.
To ensure that these collaborative undertakings are successful, however, new modalities of decision-making will be needed. Given the extraordinary challenges and complexities associated with sustainable development, it is unlikely that traditional adversarial approaches to decision-making will be adequate to the task. Even the most mature democratic systems suffer from political paralysis, with competing parties or groups claiming that they can solve the difficult problems of the day better than their opponents. Clearly, cooperative and fully inclusive approaches to decision-making must become an integral feature of the sustainable development process.
In this regard, the Bahá’í community offers its own administrative system as a model for study. Bahá’ís attach great importance to cooperative action and assign organizational responsibility for community affairs to freely elected councils at the local, national, and international levels. This hierarchy devolves decision-making to the lowest level practicable—thereby providing a unique vehicle for grassroots democracy—while at the same time providing a mechanism of coordination and authority that makes cooperation possible on a global scale.
[Page 11]
The administrative bodies of the Bahá’í Faith at all levels use a distinctive
method of nonadversarial decision-making, known as “consultation.” The
principles of consultation were laid down in Bahá’u’lláh’s writings, and as a
procedure for building consensus, have the potential for wide application.
Indeed, Bahá’ís have found them to be useful in virtually any arena where
group decision-making and cooperation are required. In essence, consultation
seeks to build consensus in a manner that unites various constituencies instead
of dividing them. It encourages diversity of opinion and acts to control the
struggle for power that is otherwise so common in traditional decision-making
systems. Bahá’u’lláh states that consultation is a “lamp of guidance” that
“bestows greater awareness and transmutes conjecture into certitude.”
Bahá’í consultation is based on the following principles:
- Information should be gathered from the widest possible range of sources, seeking a diversity of points of view. This may involve seeking the views of technical specialists or making a special effort to consider the views of community members from disparate backgrounds.
- During discussion, participants must make every effort to be as frank and candid as possible, while maintaining a courteous interest in the views of others. Confrontation, blanket ultimatums, and prejudicial statements are to be avoided. Indeed, an atmosphere that cultivates openness, objectivity, and humility is viewed as a prerequisite for successful consultation.
- When an idea is put forth, it becomes at once the property of the group. Although this notion sounds simple, it is perhaps the most profound principle of consultation. For in this rule, all ideas cease to be the property of any individual, subgroup, or constituency. When followed, this principle encourages those ideas that spring forth from a sincere desire to serve, as opposed to ideas that emanate from a desire for personal aggrandizement or constituency building.
- The group strives for unanimity, but a majority vote can be taken to bring about a conclusion and make the decision. An important aspect of this principle is the understanding that once a decision is made, it is incumbent on the entire group to act on it with unity—regardless of how many supported the measure.
In this sense, there can be no “minority” report or “position of the opposition” in consultation. Rather, Bahá’ís believe that if a decision is wrong, it will become evident in its implementation—but only if the decision-making group and, indeed, the community at large, support it wholeheartedly. This commitment to unity ensures that if a decision or a project fails, the problem lies in the idea itself, and not in the lack of support from the community or the obstinate actions of opponents.
These consultative principles have been an integral component of Bahá’í
social and economic development activities throughout the world. Consultation
has been both a vehicle for empowering women and minorities in their
[Page 12] local communities, and for conceiving and implementing creative solutions
to difficult problems. It is an indispensable tool for effecting meaningful
change where unproductive habits have impeded progress. In essence, consultation
involves a set of “process skills” that improve the quality and impact
of group decision-making.
As governments, NGOs, grassroots organizations, and individual citizens explore new ways to work together and develop new strategies for promoting sustainable development, the Bahá’í community would be pleased to share its experiences and engage in further dialogue. As a global community encompassing the diversity of the human race, the Bahá’í community is deeply committed to the vision of a sustainable world—“a world organically unified in all the essential aspects of its life.”[4]
- ↑ Agenda 21, Chapter 23. The Rio Declaration was a statement of principles presented at the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development; Agenda 21 is the plan of action to be carried out in the twenty-first century.
- ↑ Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh: Selected Letters, 1st ps ed. (Wilmette, Ill.: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1991) 43.
- ↑ See Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, Principles 19-22.
- ↑ Shoghi Effendi, World Order of Bahá’u’lláh 43.
Dance of the Unheralded
- I will fill my house with wildflowers:
- loosestrife and cat-tails, swamp grass
- and weeds that are purple and brown,
- blue and gold; clay mustard jars
- and white milk pitchers bursting
- with overgrowth.
- I will pick armfuls, not one or two,
- but millions and when I walk through
- each room, when I sit to read,
- when I make a meal, they will
- jump out laughing with the wind
- that remains in their petals,
- laughing with rays of light caught
- in the brightness of their skin
- and I will have brought the outside in.
- (I will be less discontent)
- The walls will be unsolid, pipes and
- wires visible and the sky
- will come through like a plain
- of elephant tracks against
- the blue of day. And at night,
- at night everything will melt
- into the air, bright things will close
- unto themselves and the greens
- of life will be absorbed
- by the great space and the stars
- will bring the only dimension,
- the only light, and the whites of my eyes
- will become the twin moons reflecting
- this cold fire of distant stars,
- and I will orbit, joining
- my speck of a body with the magnitude.
—Marlaina B. Tanny
Copyright © 1995 by Marlaina B. Tanny
Protecting Humanity and Its
Environment: A Bahá’í Perspective
BY JOHN J. COLEMAN
Copyright © 1995 by John J. Coleman.
The earth is drooping, withering . . . and
the sky wanes with the earth; for earth has
been polluted by the dwellers on its face. . . .
Therefore a curse is crushing the earth; alighting
on its guilty folk; mortals are dying off,
till few are left.
- —Isaiah 24:4-6
The Environmental Challenge
EXPERTS generally agree that humanity’s continuous depletion, pollution, and destruction of the earth’s resources bode environmental disasters no less dire than those described by Isaiah centuries ago. Power plants are sending acrid smoke into the skies. Pesticides are poisoning water, wildlife, and people. Wetlands are disappearing. Well waters are being contaminated from coast to coast. Forests in the Northern Hemisphere are falling to lumbering, development, and acid rain. These critical problems affect all humanity and reflect patterns of exploitation of resources and waste that are out of control.
Ecological systems throughout the planet are becoming destabilized by the depletion of stratospheric ozone. Biological systems are becoming degraded, and their productivity is declining. If left unchecked, these environmental hazards will diminish significantly the prospects of numerous species on the planet, including Homo sapiens.
Global warming is a long-term, largely irreversible environmental problem for the entire world. Environmental scientists are certain that concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are increasing and warming the earth. The unfortunate torching of Kuwaiti oil fields in 1991 provided data that corroborates the reliability of models predicting global warming.
Destruction of tropical rain forests and other woodlands that absorb carbon dioxide is resulting in ever higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which leads to the greenhouse effect. Recent estimates indicate that if atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide continue to increase, the earth’s average temperature could rise as much as 1.5 to 4.5° centigrade in the next century.[1] The earth’s ecosystems, water resources, and air quality could all undergo profound changes. Sea levels could rise several feet, flooding coastal cities and ruining large tracts of farmland through salinization. Changing weather patterns could render immense expanses of land infertile or uninhabitable, touching off massive population movements unprecedented in history.
The emission of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and halons, found in such things as refrigerants and fire-extinguisher chemicals, is depleting and seriously threatening the ozone layer of the stratosphere, which shields life on earth from potentially disastrous levels of ultraviolet radiation.
In the United States, as in other developed
countries, many natural systems are continuing
[Page 16] to deteriorate. Air pollution leaves half
of the country’s population breathing unhealthy
air. The rate of wetlands loss is alarming.
The quantity of waste produced by the
United States far exceeds that of most other
successful, competitive, modern industrialized
countries, and the waste creates problems
in all elements: air, water, and land.
Developing countries share worldwide concerns about environmental degradation. But they must also deal with the urgent problems of poverty, hunger, disease, rapid population growth, and high expectations for generating economic growth and wealth. Unfortunately, such countries lack the economic resources to deal with all of the problems and are, therefore, unable to contribute to the environmental protection of the planet. For them, the crucial dilemma is how to reconcile development and the elimination of poverty—both of which require increased use of energy and raw materials—with stewardship of the environment.
Awareness of the growing environmental crisis has been building gradually since the early 1960s. A noticeable change in the public attitude toward the destruction of animals by pesticides began in 1961, shortly after Rachel Carson published Silent Spring, a book that captured the public’s imagination by dramatizing the darker face of development and its destruction of wildlife.
In response to the crisis in the American environment, and in recognition of its complexity, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was formed in December 1970 with a mandate to protect humanity from elements in nature and to protect nature from elements in man.[2] The EPA was directed to address tremendously difficult regulatory questions: How should ecological goals be balanced with goals related to public health and the common-law rights of the individual? How could the atmosphere of public and media hysteria about pollution from several environmental insults be dispelled? How should scientific findings be interpreted and correlated? How should uncertainty about the meaning of such findings be communicated to lawmakers, reporters, and citizens?
Faced with the need to find solutions within the context of a growing public sense of crisis, environmentalists have resorted to an analytical method of thought that limits itself to identifying quantifiable targets for action. Thus environmental analysis has tended to concentrate on “pollution symptoms” and to be filled with sets of causal chains of one thing leading to another, to another, to yet another, and back to a so-called “first cause” of environmental degradation. Such “chains of reasoning” in environmental analysis have sometimes led to one-sided conclusions, as in the following example: “Since profit is the purpose behind industry, and industry causes pollution, and pollution causes ill health and eventual death, if society wants to clean up its environment, it must eliminate the concept of ‘profit.’” The error of such logic, of course, is that what is assumed to be the “first cause” goes undiscussed because it is difficult to quantify. Concepts such as purposeful behavior have been shunned by environmental scientists and analysts, who generally turn away from any belief in a role for purpose and human will in scientific analysis.
Even in their use of inductive reasoning to collect data and derive general principles from it (the scientific method), environmental scientists tend to employ a limited kind of synthesis that reflects a general distrust of the intuitive or creative leap that is the ideal goal of science.
“Intuition,” as defined by Webster’s dictionary,
is “immediate apprehension or cognition”
or “the power or faculty of attaining
[Page 17] to direct knowledge or cognition without
evident rational thought and inference.”[3]
Rather than using a linear, systematic means
of gaining understanding, the process of
intuition embraces the totality of a problem
without analyzing its constituent elements.
Intuition is one component of creative imagination.
Synthesis, the process in which one
reasons from the general to the particular, is
another component. Without intuition and
synthesis, human beings would be mechanical,
robot-like creatures. Scientists generally
distrust intuition as a means of interpreting
reality, probably because it transcends logic
and is so difficult to trace and articulate. Yet
the process of synthesis, while generally
considered to be more “trustworthy,” works
well in combination with the intuitive approach.
There have been exceptions to the limited method of examining environmental problems by intuition and synthesis, most notably in the field of ecology. But generally ecological thinking about how to handle environmental problems has had to wait within agencies such as the EPA until the limits of traditional approaches have become obvious and burdensome.
The rediscovery of ecology in the EPA began gaining momentum in 1975 when interested parties acknowledged that the growing problems of the Chesapeake Bay, an incredibly dense ecosystem, were possibly intractable. Certainly the difficulties were resistant to traditional problem-solving techniques. By that time it was widely known that the complex causes of biological decline in the Chesapeake basin would defeat all attempts to apply simple solutions. It was clear that the complexity of the problems demanded an equally complex response.
As the Chesapeake Bay experience has shown, attacking water pollution alone is no longer sufficient. Consideration of greenways (green areas around natural or artificial objects), setbacks (distances a building or object are from other buildings), nonpoint pollution (extended areas, such as farmlands, as opposed to nonextended objects, such as oil tanks), buffer zones (distances from roads to buildings or related objects), nutrient levels (nutrient concentration levels essential for growth), and sustainable growth must be part of any such program, as must the use of interorganizational conferences to coordinate thinking. Satisfaction with the Chesapeake Bay program led the EPA to develop in 1976 a National Estuary Program, replicating the Chesapeake approach in seventeen other estuaries and in the Great Lakes region.
The immediate challenge today is to extend to other major environmental problem areas the ecological approach—that is, a respect for the ecology by maintaining either self-regulating or managed environmental services within ecological systems in caring for and preserving world resources. The real environmental world is messy and demands an epistemology—a system of knowledge— of its own, one that appeals to intuition and synthesizes the overall environmental problem. By linking together ecology and health, for example, the EPA could establish firmer foundations for ecological initiatives. Even diplomatic conferences designed to slow the destruction of the planet’s protective ozone layer and the buildup of greenhouse gases could give international legitimacy to the ecological method of interrelating apparently distant and seemingly discrete phenomena.
Some Developing Ecological Principles
THE relationship between humanity and its
environment is complex. Full appreciation of
this subject requires a holistic approach that
gives consideration to nature, to human values,
[Page 18] and to their relationship to each other. There
is a need to identify values and principles
that affirm the underlying unity, sanctity,
and purpose of the human and natural worlds.
Identifying such principles would provide a
framework for responding to problems coherently.
Addressing problems on local, national,
and global levels ultimately requires
changes in attitude, a somewhat different
ethic with respect to the use of resources and
the disposal of waste, and a much greater
commitment on the part of individuals. To
bring about such changes, individual and
public consciousness must be raised, thereby
enabling all to understand and commit themselves
to changes in behavior.
Although increasing productivity and population are among the chief causes of environmental deterioration, humanity’s attitudes toward nature have accelerated the deterioration. One of the basic causes of the current environmental crisis is human ignorance of the spiritual principles and values that sustain our relationship to the world around us. Rediscovery of eternal spiritual and humanitarian principles will create the necessary framework for change and set humanity in a new and better direction.
The emerging science of environmental ecology has identified a number of principles and themes that form the basis of an integrated approach to the study of humankind and nature. The Bahá’í Faith espouses a view of the relationship of humankind and nature that resonates with many developing ideas in ecological thought, though its views are derived more from a spiritual and social perspective. An examination of a number of ecological principles in the light of Bahá’í teachings reveals a convergence of contemporary thinking on environmental issues and suggests a new paradigm for solving the ecological and human crises afflicting the planet.
The Bahá’í view of the closeness and the analogical wholeness of the human and natural realms can be seen in the statement from the Bahá’í writings that the “‘temple of the world’” has been “‘fashioned after the image and likeness of the human body’”:
- By this is meant that even as the human body in this world, which is outwardly composed of different limbs and organs, is in reality a closely integrated, coherent entity, similarly the structure of the physical world is like unto a single being whose limbs and members are inseparably linked together.
- Were one to observe with an eye that discovereth the realities of all things, it would become clear that the greatest relationship that bindeth the world of being together lieth in the range of created things themselves, and that cooperation, mutual aid and reciprocity are essential characteristics in the unified body of the world of being, inasmuch as all created things are closely related together and each is influenced by the other or deriveth benefit therefrom, either directly or indirectly.[4]
The Bahá’í Faith’s essential respect and concern for the nonhuman part of creation is reflected in an injunction by Bahá’u’lláh, the Founder of the Bahá’í Faith, Who directs humanity to “show kindness to animals.”[5] ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, His son and successor, writes,
- Briefly, it is not only their fellow human beings that the beloved of God must treat with mercy and compassion, rather must they show forth the utmost lovingkindness to every living creature. For in all physical respects, and where the animal [Page 19]
spirit is concerned, the selfsame feelings are shared by animal and man. . . .
- And yet in truth, what difference is there when it cometh to physical sensations? The feelings are one and the same, whether ye inflict pain on man or on beast. There is no difference here whatever. And indeed ye do worse to harm an animal, for man hath a language, he can lodge a complaint, he can cry out and moan; if injured he can have recourse to the authorities and these will protect him from his aggressor. But the hapless beast is mute, able neither to express its hurt nor take its case to the authorities. If a man inflict a thousand ills upon a beast, it can neither ward him off with speech nor hale him into court. Therefore is it essential that ye show forth the utmost consideration to the animal, and that ye be even kinder to him than to your fellow man.[6]
The relationship between living organisms and their environment has traditionally been called “ecology,” a science that began with Thomas Robert Malthus (1789) and was extended by Charles Darwin (1859), Ernest Haeckel (1869), and Charles Elton (1920). Ecology is broken into three separate parts: plant ecology, animal ecology, and human ecology. General ecology, or environmental science, is a systems approach to nature and the way humans interact with their environment. General ecology is concerned with all aspects of environmental quality. It deals with reducing the adverse effects of human activities and health on their surroundings and the adverse effects of the surroundings on human activities and health.
While the science of ecology is about one hundred years old, the general, holistic approach to ecology, which began with A. M. Carr-Saunder (1922) and was modernized by Eugene Odom (1975), is less than eighty years old. Holism views all living things as parts of a single system that interact with each other and with the inorganic environment. Some of the principles of this young science, elaborated in some cases with similar Bahá’í principles that were promulgated more than one hundred years ago, include:
1. Everything in the environment is related to everything else. This interrelatedness is illustrated by the Aswan Dam built across the Nile River in Egypt. Constructed to provide irrigation and hydroelectric power, the dam has had major unforeseen environmental effects. It has “driven the fish from the eastern Mediterranean, exposed the whole Egyptian coast to erosion, endangered every bridge and barrier dam astride the Nile from Aswan to the sea, robbed Egyptian soil of the silt that made it the most fertile on earth, threatened millions of acres with the blight of salinity, set off an explosion of waterborne disease, and squandered the very water it was meant to save.”[7]
‘Abdu’l-Bahá describes the interconnectedness of “every part of the universe” and the importance of maintaining balance by inviting reflection
- upon the inner realities of the universe, the secret wisdoms involved, the enigmas, the inter-relationships, the rules that govern all. For every part of the universe is connected with every other part by ties that are very powerful and admit of no imbalance, nor any slackening whatever.[8]
2. Complexity is, in part, responsible for the
stability of most ecosystems. The more food
chains there are in an ecosystem, the more
cross-connecting links there are among the
food chains, and the more chances there are
for the ecosystem to compensate for changes
imposed upon it. A forest of beech, birch,
[Page 20] and maple trees in New England is far more
stable than a field of wheat standing beside
it, for forests dominate the ecosystems. Trees
grow to large sizes and live for many years
and survive under a wide variety of conditions.
They are self-regulating and self-stabilizing
and can compensate for most changes
imposed on them. Wheat fields, by contrast,
are vulnerable, cannot compensate very well
to changes imposed on them, and must be
managed by humans. Moreover, they are
subject to quick and violent changes from
birds, livestock, insects, weeds, diurnal variations,
environmental factors, and harvesting.
‘Abdu’l-Bahá explains that, in the physical world, the course of evolution progresses in the direction of increasing complexity: “In the physical creation, evolution is from one degree of perfection to another. The mineral passes with its mineral perfections to the vegetable; the vegetable, with its perfections, passes to the animal world, and so on to that of humanity.”[9]
3. Human activities tend to reduce the complexity of ecosystems. Just as planting a field with only one crop, such as wheat, directly reduces the complexity of an ecosystem, managing the crop by using chemical weed controls and insecticides further reduces its complexity. Nonagricultural activities such as the purchase of books and the use of paper goods contribute to the harvesting of more trees, thus reducing the complexity of forest ecologies. When the Army Corps of Engineers “cleans up” a stream by straightening it out and lining its bed with concrete, the stream’s ecosystem is simplified—if not entirely destroyed.
4. No species encounters, in any given habitat, the optimum conditions for all its functions. There are optimum or best conditions for the growth and survival of different species. No species except human beings can drastically modify its environment or habitat to produce optimal short-term conditions for all of its functions. Few species besides human beings can seek locations where optimal short-term conditions might exist. Consequently, humans drastically change their environment but usually look at short-term rather than long-term benefits and penalties. Frequently, such changes, caused, for example, by industrialization and housing, produce long-run negative effects that label humans as the main offenders against the environment. This points out the need for an ecological approach and regulation to mitigate humanity’s inhumanity to its own ecosphere.
5. Although living beings react to all factors of the environment in their particular location, a discrepant factor frequently controls power through its excess or deficiency. Deficiency of a particular nutrient or excess of a specific chemical, for example, could severely damage aspects of humanity and the ecology in which it lives. Excess of carbon dioxide will cause global warming. Deficiencies in oxygen or even carbon dioxide can severely affect our biosphere. Excess of halons and CFCs in the environment will cause ozone deficiencies in the stratosphere. Excesses of manmade or natural nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides can damage fauna and flora as well as buildings and humans. Human beings, in their stewardship of the environment, must become aware of and understand potential threats and damage to humanity and its environment so that countering measures, regulations, or services can be planned and enacted to maintain the proper balances in potential or critical deficiences and excesses.
6. Some natural resources are not renewable
because they are the result of a process that has
ceased to function. As far as we know, the
conditions that favored the production of
vast quantities of oil and coal no longer exist.
[Page 21] The future supply of oil and coal is fixed at
the amount that exists today.
7. Environmental change often occurs more rapidly than organic biological evolution does. When this happens, a species can sometimes migrate and adapt to a new, more hospitable habitat. Or it may become endangered and face extinction.
8. A species is geographically confined by the environmental extremes it can withstand. Modifications of the environment can lead not only to shrinking of the region in which a species is found; they can also lead to its extinction. There is, of course, the possibility that humanity may bring about environmental changes that exceed its own limits of tolerance. Thus humans, too, could eventually render themselves extinct.
9. Nature is a reflection of the Divine. Nature should be held in high regard. It fosters an awareness of God and proves His existence. In Bahá’í terms, the reflection of the Divine is described as “signs” that demonstrate the greatness of God’s creation:
- whatever I behold I readily discover that it maketh Thee known unto me, and it remindeth me of Thy signs, and of Thy tokens, and of Thy testimonies. By Thy glory! Every time I lift up mine eyes unto Thy heaven, I call to mind Thy highness and Thy loftiness, and Thine incomparable glory and greatness; and every time I turn my gaze to Thine earth, I am made to recognize the evidences of Thy power and the tokens of Thy bounty. And when I behold the sea, I find that it speaketh to me of Thy majesty, and of the potency of Thy might, and of Thy sovereignty and Thy grandeur. And at whatever time I contemplate the mountains, I am led to discover the ensigns of Thy victory and the standards of Thine omnipotence.[10]
10. Humanity should exist in ecological harmony with its environment. If humanity wants to create a desirable and positive environmental program rather than a “protective,” negative one, it will have to come from a holistic attitude toward the environment. The best, and perhaps the only, place to begin is within the self. If individuals compose their conceptual systems in the context of a larger whole, the perceptual systems will probably follow. Altered perceptions will not be achieved through any form of external regulation or legislation. To believe so is to delay the solution.
The present social order is based on humanity’s separation from and control over nature. The reunion of humanity and nature must involve both a scientific and a religious process based on the unity of material and spiritual evolution. The ecological interdependence of life on earth needs to be understood as the physical representation of a unified spiritual reality. Thus the search for reconciliation between humanity and its environment calls for a change of consciousness, a movement away from viewing the world as a vast set of resources to be exploited toward a view of the world in which humanity is part of an overall ecology. There are two natures within human beings, one material and the other spiritual. Other created beings are “captives of nature and the sense world,”[11] but human beings are created in what many religions call the “image of God.” They have evolved to their present state of self-awareness by incorporating, as ‘Abdu’l-Bahá says, the attributes and perfections of the animal, plant, and mineral worlds.[12]
[Page 22]
The Spiritual Reality of
the Physical World
IF ONE accepts that God created the physical world and intended for humans to evolve spiritually, it follows that the physical world must be endowed with a certain degree of benevolence that somehow facilitates human development. Bahá’u’lláh states that “every created thing is a sign of the revelation of God” and that every human being has the capacity to recognize those signs. Thus to reject the physical environment is to reject the divine purposes for which it was created. Referring to nature as “the Kingdom of Names,” Bahá’u’lláh states that, beneath its physical form, nature is a spiritual reality:
- Inasmuch as He, the sovereign Lord of all, hath willed to reveal His sovereignty in the kingdom of names and attributes, each and every created thing hath, through the act of the Divine Will, been made a sign of His glory. So pervasive and general is this revelation that nothing whatsoever in the whole universe can be discovered that doth not reflect His splendor.[13]
‘Abdu’l-Bahá refers to the physical world as a reflection of the unseen spiritual world. He explains that the spiritual world “is the real world, and this nether place is only its shadow stretching out. A shadow hath no life of its own; its existence is only a fantasy, and nothing more; it is but images reflected in water, and seeming as pictures to the eye.”[14] Thus viewed, nature becomes a textbook of divine instruction: “Within every blade of grass are enshrined the mysteries of an in scrutable wisdom, and upon every rosebush a myriad nightingales pour out, in blissful rapture, their melody.”[15]
Humanity is beginning to understand the ecological relationships that exist between itself and its environment, relationships that express the essential unity of all creation. The present materialistic outlook is based on a world view that reduces the physical world to a material form without spirit. But nature devoid of spirit is empty. Humanity must come to understand that nature reflects the spiritual world. Humanity is a part of nature and is, indeed, its glorious purpose for existing:
- The world, indeed each existing being, proclaims to us one of the names of God, but the reality of man is the collective reality, the general reality, and is the center where the glory of all the perfections of God shine forth—that is to say, for each name, each attribute, each perfection which we affirm of God there exists a sign in man.[16]
As a unified vision of humanity and its environment becomes recognized, a new world order will unfold. Such a vision is neither idealistic, utopian, nor authoritarian. It is the realization to which humanity must come in the face of overwhelming threats of irreversible damage to the ecosphere and the consequences of such damage if humanity continues its present patterns of consumption and waste. Recognizing the reality of humanity’s wholeness with nature and the spiritual purpose behind all of creation provides the ecological unity needed to advance a waning civilization.
The matter of protecting humanity and its environment must be addressed on both individual and societal levels. Shoghi Effendi, who served as head of the Bahá’í Faith from 1921 until his death in 1957, explains in a letter written on his behalf, that
- We cannot segregate the human heart from the environment outside us and say that [Page 23]
once one of these is reformed everything will be improved. Man is organic with the world. His inner life moulds the environment and is itself also deeply affected by it. The one acts upon the other and every abiding change in the life of man is the result of these mutual reactions.
- No movement in the world directs its attention upon both these aspects of human life and has full measures for their improvement, save the teachings of Bahá’u’lláh. And this is its distinctive feature. If we desire therefore the good of the world we should strive to spread those teachings and also practise them in our own life. Through them will the human heart be changed, and also our social environment provides the atmosphere in which we can grow spiritually and reflect in full the light of God shining through the revelation of Bahá’u’lláh.[17]
Regarding the path toward solving the world’s problems, Shoghi Effendi, in another letter written on his behalf, states that
- We need a change of heart, a reframing of all our conceptions and a new orientation of our activities. The inward life of man as well as his outward environment have to be reshaped if human salvation is to be secured.[18]
Search for Ecological
Conflict Resolution
A CHANGE in perception alone cannot, of course, solve the ecological crisis. Changes in thinking must be accompanied by a sound method for harmonizing conflicting points of view arising from a multiplicity of interests, perspectives, and individual perceptions. Every system is but a subsystem of a higher level system. Just as humanity is a part of the ecosphere, so must humanity be considered in terms of the individuals, groups, and organizations within it, all interacting with each other and with nature. Hence one may categorize individuals, groups, and organizations according to their roles with respect to various environmental issues. However, it is vital to avoid polarization. Demonizing and stereotyping opposing perceptions (as in the all-too-common categorization of people as either “environmentalists” or “exploiters”) will not be productive. The present use of absolutist advocacy needs to be replaced with what Bahá’ís refer to as “consultation”—a method of decision making that might be defined as a holistic group search for the best response to issues; cooperative and creative exchange of thoughts and views leading to greater knowledge and certitude; joint creative exploration for finding the correct answers or solutions to issues addressed; or mutual exchange of points of view, search for truth, and synthesis or creation of new concepts to achieve higher awareness, understanding, conviction, and action leading to the greater well-being of human beings involved.
The present warlike approach to environmental
conflict is familiar everywhere. Such
an approach can be seen in the dispute that
sent a Long Island garbage scow on a six-month
cruise to seven states and three countries.
Along the way, everyone involved in
the dispute agreed that something needed to
be done with the waste being carried, but
they all wanted it to be disposed of somewhere
else. The same approach frequently
characterizes controversies about what is to
be done when asbestos is found in school
buildings. While no one wants school children
to be exposed to asbestos, disputes about
what course of action to take when asbestos
is found often tear school districts apart. The
[Page 24] solution to such conflicts is to consult in order
to achieve truth and understanding that
will lead to a solution that will mutually
benefit all involved. Mere analysis may, indeed,
already be at the limits of its utility;
if further progress is to be made in humanity’s
development, and further knowledge gained,
it must turn to a spiritually informed method
of conflict resolution.
Debating and position-taking, as is increasingly obvious, are futile. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, when He visited the United States and Canada over eighty years ago, advocated Bahá’í consultation, the mutual search for the best response to problems, as the preferred method for resolving conflicts at all levels of society and the means for building a new world order. Consulting (that is, making the problem, not the various positions, the focus) on all issues affecting human welfare will lead people to the depths of each problem and will enable them to find the best solutions.
Conflict makes some people uncomfortable. But effective conflict resolution carries benefits that far exceed the illusory benefits of conflict avoidance. By acknowledging and learning how to deal with differences, “adversaries” become participants in consultation and enable themselves and others to devise the most creative solutions to problems.
The obvious interest in so-called “alternative” approaches to resolving environmental disputes seems to stem from dissatisfaction with the ability of traditional decision-making processes to deal satisfactorily with the real issues in dispute and the costs of delay in protracted conflicts.
Naturally, participants can substantially affect the outcome of negotiations. What satisfies some parties may not protect the interests of others who are not present. Shaping the discussion by getting the necessary parties to participate is usually a time-consuming and highly complex process. Who has a stake? Who does not? Who has pertinent information? Is it possible to represent “the public interest” in any useful way in multiparty negotiations?
Often, environmental negotiations involve multiple parties (mostly organizations and groups rather than individuals), multiple issues that are technically and scientifically complex, multiple objectives, and parties with differing objectives and resources. Disputative methods of problem solving are ineffective in such a context.
In an increasingly integrated world, social activity has assumed a new complexity. Genuinely objective consultation at every level of society, including the global level, will ennoble the human spirit and permit greater fulfillment of human potential. In fact, the total well-being of global society cannot be achieved without adopting a new method of consultation. True consultation promotes greater awareness, understanding, conviction, and action. Drawing on the views of several individuals generally provides greater insight and truth than relying on one person’s ideas. The objective of consultation should be the achievement of consensus and the discovery of truth. For consultation to work, participants must proceed with the greatest courtesy, dignity, concern, and moderation in expressing their views. Stubbornness and unreasonable persistence in one’s views will lead to discord and bad feelings. Therefore, participants in consultation must search for the truth on every issue, taking a transcendent approach. Rather than producing a clash of force or of wills, consultation at its best should elicit a variety of ideas without regard to their sources.
There is reason for optimism. Although environmental disputes make frequent headlines, disputants are responding in increasing numbers to consultative negotiation and mediation. Rather than proceeding to a courtroom or facing a stalemate, many groups and individuals are learning to resolve their differences through direct negotiation, often with the help of a mediator.
[Page 25]
Since 1974, mediators have been involved
in hundreds of environmental disputes—some
over large policy issues, others over local
projects. The diversity of the issues resolved
is remarkable, and the overall success rate is
high, with agreement in about 78 percent of
environmental cases mediated.[19] Bahá’ís suggest
that the increasing incidence of successful
consultation reflects a gradually evolving
shift toward a new model of conflict resolution.
Searching for a New Pattern
of World Community
THE MOST exciting aspect of the emerging model of consultation is the promise that it holds for a new sense of world community and humanity’s growing ability to act in unity. The environmental protection agencies of various countries, for example, are being forced by necessity to come together to consult on common global problems such as global warming, ozone depletion, and acid rain. The constructive process of consultation in which they are engaged is quite different from the activities of the war ministries of various countries that, historically, have not come together to consult about protecting humanity from global threats and problems of war.
But how shall humanity move beyond new perceptions and ad-hoc cooperative problem-solving to develop new ways of thinking and decision making at all levels of society to ensure the permanent protection of humanity and its environment? How can the collective consciousness of humanity be altered to preserve the global ecological balance in perpetuity?
The Universal House of Justice, the supreme governing and legislative body of the Bahá’í Faith, calls for “‘global cooperation of the family of nations in devising and adopting measures designed to preserve the ecological balance this earth was given by its Creator.’” The Universal House of Justice says that,
- Until such time as the nations of the world understand and follow the admonitions of Bahá’u’lláh to whole-heartedly work together in looking after the best interests of all humankind, and unite in the search for ways and means to meet the many environmental problems besetting our planet, . . . little progress will be made towards their solution. . . .[20]
The United Nations, which must take the lead in such cooperative ventures, has a record of impressive achievements, indicating what cooperation can achieve even under restrictive circumstances. But will the member states of the United Nations rise to the challenge of consulting among themselves, planning, developing, allocating resources, and implementing the actions needed to protect humanity and its environment? Such a development process must receive the full support of the larger organization and must be directed and guided in a way that will enable world society to achieve its destiny. But such development depends upon the United Nations’ taking creative steps into the unknown and forming new kinds of relationships among its members.
There is much agreement on the many
symptoms of our global sickness resulting
from economic exploitation, military savagery,
class oppression, environmental pollution, and
moral decay but much less consensus on the
cure. To make possible the full protection of
humanity and its environment on a global
scale, the peoples and governments of the
world must allow themselves to learn new
ways to save themselves and the natural world
and must begin doing so at the level of
[Page 26] personal initiative. Intellectual discussion is
insufficient. The primacy of the spiritual
dimension in environmental issues must be
recognized. New approaches to resolving
problems and making decisions must evolve
along with new modes of communication
among the nations to reach a common understanding
and to find “ways and means to
meet the many environmental problems
besetting our planet.” But how can this be
done?
Overcoming Obstacles to World Unity
AT the moment, humanity seems determined to choose death over life. The pervasive passion of materialistic nationalism prevents society from meeting its most urgent need—the protection and preservation of humankind and its environment.
The Bahá’í writings envisage that the protection, exploration, and exploitation of the earth’s “unimaginably vast resources” must, in the course of time, come under the jurisdiction of a “world federal system.”[21] Humanity must eventually federate or integrate to the next higher level of sovereignty. But the material pursuits that pit individuals and nations against one another must be overcome. The disunity that is the inevitable byproduct of materialism must be counteracted by attention to values that bring people and nations together.
Fortunately, a new wind is blowing. An increasing number of thoughtful, fair-minded people are recognizing in the loud outcries about the destruction that threatens the human race a great necessity for change. A new dialectic is needed between the part and the whole, focusing on the need to expand national loyalties so that they harmonize with global loyalties in a way that avoids reducing the logic of world relations to nothing more than external relations of individual states.
Developing a global plan for protecting the earth will fail unless it is forged with international fellowship and carried out on a global scale. What good will it do for one nation to reduce its carbon-dioxide emissions if another country offsets this action by increasing its output of carbon dioxide? How can one country keep its beaches clean if another dumps sewage into the common waters?
The world community of nations must move promptly toward comprehensive and binding treaties to protect the air, water, and land. Such a framework may exist in the United Nations, which has already made a number of important international initiatives for the global environment. In 1972, the United Nations organized the Stockholm Conference, which started the U.N. Environmental Program (UNEP). Under UNEP’s auspices twenty-four nations signed the 1987 Montreal Protocol for reducing the ozone-destroying output of CFCs.
But unity in the global community cannot exist if individuals continue to cling to prejudices. According to psychologist and educator Dr. Daniel C. Jordan, if one’s capacities to know and to love are in conflict, one is neither inwardly nor outwardly united. In a very basic sense, prejudice reflects conflicts in the way that the capacities of knowing and loving are expressed:
- A prejudice is a belief (a kind of knowing) in something that is not true coupled with an emotional confirmation (a kind of loving). In other words, a prejudice is an emotional attraction or commitment to falsehood or error. Actions based on that commitment are nearly always damaging to the person who is the victim of the action as well as to the one who is carrying it out.[22]
[Page 27]
To fulfill one’s human potential, one must
freely choose to realize it. Bahá’u’lláh states
that humans are potentially endowed with all
the qualities of God “to a degree that no
other created being hath excelled or surpassed.”[23]
To fulfill one’s potential, one must
adopt the ancient adage “to thine own self
be true.” One may be trained to behave well,
to be polite, to show good manners and taste,
which are good in themselves, but real progress
is made when one becomes self-governing
and self-determined.
Although spiritual growth is the responsibility of the individual, it requires external guidance through education. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá says that “A man who has not had a spiritual education is a brute.”[24] Bahá’u’lláh compares human potential to a mine rich in gems: “Regard man as a mine rich in gems of inestimable value. Education can, alone, cause it to reveal its treasures, and enable mankind to benefit therefrom.”[25] ‘Abdu’l-Bahá elaborates on this point, explaining that “education cannot alter the inner essence of a man, but it doth exert tremendous influence, and with this power it can bring forth from the individual whatever perfections and capacities are deposited within him.”[26]
If such “education” becomes doctrinaire or dogmatic and inculcates uncritical acceptance of suggestions, “brainwashing” occurs, and prejudices are created and appear as “convictions.” Self-determination or discretion is the freedom or permission to act or judge as one sees fit. This is the direct opposite of control, which usually involves externally conveyed directions in the form of commands, incentives, standards, or prohibitions that prevent or limit self-determination.
But not all obstacles to self-determination are externally imposed. Imitation—which involves conditioning choices within one’s discretion upon the judgments or opinions of others and may have to be imposed by indoctrination or fear—is also very damaging to self-determination. The abdication of personal responsibility permits fanatics and the wicked to deceive people. Moreover, such blind imitation perpetuates prejudice by producing emotional attachments to errors and falsehoods.
Submitting to peer pressures and blindly following social mores or fashions in school, at work, or socially is servile imitation, whereas spiritual growth and spontaneity are the antitheses of the routines and ruts of externally scripted behavior.
Both Bahá’u’lláh and ‘Abdu’l-Bahá condemn blind imitation. Bahá’u’lláh asks humanity to “Consider how men for generations have been blindly imitating their fathers, and have been trained according to such ways and manners as have been laid down by the dictates of their Faith.”[27] ‘Abdu’l-Bahá states that
- Imitation destroys the foundation of religion, extinguishes the spirituality of the human world, transforms heavenly illumination into darkness and deprives man of the knowledge of God. It is the cause of the victory of materialism and infidelity over religion; it is the denial of Divinity and the law of revelation; it refuses Prophethood and rejects the Kingdom of God.”[28]
In short, to advance the mutual cause of humanity and its environment, fresh, unfettered thought must be brought to the consideration of all things.
Recognizing the Need for Consultation
ARMED with a commitment to think in new
ways about all things, the intellectual and
[Page 28] moral communities of the world must be
mobilized to consult about and to establish
a sound, inviolable, and definitive covenant
for the ecological well-being of the world.
Through such consultation, the developed,
developing, and underdeveloped countries can
not only coexist but can also cooperate in
achieving and maintaining a healthy, worldwide
ecological balance. The subordination
of group and national interests to the needs
of humanity as a whole will demonstrate that
the needs of the part are best served by the
advantage of the whole. It will also be found
that the advantage of the whole is best revealed
through consultation.
Such a committed, decisive intellectual action can simultaneously promote world unity, world peace, and world ecology. Shoghi Effendi asserts that humanity’s negligence is contributing to the decline of the “present-day Order” and is affecting the environment:
- The violent derangement of the world’s equilibrium; the trembling that will seize the limbs of mankind; the radical transformation of human society; the rolling up of the present-day Order; the fundamental changes affecting the structure of government; . . . the development of infernal engines of war; the burning of cities; the contamination of the atmosphere of the earth—these stand out as the signs and portents that must either herald or accompany the retributive calamity which, as decreed by Him Who is the Judge and Redeemer of mankind, must, sooner or later, afflict a society which, for the most part, and for over a century, has turned a deaf ear to the Voice of God’s Messenger in this day—a calamity which must purge the human race of the dross of its age-long corruptions, and weld its component parts into a firmly-knit world-embracing Fellowship—a Fellowship destined, in the fullness of time, to be incorporated in the framework, and to be galvanized by the spiritualizing influences, of a mysteriously expanding, divinely appointed Order, and to flower, in the course of future Dispensations, into a Civilization, the like of which mankind has, at no stage in its evolution, witnessed.[29]
Thinking on a world scale will help to discover the correct relationship between the individual and the world community. Neither is insignificant. A healthy relationship is needed among the individual, the local community, the national social order, and the whole. All are tied together in one world system in which the activities of each affect the lives of every other.
Every individual must look for the spiritual principles that facilitate the discovery and implementation of practical measures for preserving the global commons. This requires a recognition of a spiritual truth that the sciences confirm: the oneness of humanity. Consciousness of this essential truth is the basis for preserving the world’s ecosphere.
Recognizing Unity in Diversity
RECOGNIZING diversity as an essential ingredient to world unity becomes a source of strength and leads to the recognition that people were not created to pollute or to destroy one another. Recognition of the oneness of the human family is a light breaking through the veils of human prejudices (national, economic, religious, social, linguistic, and racial), all of which must be eliminated.
Diversity in modern groups, organizations,
and nations represents to every participant
many unknowns. It brings about interactions
with individuals with whom one would
not ordinarily associate and to whom one
would not ordinarily be attracted. Most people
tend to choose as their associates and friends
others who think as they do, who feel the
[Page 29] same way as they do, and who have similar
tastes. Yet within such strictly homogeneous
associations no new set of responses is likely
to develop, and there is no stimulus to develop
new responses. But when one participates
in groups and organizations, one tends
to encounter diversity and to develop new
responses.
Such a new dynamic is manifested first in tolerance of diversity. But tolerance soon grows into understanding, and when affection or love is added, understanding can evolve into actual enjoyment of diversity. Nonetheless, such development does not occur without many doubts and anxieties. Because one often does not know exactly how to respond in new situations, one learns by “tests,” which are essential for growth and for the release of human potential. Passing tests develops one’s capacities to know and to love.
All the spiritual and moral qualities required for the momentous step forward for humanity are focused in the will to consult about the ordering of human affairs. Consultation breeds awareness, understanding, conviction, and action, and helps to eliminate prejudice. Such efforts produce transformations of the individual and society as a whole.
When the capacities of knowing and loving are organized and expressed both on the individual and the social level to eliminate prejudices, humanity will progressively begin to establish a new world order of unity and cooperation that will protect both humanity and its environment.
For Bahá’í individuals and communities, the Universal House of Justice sets out the role that they should play to help save “‘the wildlife and natural condition of the world’”:
- the best way in which you can help to save the wildlife and natural condition of the world is to exert every effort to bring the Message of Bahá’u’lláh to the attention of your fellowmen and to win their allegiance to His Cause.
- As the hearts of men are changed, and they begin to work in unity in the light of Bahá’u’lláh’s teachings, they can begin to implement many practical improvements to the condition of the world. This is already beginning in the efforts at social and economic development in those areas where large Bahá’í communities have been founded. Of course, you can also assist those with whom you come into contact who have an interest in improving the environment, but the fundamental solution is the one that Bahá’u’lláh has brought.[30]
By addressing environmental issues from a spiritual point of view, and by collaborating with individuals and groups interested in improving the environment, Bahá’ís are making the conservation of the environment an integral part of their continuing activities in ways that blend with the rhythm of life in their community.
- ↑ Clean Air Act, Section 821, database for global warming.
- ↑ National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, which became effective in 1970.
- ↑ Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary (Springfield, Mass.: G. & C. Merriam, 1975).
- ↑ ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, from a previously untranslated Tablet, quoted in Conservation of the Earth’s Resources: A Compilation of Extracts from the Bahá’í Writings, prepared by the Research Department of the Universal House of Justice (London: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1990) 4.
- ↑ Bahá’u’lláh, The Kitáb-i-Íqán: The Book of Certitude, trans. Shoghi Effendi, 1st ps ed. (Wilmette, Ill.: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1983) 194.
- ↑ ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Selections from the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, comp. Research Department of the Universal House of Justice, trans. Committee at the Bahá’í World Centre and Marzieh Gail (Haifa: Bahá’í World Centre, 1978) 158-59.
- ↑ Sterling, Life 70, no. 5 (1971).
- ↑ ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Selections 157.
- ↑ ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Paris Talks: Addresses Given by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá in Paris in 1911, 11th ed. (London: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1969) 66.
- ↑ Bahá’u’lláh, Prayers and Meditations, trans. Shoghi Effendi, 1st ps ed. (Wilmette, Ill.: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1987) 272.
- ↑ ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, The Promulgation of Universal Peace: Talks Delivered by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá during His Visit to the United States and Canada in 1912, comp. Howard MacNutt, 2d ed. (Wilmette, Ill.: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1982) 302.
- ↑ See ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Paris Talks 66.
- ↑ Bahá’u’lláh, Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, trans. Shoghi Effendi, 1st ps ed. (Wilmette, Ill.: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1983) 184.
- ↑ ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Selections 178.
- ↑ Bahá’u’lláh, Kitáb-i-Íqán 198.
- ↑ ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions, comp. and trans. Laura Clifford Barney, 1st ps ed. (Wilmette, Ill.: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1984) 196.
- ↑ On behalf of Shoghi Effendi, letter dated 17 February 1933 to an individual, quoted in Conservation of the Earth’s Resources 15.
- ↑ On behalf of Shoghi Effendi, letter dated 27 May 1932 to an individual, quoted in Conservation of the Earth’s Resources 15.
- ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental News, c. 1992.
- ↑ On behalf of the Universal House of Justice, letter dated 18 October 1981 to an individual, quoted in Conservation of the Earth’s Resources 15.
- ↑ Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh: Selected Letters, 1st ps ed. (Wilmette, Ill.: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1991) 204.
- ↑ Daniel C. Jordan, “Becoming Your True Self: How the Bahá’í Faith Releases Human Potential,” World Order 3, no. 1 (Fall 1968): 49-50.
- ↑ Bahá’u’lláh, Gleanings 260.
- ↑ ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions 119.
- ↑ Bahá’u’lláh, Gleanings 260.
- ↑ ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Selections 132.
- ↑ Bahá’u’lláh, Kitáb-i-Íqán 74.
- ↑ ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Promulgation 161.
- ↑ Shoghi Effendi, Messages to the Bahá’í World: 1950-1957, rev. ed. (Wilmette, Ill.: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1971) 103.
- ↑ On behalf of the Universal House of Justice, letter dated 14 June 1984 to an individual, quoted in Conservation of the Earth’s Resources 16.
Nanak, The Founder
of Sikhism
BY R. RAJ SINGH
Copyright © 1994 by R. Raj Singh.
NANAK was an outstanding Indian religious pioneer of the late fifteenth
and early sixteenth centuries who outlined humanity’s relationship with
God through many superb devotional hymns. So impressive were his teachings
that many hearts were won over, and a spiritual revolution took place in
northern India. This spiritual revolution resulted in the emergence of a new
faith called Sikhism.
Nanak’s songs about the Almighty spoke of humankind’s personal bond with an uncreated, eternal, divine Being, a bond that leaves no room for polytheism, ritualism, or asceticism. It is a bond of human thought and commitment, a loving acknowledgment of God’s being through the meditative recitation of His name (nāma), through the sincere singing of His praise (kirtana), and through living a life untainted by excessive worldliness (māyā).[1] Although Nanak’s message builds on Vedic Hindu philosophical foundations and terminology, it offers an original and modern faith.
Nanak was born in 1469 in the village of Rai Boi di Talvandi in central
Punjab, India. During childhood he showed inclinations toward metaphysical
studies rather than toward learning a craft or trade, much to his father’s
disappointment. As a young man he educated himself by traveling extensively
both inside and outside India, meeting people of various cultures and beliefs.
He was especially fond of visiting places of religious importance and holding
discourses with religious leaders and their adherents. Nanak is said to have
undertaken four voyages (Udāsian): eastward as far as Assam, southward as
far as Ceylon, northward as far as Ladakh and Tibet, and westward as far as
Mecca, Medina, and Baghdad. Through his zealous quest for true knowledge
[Page 32] (Jñāna) and through his personal encounters with a variety of believers, he
developed his own view of reality. Through his poetic utterances and by their
musical expression, he won the hearts of many who at once became his “Sikhs”
(disciples) and recognized him as their Guru, or spiritual leader.
Nanak defined in the vernacular language of the common people rather than in Sanskrit the fundamental relationship between human beings and God. To understand the heritage in which his thought developed, it is helpful to consider briefly the views of the ancient Indian religions and orthodox Hindu philosophies that provided the context from which his system of belief arose.
The oldest scriptures of India are the Vedas, the oldest sacred writings of Hinduism. The Vedas address basic existential questions and contain hymns to a series of gods and goddesses. They are replete with subtle poetic compositions and myths, undogmatic and polytheistic in character. The later appendages to the Vedas known as the Upanishads are the scriptures in which Hindu theology reaches its zenith. The Upanishads refer to Brahman, the ultimate Being, and atman, the individual soul, the reality that is discovered and known through introspection.
Another major influence in Indian religious thought before Nanak’s time was Buddhism, a religion that considers esoteric contemplation on Brahman and atman unnecessary and is silent on the existence of God. Human life is seen as transitory, for no self or soul worthy of pursuit is believed to exist. Hence the religious quest, for Buddhists, has to do with existence and existence alone, and there is much in existence that is found to be unsatisfactory (dukkha), according to the Buddha. To be rid of the dukkha, one follows the holy eight-fold path prescribed by the Buddha and works toward Nirvana, the final release.
Jainism, a religion contemporary in origin with Buddhism, also stresses an ethical quest, nonviolence, and deliverance from harmful karma (sinful actions) as the essence of religiosity. It, too, has little to say about God.
The orthodox systems of Hindu philosophy such as yoga, Nyaya, and Vaisheshika treat Nature (Prakirti) and the individual soul (atman) as eternal entities that are important factors in the creation and governance of the world. The yoga system maintains that, whenever the balance of the modes of Nature is disturbed, the creation of the universe ensues. The Nyaya and Vaisheshika systems consider atoms to be the material cause of the universe, God being the efficient cause. Vedanta, a central philosophy or system of Hinduism rooted in the Upanishadic insights, considers māyā (the illusory fusion of real and unreal) as the key to the creation of the universe. According to some schools of Vedanta, Brahman, the ultimate reality, is nonactive and indifferent, to be distinguished from Ishvara, the personal God of human beings.
Nanak’s monotheism, in contrast to the religious traditions of his time,
is strikingly direct and explicit. Nanak lived in an age when several schools
of Hindu philosophy and several Hindu cults and sects were entrapping the
[Page 33] minds of the innocent. Despite a plethora of rituals and priests, common
people could not find true spiritual solace. Repeated onslaughts by Muslim
fanatics on Hindu culture forced conversions, and general political uncertainty
left many people not only insecure and fearful but also bewildered when a
corrupt priesthood had no antidote to offer. The Bhakti movement (the Hindu
devotional movement) to which Nanak was an original contributor was engaged
in a concrete social and religious reformation. The leaders of this movement,
the mystical poets from various regions of India who wrote in the local
vernaculars rather than in Sanskrit, realized that if the weak are to be made
strong, their personal belief in God must be revived through the agency of
Gurus, spiritual teachers who instruct by their exemplary conduct. Knowledge
(Jñāna) was to be freed from the dull, dry intellectualism of the priestly class
and transmitted to the people in sublime poetry and music that appealed to
their hearts and strengthened their faith and dignity. Nanak wrote in Punjabi,
the language spoken by the people of Punjab, and made a significant contribution
to a literary tradition initiated by the twelfth-century Muslim Sufi
saint Baba Farid.[2] Although some of the major religious and philosophical
terms Nanak used are ancient Sanskrit terms, some are simplified to suit the
vernacular. Nanak, like other Bhakti poets, chose to write his verses in the
language of the people rather than in Sanskrit.
Nanak described God as the All-Pervading Creator (karta parukh). He asserted that there is but one God (ik Om Kār), the truest of all Gurus (Satguru), and that the world is His creation alone. He viewed the Vedas and their gods and goddesses—in fact, all Hindu and non-Hindu concepts—as part of God’s creation. Not believing that God incarnates Himself, Nanak characterized God as unborn. He referred to himself as God’s humble servant and bard. He taught that a “living Guru” is no more than a saintly person who lives a life of devotion to God and encourages others to give up immoderate worldliness as much as possible and to commune with God through nāma, the meditative recitation of His name. Nanak’s view of God is expressed in Mul Mantra (root belief), the opening passage of Japjī, one of his finest compositions:
- There is one God, eternal Being is his name; Maker of all things, fearing nothing and at enmity with nothing; Timeless is his image, non-incarnated, Being of his own Being, by the grace of the Guru, made known to men.[3]
The Mul Mantra spells out the Sikhs’ creed. According to Nanak, God
Himself brought the entire creation into being, and it is He Who maintains
[Page 34] and sustains it. He is infinite and all-pervading, yet transcendent. A devotee
can become one with Him by reciting His name in silent thought or by singing
His praise in congregation. The teachings of a true Guru show one the
importance of shedding self-love and point toward a humanly possible way
to realize God through nāma. Nine other Gurus followed Nanak, upholding
his creed through their poetic creations and their actions.[4] Although each of
the nine Gurus acknowledged his predecessors as Gurus, none declared himself
as such. Like Nanak, all nine humbly referred to themselves as servants of
the Almighty.
While Nanak advocated the meditative practice of nāma, he did not regard asceticism as necessary for religious life. It is traditional for fervent religious seekers in India to abandon the household life for a homeless one. Great value is attached in religious lore to sitting in contemplation under a tree, far from the hectic world, to meditate on the nature of the self. Inauthentic imitations of the style of the ancient seers has always taken place in religious circles. Even to this day, multitudes of wandering ascetics (sadhus) live off the resources of others. Although respect for religious people is a fundamental value in Indian society, sometimes the wandering ascetics are accused of being parasites. Nanak opposed such living. He taught that it was possible for householders to be mindful of God while living an innocently worldly life. He exhorted people to earn their living through personal effort and to share their wealth with the needy. After completing his travels, Nanak himself led the life of an honest farmer.
Nanak taught that living in accordance with God’s will ends all suffering. God’s will cannot be described in words. Accepting it requires giving up one’s ego (aham). Buddhist influences are evident in Nanak’s call for the elimination of “I-ness” or “mine-ness” as an essential element of religious life and in his advice that service (seva) to others helps rid one of self-love. Nanak showed the downtrodden a path of happiness and fearlessness. Enthusiasm took the place of listlessness in the lives of his Sikhs when they hearkened to their Guru’s words. Instead of calling the human world merely māyā (illusory), Nanak said that this world is the handiwork of God and is, therefore, real. Humanity’s temporary abode on earth offers an opportunity to obtain the fulfillment of a good life. Due to their newfound spiritual strength, Sikhs were to have much energy to expend to change their worldly status, which subsequently took the form of fighting the oppressors, the Muslim fanatics, and the foreign rulers of India.
An age-old question arises. If the universe is God’s creation, whence comes
evil? Nanak explained that God Himself is responsible for all evil and māyā
[Page 35] (excessive worldliness), which are simply challenges along the path of human
spiritual progress. In the same way that the body increases its strength through
physical effort, Nanak explained, the soul attains higher states of spiritual
development by overcoming the hurdles of egoism and māyā. One of the
purposes of the creation of the universe is the spiritual advance of the human
being. Nanak saw humanity as fitting into two categories: the Guru-oriented
(Gurumukhs), who follow the Guru and draw closer to God, and the self-oriented
(Manmukhs), who follow selfish whims and remain mired in worldliness.
Nanak taught that no spiritual success is achieved simply by the
adoption of external forms or by the mechanical observance of rites and rituals.
He derided extreme yogic practices, the wearing of monk’s robes, and begging
for food. He suggested earning one’s livelihood by honest work and sharing
the benefits with others as the Guru-oriented way of life.
In stark contrast to the injustices of the caste system, Nanak taught that all men and women are created equal by one God. No one is high or low by birth. All souls emanate from God; therefore, people of different religious persuasions are essentially the same. Nanak asked Hindus to be better Hindus and Muslims to be better Muslims. Formal religious conversion, he felt, has no meaning. Nanak sympathized with all the religions of his day. In the course of his travels he studied a number of Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, and Islamic sects. Wherever he went, he tried to be one with the natives and often wore their native dress. He accompanied Muslim pilgrims to Mecca dressed as a fellow pilgrim. People in all their diversity were dear to Nanak’s heart:
- For all, same is the road, same the destination.
- The religions are a ladder wherewith to reach one’s abode.
- The lord is resplendent, O Nanak, his nāma holds all joys.
- (Malhar Var).[5]
Nanak also held great respect for women. He said, “Woman, of whom we are born, in whom we are conceived, whom we marry, and through whom the human race continues, is worthy of respect.”[6] In his hymns he often describes the human entity as a newly wed woman in whom the longing for being with her husband is a natural and fundamental passion. Thus he regarded the bond between man and woman as a divine union and their life together as perfectly religious and natural. In Nanak’s religion, women were to be equal participants. “A mouth, be it of man or of woman, that utters the praise of God is blessed.”[7]
On Nanak’s path the most important step is the contemplation of God’s
name (nāma). This step keeps one in the proximity of God and enables one
[Page 36] to learn the all-important lesson that excessive worldliness (māyā) can be
overcome in thought and action to uplift the quality of human life. Just as
words summon the images of the things conceived, the recitation of God’s
name in pure, love-laden thought enables one to achieve a touch of the divine
that coincides with freedom from māyā, excessive absorption in the phenomenal
world.
Nanak’s thought outlines an original, modern religious system that issues forth from an intelligent and practical reinterpretation of India’s religious heritage. Nanak’s awareness of, and fascination with, Islamic tradition is evident in many of his writings. For example, Nanak refers to some Islamic concepts and rituals such as namáz (prayer) and shari‘ah (religious code), upholding a nonritualistic, Sufi-like point of view that, he felt, a true Muslim ought to embrace. However, it would be simplistic to call his faith a synthesis of Islam and Hinduism. His original explications of some of Sikhism’s important concepts—for example, the omnipresence of God, the approach to God through nāma, the importance of service to others, the status and role of the Guru, the importance of the cultivation of “mine-less-ness’—seem to be based on a deeply critical examination of Vedic tradition. Nevertheless, Nanak reaffirms the fundamental religion that is the foundation of all religious persuasions. Nanak’s first pronouncement after his mystical experience at the age of thirteen was that “There is no Hindu, there is no Mussulman.” By this he meant that we are all, first and foremost, human beings; only superficially are we Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Jews. That Nanak valued all religions and realized the importance of studying them to discover God’s overwhelming presence and humanity’s universal brotherhood is evident in his life and work.
- ↑ Māyā is an untranslatable term that represents the Hindu view that this world is illusory. Hindu seers who originated the concept of māyā used the term to refer to the unreality of the world, which is to be contrasted with the reality of Brahman, the essential divine reality of the universe and the eternal spirit from which all being originates and to which all returns. Nanak, too, employs the term to refer to excessive worldly attachment, which must be overcome. What is unique in his concept of māyā is that he does not posit the unreality of the world, but the unreality of worldly values.
- ↑ Baba Farid, whose writings are included in the Ādi Granth, the scripture of the Sikhs, was one of the earliest Sufi saints of Punjab. He is also considered to be one of the pioneer Punjabi poets.
- ↑ Selections from the Sacred Writings of the Sikhs, trans. Trilochan Singh et al. (New York: MacMillan, 1960) 29. The translation has been slightly revised by the author.
- ↑ For further information, see W. Owen Cole and Piara Singh Sambhi, The Sikhs: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices (New Delhi: Vikas, 1978).
- ↑ Nanak, Malhar Var, in the Ādi Granth, translated by the author. The Ādi Granth is the main scripture of the Sikhs, edited and established by the fifth Guru, Arjun, in 1604 A.D.
- ↑ Nanak, Raga Asa, in the Ādi Granth, translated by the author.
- ↑ Ibid.
Not Quite Afternoon
- A minute ago
- the music began:
- my brother
- and his clarinet.
- He plays in the kitchen
- waiting for his bread to rise.
- Not quite afternoon;
- music in the bowl.
- The solo notes hang
- like the rain
- in Mama’s apple tree
- there in the garden.
- Drops runnel on the window:
- two plus three is one.
- A tomato and a pear
- ripen on the window sill—
- whole notes in yellow and red.
- Can’t divide the silence
- like a loaf of bread—
- always comes up whole.
- In the apple tree
- eight or nine drops of rain
- wait their turns to fall.
—Terry Ofner
Copyright © 1995 by Terry Ofner
Taking Responsibility for Peace
A REVIEW OF JOHN HUDDLESTON’S Achieving Peace by the Year 2000: A Twelve Point Proposal (LONDON: ONEWORLD PUBLICATIONS, 1988) 139 PAGES, APPENDICES, NOTES, BIBLIOGRAPHY
BY GRACE CALÍ
Copyright © 1995 by Grace Calí
THE WHIRLWIND events of history since
John Huddleston’s small book Achieving
Peace by the Year 2000: A Twelve Point Proposal
quietly appeared in 1988 have made his
proposals more acutely pertinent than ever—
perhaps because of the plethora of new problems
that could readily degenerate into continuing
outbreaks of brush wars all over the
globe. Even more ominous is the still unresolved
nuclear threat.
It is a remarkable fact that such a practical thinker as the Chief of the Budget and Planning Division of the International Monetary Fund has written a book embodying such visionary qualities. It is also a rare combination, one making the book required reading not only for those in the peace movement but for leaders in all strata of society—government, politics, the military, and business. Most important, it is for just plain concerned citizens living on the Maple Streets of Anytown, Everywhere.
Lucid and straightforward in form, Achieving Peace by the Year 2000 is replete with practical suggestions but also ripe for lively debate on many of its proposals. Huddleston admits that his twelve-point proposal for “achieving an end to war and establishing a lasting peace” is offered as a starting point for discussion.
Sometime after World War II, poet and essayist Dorothy Parker pungently remarked that the world will continue to have wars until peace is made as exciting as war. Her perceptive observation that war, despite its horrors, also exerts a subtle fascination still has not been grasped by enough people in the peace movement. War too often brings purpose and meaning to lives that are mired in stultifying routine and fosters an all too rare sense of unity in society. Those who oppose any so-called “just war” become targets for the outraged majority who support military action.
Huddleston notes that in some countries campaigning for peace is perceived as being “vaguely ‘treasonable.’” In view of this fact, one wonders whether the book might have found even broader appeal with a title like “Outlawing War by the Year 2000.” Yet the people who most need convincing are those whose hackles are raised by the very word “peace.” To many the word conjures up the philosophy of “peace at any price”—a pacifism that often neglects the vital factor of justice. Such is certainly not the case in Huddleston’s proposals.
Huddleston makes a telling distinction
between the so-called “‘soft’” and “‘hard’”
[Page 40] approaches to working for a peaceful planet.
On the one hand, peace activists have often
been labeled impractical because their efforts
so frequently have ended in words without
action. On the other hand, the hard approach,
highlighted, for example, by the
technical minutiae of strategic arms limitations
treaties, becomes a bit hollow and even
shaky when it fails to address the underlying
problems that prompted the buildup of arms
in the first place. Both hard and soft approaches
are necessary.
The twelve proposals in Huddleston’s “blueprint for peace” are:
- A world peace constituency
- A world peace assembly
- The outlawing of war
- The abolition of offensive weapons
- Sanctions against aggressors
- A World Peace Council
- Compulsory arbitration of disputes
- An international peace force
- An independent peace fund
- An equal role for women in the peace process
- Education of world citizens
- Reduction of international tensions
Obviously, some of the proposals have been implemented from time to time—subject, however, to being snuffed out by any one of the major powers’ exercising its veto in the United Nations Security Council, the fatal flaw within that body that cries out for remedy in this new era. Because of this crippling politicization of the Security Council, Huddleston opts for a World Peace Council as an eventual substitute. His daily experience working at the International Monetary Fund gives him firsthand knowledge of the U.N. institutions, their strengths and weaknesses, and thus lends a concreteness and practicality to his proposals.
Essential to implementing Huddleston’s ambitious twelve-point proposal is the formation of a worldwide peace constituency that would include people from all sectors of society. This grassroots network will need support from all manner of experts and from citizens’ groups. For example, a growing number of military personnel, retired and active, realize only too well that peaceful solutions must replace senseless killing. They will be needed when questions arise about determining differences between offensive and defensive weapons. Other experts who will be needed in the network include computer scientists, business leaders, diplomats, politicians, government officials, and information specialists. An interesting note at the back of the book indicates that there is already in existence a World Encyclopaedia of Peace (4 vols., Pergamon Press, England, 1986), which cites the Swarthmore College (USA) Peace Collection that lists some 1,500 peace groups in some fifty nations.
It is necessary that such a worldwide peace constituency make itself heard politically, for “peace is much too important to be left to the politicians and the military.” But how does one counter the critics who invariably label peace activists as impractical and idealistic? Leaving aside an observation that the world has been suffering for eons simply because ideals have rarely been put into practice on a societal level, one can counter that today’s practical realists know that the world is already a global village and that, indeed, “The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens,” to quote Bahá’u’lláh (1817-1892), the founder of the Bahá’í Faith— Whose writings, Huddleston states, are also the chief inspiration for his proposals. (In fact, his earlier book, The Earth Is But One Country, published in 1977 by the Bahá’í Publishing Trust in the United Kingdom, is an excellent introduction to this newest of the world’s revealed religions.)
Outlawing war certainly will not come
without the same kind of birth pangs that
accompanied the outlawing of slavery. This
is where individuals working through groups
can help raise society’s consciousness of the
[Page 41] afflictions that are the root causes of war:
nationalism, racism, religious fanaticism,
extremes of wealth and poverty, male domination
of public affairs, and competitive arms
races.
Women traditionally have been in the forefront of those who reject war as the preferred option for settling disputes, and Huddleston stresses the vital importance of expanding their leadership role. He notes that there is a general tendency “to shunt women off into posts which are not central to the immediate issues of peace” and comments that only in 1987 did the United Nations appoint a woman to head a U.N. agency. A more equitable role for women (that is, for half of the world’s population) would help to “reverse an age-old injustice against one of the world’s largest oppressed groups,” thus helping to make other types of oppression and discrimination equally unacceptable. The growing valuation of justice in all human relations—individually and socially—is an essential prerequisite to achieving and maintaining a world without war.
Huddleston outlines seven treaties that will be necessary for implementing his twelve-point proposal: they would (1) outlaw war between nations, (2) abolish all offensive weapons, (3) apply universal sanctions against aggressors, (4) provide for a new World Peace Council, (5) impose compulsory arbitration of international disputes, (6) establish an international peace force, and (7) establish an independent peace fund. The treaties would be preceded by the convocation of a world peace assembly attended by leaders, followed by a period of airing the issues in the home countries and internationally.
The will toward peace will be severely tested in hammering out the detailed provisions of such treaties. Not the least of the thorny issues will be that of national sovereignty. Many countries already find their sovereignty being eroded by economic globalization and are being forced by circumstances to cooperate with international organizations and multinational entities. Even so, as Huddleston states, nationalism “is a major ingredient in nearly all the wars, both hot and cold, raging in the world today.” However, and here he quotes Einstein, “one factor that would ‘make war a virtual impossibility is the existence of a united public opinion in all important countries . . . so powerful that all governments would be compelled to renounce a measure of their sovereignty.’” Huddleston’s fine sense of practicality comes out in his acknowledgment that some important changes will have to be made to accommodate people still striving for national self-determination or liberty. (Witness the clamor of such demands since the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics!)
Huddleston makes an important distinction between a patriotism that represents the desire of a people to express their own culture free from outside influence or domination and one that becomes “intertwined with ignorance, fear and hatred of other peoples.” In either case, if a sense of solidarity intensifies to the point of shutting out dissident or minority views within a country, it degenerates into what Huddleston calls a “decadent patriotism”—or what Paul Tillich would term an “idolatrous nationalism.”
A brief review can hardly cover all the salient points in Huddleston’s twelve-point proposal. Suffice it to say, there will be high price tags and many hurdles ahead, among them the problems of organizing and funding an international peacekeeping force that will preclude domination by any one country or power bloc. Again, Huddleston makes specific suggestions for study. Another problem will be getting countries to agree to compulsory arbitration of disputes. That, however, stands a much better chance of occurring if decisions are underpinned by the World Court and upheld by international law.
Huddleston gives high marks to the World
Court as one of the most effective of the
[Page 42] U.N. organizations. In fact, the only negative
note sounded in his entire book is directed
at the Security Council and the U.N.
Commission on Human Rights, which, he
feels, have become unduly politicized. His
strong judgment on this point was no doubt
triggered by his frequent encounters with
those bodies. Certainly there are grave inequities
in the operations of the U.N. that will
eventually require a bold new look and a
complete restructuring.
Some of Huddleston’s proposals could be attained within a short term of one to three years, once a world peace assembly has been held. Other goals, such as the restructuring of the United Nations, are much more long range. Huddleston suggests no specific sequence of steps. Many would run parallel to each other. He realizes it is not feasible to achieve these goals without a widely accepted sense of world unity, which presupposes an ethical, moral, and spiritual renewal—individually and on a global scale.
Here, then, is a role for religion: to acknowledge the common spiritual values found in the teachings of all the world’s great religions and, by so doing, to reinvigorate the spiritual lifeblood of the planet.
What John Huddleston is really proposing is a challenge to individuals at all levels of society to take responsibility in small ways and large to put an end to war. Reading and sharing the ideas in his book makes one realize that it just may be possible. Justice united with love contains an inherent power to achieve miracles.
Bahá’í Riddles
- 1. When you heard of
- your sweet Lord’s death
- the ocean breathed
- your final breath.
- 2. This door opens
- and does not close.
- Inside the gate
- there grows a rose.
- 3. With every step
- along the path
- a crunch afoot
- signs God’s wrath.
- 4. She sits upon her royal throne
- gazing out to sea
- and yet she sits upon a stone
- who might this lady be?
- 5. There is a room
- where rivers run.
- No windows there
- but bright the sun.
- 6. They came from far,
- said “God is nigh”
- but then forgot
- to open their eyes.
- 7. Made of wood
- bound in brass
- it swings to let
- the pilgrim pass.
- 8. A hand waves kerchief
- high above,
- an old man strains
- to see that love
- but glasses do not warrant sight
- some come today and see no light.
—Craig Loehle
Copyright © 1995 by the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States
A Jihad for All Seasons
A REVIEW OF CHARLES KIMBALL’S Striving Together: A Way Forward in Christian-Muslim Relations (MARYKNOLL, NEW YORK: ORBIS, 1991) 132 PAGES, NOTES
BY SEENA FAZEL
Copyright © 1995 by Seena Fazel.
HUMANITY’S increasingly fragile well-being
and its growing interconnectedness
present Christians with certain problems and
opportunities in their relations with Muslims.
The problems stem from a pervasive
Western ignorance of Islam and a deep bias
against it. The ignorance and prejudice have
perpetuated the long-standing stereotypical
Western view of Islam as inherently intolerant,
fanatical, and violent. The opportunity
that our global village offers is one of interreligious
understanding and cooperation, the
achievement of which may well be the most
important factor in assuring a safe and secure
future for humanity. The pragmatic need for
improving Christian-Muslim relations is
argued in Charles Kimball’s short and timely
book, Striving Together: A Way Forward in
Christian-Muslim Relations, which reflects on
the means to achieve a partnership between
Christians and Muslims.
Kimball’s first step is a step backward. He begins in Chapter 2 by describing the fundamental tenets of Islam. He urges that Western views of Islam be examined so that negative images, fears, and stereotypes may be unlearned. He succinctly relates the history of Christian-Muslim relations, explaining how they came to be characterized by mistrust, misunderstanding, and mutual animosity. The brunt of the blame for this state of affairs is attributed to Christians, for it is they who have generally assumed Islam to be false.
Chapters 4 and 5 discuss the Christian response to pluralism and the dialogue movement that has arisen in conjunction with the new pluralist thinking pioneered by a number of Christian theologians. Kimball admits that the thrust of the New Testament is toward an exclusive Christianity, yet he summarizes the work of liberal Protestant theologians, such as Wesley Ariarajah and Kenneth Cracknell, who argue for a new interpretation of some difficult passages in the Gospels in the light of pluralist thinking. For example, John 14:6 (“No man cometh unto the Father, but by me”) and Acts 4:12 (“for there is no name under heaven given among men, whereby men must be saved”) are interpreted by such theologians in new, intelligent, and creative ways.
Kimball poses what he considers to be the
three vital questions that Christians must
face in response to Islam: Is Islam a path to
salvation? Is Muḥammad a Prophet of God?
Is the Qur’án the Word of God? Kimball’s
examination of these three questions relies
largely on the work of others, particularly
that of Wilfred Cantwell Smith and Hans
Küng. However, Kimball’s own approach to
the questions is innovative. He suggests that
the answers to the questions are not to be
found in the Gospels or in Christian tradition.
Rather, they must be worked out through
[Page 46] the practice of dialogue, a dialogue that
addresses “poignant points of tension.”
Although there are no quick solutions to the problems that have plagued Christian-Muslim relations, Kimball presents a practical, achievable agenda on two fronts: education and dialogue. He challenges Christians to find out what their community is doing to promote better relations with Muslims and urges them to help promote interreligious activities and to join local interfaith groups. The next step, he suggests, is to organize study programs, which, he feels, should include Muslims in order to add authenticity to the endeavor and to provide alternative ways of understanding Islam and valuable insights into life as a believer. Visits to mosques are also an important component in learning about the Islamic experience. Finally, Kimball suggests cooperative social action in combating drug abuse, hopelessness, and poverty. Such cooperative social action is conducive to friendship and trust as well as practical success. He concludes by emphasizing the grassroots nature of such efforts and discussing the benefits that will accrue to both communities as they engage “in the on-going process of self-understanding in the midst of pluralism.”
From a Bahá’í perspective, the book is both enjoyable and frustrating. The information is presented clearly and succinctly and includes an excellent bibliography. Lucid summaries of the successes and shortcomings of various interfaith movements are intriguing. The focus on dialogue is creatively discussed and supported. The practical suggestions for progress are applicable to any interreligious encounter and could serve the Bahá’í community well in its quest to “consort with all religions with amity and concord.”[1] Moreover, Kimball’s sense of optimism about the future is refreshing.
However, there are a number of omissions that detract from the book’s value. Kimball’s description of Islam fails to emphasize the remarkable qualities and innovations of Islamic civilization. The chapter on dialogue neglects some immediate and important barriers to Christian-Muslim relations, particularly Muslim views on the crucifixion of Christ and on the reliability of the Bible,[2] and Christian views on Muḥammad’s wives and the use of violence to spread Islam.[3] Such subjects can stop dialogue before it has even begun. But perhaps the most disappointing aspect of Kimball’s study is his ambiguous treatment of the station of Muḥammad.
Is Muḥammad a Prophet? To answer this question, Kimball endorses Hans Küng’s recent pioneering work developing a “nonexclusive approach to Islam”—one that does not assume Islam contains no truths within it and, consequently, does not offer salvation. In the case of Muḥammad, this approach rests on the seven historical parallels between the Hebrew Testament prophets of Israel and the life of the Prophet of Islam:
- Like the prophets of Israel, Muḥammad did not base His actions on any mission given to Him by the community but on His special relationship with God.
- Like the prophets of Israel, Muḥammad was a man with a staunch will. He was wholly imbued with His divine vocation, totally taken up by God’s calling, exclusively absorbed in His mission. [Page 47]
- Like the prophets of Israel, Muḥammad spoke amidst a religious and social crisis. With passionate piety and a revolutionary message, He stood up against the wealthy ruling class and the traditions of the age.
- Like the prophets of Israel, Muḥammad wished to be nothing but God’s mouthpiece and to proclaim God’s word, not His own.
- Like the prophets of Israel, Muḥammad tirelessly glorified the one God, Who tolerates no other gods before Him and is the kindly Creator and merciful Judge.
- Like the prophets of Israel, Muḥammad exhorted His followers to practice unconditional obedience, devotion, and “submission” (the literal meaning of “Islam”) to God.
- Like the prophets of Israel, Muḥammad
linked His monotheism to a humanism, connecting faith in the one God and His judgment to the demand for social justice. The unjust are warned that they will go to hell, while the just are promised paradise.[4]
In his work Küng implies that Muḥammad was more than a Prophet by referring to Him as “the model for the kind of life that Islam wishes to be.”[5] Küng and other Christians who support this view must be applauded for their efforts to explore new territory with courage and honesty. Their approach to Muḥammad may well be the paradigm by which Christian thinkers are enabled to understand Bahá’u’lláh as their dialogue with Bahá’ís increases, a fact that should give Bahá’ís even more reason to examine the approach in greater detail.
The understanding of Muḥammad as “a model” is essentially the same as the model of the early Jewish-Christian christol-ogy, which has been lost and which Küng seeks to revive.[6] The early disciples of Christ probably reflected His view of Himself as an eschatological Prophet Who was intimately infused with God’s presence and Who could speak, represent, and mediate God. Paul Knitter, a Catholic professor of theology, concludes from their roles as archetypes of human perfection that there is a significant similarity: “Therefore, in its origins, the Christian view of Jesus was essentially the same as the Muslim view of Muḥammad: they were both unique revealers, spokespersons for God, prophets.” Knitter also argues in an insightful critique of Küng’s position:
- I suspect that, like many Christians today, he [Küng] stands before a theological Rubicon. To cross it means to recognize clearly, unambiguously, the possibility that other religions exercise a role in salvation history that is not only valuable and salvific but perhaps equal to that of Christianity; it is to affirm that there may be other saviors and revealers besides Jesus Christ and equal to Jesus Christ. It is to admit that if other religions must be fulfilled in Christianity, Christianity must, just as well, find fulfillment in them.[7]
This “theological Rubicon”—the crossing
from Christian inclusivist Christocentrism
[Page 48] (Christ at the center) to a pluralist theocentrism
(God/the Ultimate/the Real in the
center)—offers Bahá’ís an important opportunity
to help their Christian friends cross.
It is vital to stress that acceptance of Bahá’u’lláh
does not negate Bahá’ís’ love and devotion
for Jesus Christ, just as the early
Christians did not suffer any loss of attachment
to Moses by believing in another Savior.
By extension, Christians will not lessen
their passion for Jesus Christ by admitting
that Muḥammad and Bahá’u’lláh are also the
perfect Word of God.
Perhaps Kimball should have the last word about crossing the theological Rubicon. He argues that the inner crusade of developing awareness, questioning assumptions, and reshaping consciousness “is a journey we are compelled to undertake.” This jihad, the internal struggle against what Bahá’u’lláh calls our “vain imaginings,”[8] will continue to be the challenge for all seasons—before, during, and after the challenges of Christian-Muslim relations are overcome.
- ↑ Bahá’u’lláh, The Kitáb-i-Aqdas: The Most Holy Book, 1st ps ed. (Wilmette, Ill.: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1993), ¶144.
- ↑ For a discussion of the crucifixion of Christ and the authenticity of the Bible in the context of Christian-Muslim relations, see Juan Ricardo Cole, “The Christian-Muslim Encounter and the Bahá’í Faith,” World Order, 12.2 (Winter 1977-78): 18.
- ↑ These are examined in the light of modern theological developments in Udo Schaefer, The Light Shineth in Darkness: Five Studies in Revelation after Christ, trans. Hélène Momtaz Neri and Oliver Coburn (Oxford: George Ronald, 1977), 150-63, 168-73.
- ↑ H. Küng et al., Christianity and the World Religions: Paths to Dialogue with Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism, trans. Peter Heinegg (New York: Doubleday, 1986), 25-26.
- ↑ Küng, Christianity and the World Religions 27.
- ↑ It is of interest that Shoghi Effendi, in a letter dated 11 March 1936 addressed to the Bahá’ís in the West, anticipated these developments: “If Christianity wishes and expects to serve the world in the present crisis, writes a minister of the Presbyterian Church in America, it must ‘cut back through Christianity to Christ, back through the centuries-old religion about Jesus to the original religion of Jesus.’ Otherwise, he significantly adds, ‘the spirit of Christ will live in institutions other than our own.’” The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh: Selected Letters, 1st ps ed. (Wilmette, Ill.: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1991) 184.
- ↑ P. Knitter. “Hans Küng’s Theological Rubicon,” in L. Swidler, ed, Toward a Universal Theology of Religion (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1987) 225.
- ↑ Bahá’u’lláh, The Kitáb-i-Íqán: The Book of Certitude, trans. Shoghi Effendi, 1st ps ed. (Wilmette, Ill.: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1983) 3.
Authors & Artists
GRACE CALI, whose “Paul Tillich and
My Religious Search” appeared in World
Order’s Summer 1971 issue, is a semiretired
journalist now working as a
freelance writer and editor. Her interests
include jazz and blues singing,
Caribbean history, grassroots peace
activities, and the North American Paul
Tillich Society. For publication by Laval
University she has completed the editing
of Paul Tillich’s final semester course
at Harvard in 1962 on the philosophy
of religion.
JOHN J. COLEMAN, who makes a first
appearance in World Order, holds a doctorate
in public administration from
Nova University, a Master’s degree in
applied math from Brown University,
and a B.S. in physics from Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute. He has served as
an adjunct professor at seven universities;
his credits include 56 external and
560 internal publications. From 1980
through 1994 Dr. Coleman worked for
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, creating decision support systems
for corrective actions for air, water,
and solid-waste systems. He is now
vice-president of Gaia, Unlimited, where
he develops seminars and methods for
environmental risk assessment proposals.
SENA FAZEL, a graduate of Edinburgh
University, is a resident psychiatrist at
Oxford University’s Department of
Psychiatry. His interests include comparative
religion and interreligious dialogue.
Dr. Fazel has published “A Bahá’í
Approach to the Claim of Finality in
Islam” in Bahá’í Studies and has an essay
on the Bahá’í approach to interreligious
dialogue in Kalimat Press’ forthcoming
volume, Studies in Bábí and Bahá’í History.
CRAIG LOEHLE is a mathematical ecologist
working for the Argonne National
Laboratory in Argon, Illinois. His interests
include plant ecology, mathematical
ecology, the philosophy of science,
and science and religion.
TERRY D. OFNER is an editor for Perfection
Learning Corporation, an educational
publishing company in Des
Moines, Iowa. “Not Quite Afternoon”
was inspired by the memory of his
mother’s garden and other childhood
memories.
R. RAJ SINGH, who was born in India and
lived there until 1975, is a professor of
philosophy at Brock University, St.
Catharines, Ontario. He holds a Ph.D in
philosophy from the University of Ottawa
and has published a number of articles
on Martin Heidegger and on eastern
philosophies and religions.
MARLAINA TANNY lives in Barbados,
West Indies, where she is a dance teacher
at The Barbados Dance Theatre. Her
poems have appeared in a number of
literary journals. She has completed two
manuscripts of poems and is working
on a novel.
ART CREDITS: Cover design by John Solarz; cover photograph, Susan Reed; pp. 1, 3, photographs, Steve Garrigues; p. 5, photograph, Feng Bin; pp. 6, 14, 30, 38, 44, photographs, Steve Garrigues.