Comments on Doug's Letter Next Part (5 or 4?)

[Michael McKenny]

Greetings.
Here's, I believe, the fifth part of my response to Doug's review
of Juan's book. Doug now tells us what he/Doug got out of this book, i.e.
that Baha'u'llah responded in an unusually "progressive", "liberal",
"idealistic", "radical" manner for an Easterner to the challenge of
Western modernism with its rationalism, nationalism, feminism, etc.
Doug appears to object to this opinion he/Doug saw in the book. Doug
especially seems to take umbrage at his perception that Juan's book
suggests that Baha'u'llah was influenced by Western thought.
Now, in a free world, and/or in a world following essential Baha'i
principle, Doug is fully entitled to say what he got out of Juan's book.
Far be it from me, a great advocate of the freedom of thought and
expression to say that Doug should not be permitted to say what he
likes on the issue, nor to say that Doug's opinion ought not be published
by any publisher so desiring, nor to say that any Baha'i interested in
Doug's opinion ought not to be allowed to purchase any publication of
Doug's views, nor, even going further than the explicit comment of Doug,
to actually read what has been purchased, to write reviews on it and
prepare promotional material on it without any threat of being booted
out or advised about serious Covenant issues.
Doug's comments concerning historical fact may be addressed at
that level. Doug's opinion, as belief, is valid, on the condition he/
Doug does not seek to impose his opinion on anyone else. He may share it;
he may not dictate it as the only approved and permitted viewpoint.
If anyone wishes to state a personal opinion concerning the
influences on Baha'u'llah by Western modernism, by Zen Buddhism, by
Siberian shamanism, by Neoplatonism, by Euclidian geometry, by Madame
Blavatsky, Hung Hsiu-ch'uan or anything and anyone else, that is fine.
There is nothing the matter with that. Any assertions of an historical
connection may be assessed according to the criteria of history. Any
expressions of personal belief are valid as such and cause no harm, on
the condition they are not imposed as the sole authoritative view and
individuals seen as holding other views do not become the recipients of
letters with the signature "Department of the Secretariat" conveying the
"correct" view, along with serious Covenantal concern.
My personal remark on the issue of Western modernism and "Oriental"
response is that neither Doug nor Juan, though Juan, to be fair, seems to
have had the concept wider Mediterranean rather than Oriental, appears to
have addressed at all the whole fascinating complexity of this topic as it
relates to such Far Eastern peoples as the Chinese and the Japanese.
To Tolerance Within Baha'i,
Michael
>purpose, the thesis appears to run somewhat as follows: Baha'u'llah's
>work and Writings represent essentially one of several efforts by
>Middle East thinkers to work out a "response" to the challenges posed
>by European modernity in the form of rationalism, revolution,
>nationalism, economic upheaval, feminism and other contemporary
>developments. Although Oriental in origin, this particular "response",
>in contrast to various others, was
>unusually "progressive", "liberal", "idealistic", even "radical".
>Because it "grew up" in a congenial modernist era, its Author was able
>gradually to adjust and revise the ideas with which He had
>been "grappling", through benefiting (in a manner generally insinuated
>rather than explicitly stated) from successive interactions with other
>thinkers and movements. By 1862, apparently in order to deal with the
>problem of religious exclusivity in the Muslim world, and in response
>to some form of "private mystical experience", He "decided to make a
>prophetic claim of his own" . . .

--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)