This thread is a spin-off from Diverging views of Baha’is about their religion
I think that it addresses some of the core issues discussed in other threads as well, most notably the very recent The Qur'an: Intentions vs. Effects
The core of that thread was discussion of how Bahais hold views of their own religion that not too rarely clash with each other and, at least some of the time, with the orientations and expectations of the Universal House of Justice. An interesting subject matter in and of itself, for certain. But I felt that a significant part of its substance is not at all exclusive to the Bahai Faith and deserves some wider discussion.
@Jim seems to agree, so I hereby invite him and anyone else interested in considering and commenting on some of my understandings. Most of those connect to my understanding of Dharma in some way or another.
First of all, I think that we can consider that there is an inherent tension inside pretty much any living tradition - not even necessarily religious traditions.
To the extent that they see fit to organize themselves and establish some form of ideology or doctrine, a need for some form of official stance, an authority, will unavoidably arise. That is advantageous in many ways, but brings very real downsides with it.
One of those downsides is that there will be pressure towards conformity. Personal beliefs are varied, but a group's official stance will not always easily allow for or align itself with that variety. Some form of negotiation between those clashing trends will have to happen, and there are many possible strategies.
Perhaps frustratingly, among those strategies there is a very solid tendency to emphasize ease of understanding and implementation at the expense of validity, or vice versa. Also, there is a considerable amount of denial, delusion and obfuscation in that space, much of it fairly unconscious.
I posit that to a large extent that conflict is self-inflicted and actually desirable, mainly because it enables much necessary renewal and rediscovery within the doctrine. More than that, one of the most desirable qualities for any religious institution is the ability to deal with conflict in a respectful, thoughtful way that does not exclude learning from it.
That may be a real challenge, because there is no clear boundary between the cultural and the religious, nor is it a small task to continuously balance tradition and authenticity of expression.
I think that it addresses some of the core issues discussed in other threads as well, most notably the very recent The Qur'an: Intentions vs. Effects
The core of that thread was discussion of how Bahais hold views of their own religion that not too rarely clash with each other and, at least some of the time, with the orientations and expectations of the Universal House of Justice. An interesting subject matter in and of itself, for certain. But I felt that a significant part of its substance is not at all exclusive to the Bahai Faith and deserves some wider discussion.
@Jim seems to agree, so I hereby invite him and anyone else interested in considering and commenting on some of my understandings. Most of those connect to my understanding of Dharma in some way or another.
First of all, I think that we can consider that there is an inherent tension inside pretty much any living tradition - not even necessarily religious traditions.
To the extent that they see fit to organize themselves and establish some form of ideology or doctrine, a need for some form of official stance, an authority, will unavoidably arise. That is advantageous in many ways, but brings very real downsides with it.
One of those downsides is that there will be pressure towards conformity. Personal beliefs are varied, but a group's official stance will not always easily allow for or align itself with that variety. Some form of negotiation between those clashing trends will have to happen, and there are many possible strategies.
Perhaps frustratingly, among those strategies there is a very solid tendency to emphasize ease of understanding and implementation at the expense of validity, or vice versa. Also, there is a considerable amount of denial, delusion and obfuscation in that space, much of it fairly unconscious.
I posit that to a large extent that conflict is self-inflicted and actually desirable, mainly because it enables much necessary renewal and rediscovery within the doctrine. More than that, one of the most desirable qualities for any religious institution is the ability to deal with conflict in a respectful, thoughtful way that does not exclude learning from it.
That may be a real challenge, because there is no clear boundary between the cultural and the religious, nor is it a small task to continuously balance tradition and authenticity of expression.
Last edited: