The creation principle—translation and commentary

The theme of 'place' in Aqdas 1

I have done my own translation of paragraph one of the Kitab-i Aqdas and am now ready to share it and say something about it. The ideas about 'place' that I discuss below form a part of a book I am working on about the mystical path.

Here is the Arabic of Aqdas 1:

ان اوّل ما كتب الله على العباد عرفان مشرق وحيه ومطلع امره الّذي كان مقام نفسه في عالم الامر والخلق من فاز به قد فاز بكلّ الخير والّذي منع انّه من اهل الضّلال ولو يأتي بكلّ الاعمال

اذا فزتم بهذا المقام الاسنى والافق الاعلى ينبغي لكلّ نفس ان يتّبع ما امر به من لدى المقصود لانّهما معاً لا يقبل احدهما دون الاخر هذا ما حكم به مطلع الالهام

Here is my translation:

"The first of what God prescribed for the servants is acknowledgment of the place from which God’s revelation rises and his command emerges. This place constitutes the self of God in the worlds of command and creation. The person who achieves acknowledgment of this place has gained all good. The person who refuses is among the people of error, even if that person performs all good deeds. Should anyone reach this most elevated position and imposing outlook, it is incumbent on that one to follow what is commanded of them in the presence of the Ultimate Purpose. For the two go together; one is not received without the other. This is what the source of inspiration has determined."

The most striking thing for me about Aqdas 1, which I discovered when I worked on the translation, is the theme of 'place' that runs through it. What I mean by this is that, in the paragraph, Baha'u'llah describes an event that is happening in a 'place'. That place is the heavenly realm and the event that Baha'u'llah describes happening there is an encounter between the divine and the soul of the person reading the text of the paragraph. The idea is that, when a person reads the paragraph, that person's soul actually participates in the event that is being described. This active involvement in the drama of the text by the soul enables the true meaning of the words to be communicated to the soul. The meaning is not a collection of concepts conveyed to the intellect through words; it is the transforming influence the soul sustains when it experiences its encounter with its Lord. 

The theme of place begins strongly in the first sentence: "The first of what God prescribed for the servants is acknowledgment of the place from which God’s revelation rises and his command emerges." This sentence sets up the stage and location for the drama. The reader is invited to come to a very special place. Baha'u'llah does not say where that place is; instead, he gives information about the nature of the place he is inviting the reader to come to. He describes it as: "the place from which God’s revelation rises and his command emerges." Clearly, this is a very great spiritual place, for it is where divine activity seems to originate. In the next sentence, Baha'u'llah underscores just how sacred this place is: it is the place that stands for, or constitutes, the self of God in the worlds of command and creation. So, effectively, for everything in those two worlds, this place is God.

How is someone to find this place? Baha'u'llah simply asks the reader to "acknowledge" it (see below for my use of "acknowledgment" here). This challenges the reader to find, and then inhabit, a place within their own self where they acknowledge openly and with solemnity something that is the Source of inspiration and authority. I think that this is an allusion to the scene in pre-existence where all human beings stand before God and acknowledge the eternal covenant.

Baha'u'llah continues his depiction of the mystical event a couple of sentences further on. Whenever a reader finds and acknowledges this place - this placeless place of the Source of revelation and authority - suddenly the reader's soul is thrown into the drama of the text and finds itself a principal character in the climax of the story:

"Should anyone reach this most elevated position and imposing outlook...."

Now Baha'u'llah addresses the one who has entered this mysterious place, and he describes the position this person finds themselves standing in: it is the most elevated position and one with the most imposing outlook. These attributes suggest that the person is standing in a very formidable place indeed, for it is a place that is higher than anywhere else and has the most mind-blowing view. This ultimate grandeur forms the backdrop for the climactic scene of encounter that is about to take place.

Imagine it: you are standing at the topmost height of creation and you are looking down at the panorama that is all created things. Absolutely everything you have known up to this moment drops away before you. Now, in this place, you are told:

"... it is incumbent on that one to follow what is commanded of them..."

What is happening? Someone is speaking to you. Who else is in the scene? Baha'u'llah goes on:

"... in the presence of the Ultimate Purpose."

You are standing in the presence of God, of course. Baha'u'llah has already explained that this place constitutes the self of God. And the name of God that you are standing before is the name of God, the "Ultimate Purpose"[1]. In the climax of this most fantastic of all scenes, the soul stands before the Ultimate Purpose and is informed of what it was created to do. This is its purpose and destiny.

Then the reader comes to the enigmatic statement:

"For the two go together; one is not received without the other."

Again, there is an allusion to place here. A person does not enter another person's home unless the owner receives them. The same applies here. The reader stands in the most exalted spot in the presence of God only with God's leave. One does not just turn up. We are invited to come by finding the requisite humility, honesty and vision within ourselves. If we accomplish this, then we are permitted to enter. We are received. And at that point (because the two go together), something else is received also: the deeds we are asked to carry out in view of that celestial meeting. It is the encounter that gives our deeds meaning and makes them right. And this is an ongoing process. If, at any time, we stop acknowledging and fall out of the presence of God due to our negligence, our deeds (even the same ones) stop being acceptable also.

To sum up: if a person fails to humble themselves and acknowledge the Source of revelation and authority, they will never be received into the presence of the Ultimate Purpose and will never know their purpose and have their deeds accepted. Whatever that person does will be a product of self. For this reason: "The person who achieves acknowledgment of this place has gained all good." And "The person who refuses is among the people of error, even if that person performs all good deeds."

[1] "Ultimate Purpose" translates al-maqṣūd, which has the range of meanings (from Hans Wehr): "aimed at, intended, intentional, designed". The root carries the meaning 'to go or proceed straightaway to someone or something'. As a name of God, it is also translated as 'the Desired One', 'the Intended One'. I chose "Ultimate Purpose" because it refers to the place where God's command emerges and the soul is given its instructions. Another possible translation is 'Ultimate  Goal'. 

Translation of the word `irfān

"The first of what God prescribed for the servants is acknowledgment (`irfān) of the place from which God’s revelation rises and his command emerges."

I have chosen to translate the verbal noun `irfān as "acknowledgment", in the place where the Guardian used "recognition". While I was researching this word, I discovered some interesting things about it, which lead me to prefer the translation "acknowledgement".

The 19th-century dictionary, Steingass, gives the primary meanings of the related root verb `arafa as "to acknowledge, avow, confess". The Hans Wehr dictionary of modern Arabic gives meanings more along the lines of what the Guardian chose: "to know", "to recognise, perceive". But it also gives "to recognise, acknowledge", "to concede, acknowledge", so Hans Wehr does allow for 'acknowledgment' as a possible translation for `irfān.

But in the end, what pushed me fully in favour of "acknowledgment" was the fascinating information I found in Lane's dictionary of classical Arabic (p2012). It says that the contrary of `irfān is 'inkār, which means 'denial', 'disapproval', 'rejection'. These struck me as the opposites of "acknowledge, avow, confess"; in other words, the opposite of a person acknowledging or confessing to something is their denial and rejection of it. The idea that 'inkār is the contrary of `irfān also works with the text of the paragraph, where Baha'u'llah effectively gives his own contrary in his use of the word mana`a ( الّذي منع "the one who has refused"), which Steingass gives as "to refuse; hinder, prevent" etc.

Short obligatory prayer - translation and commentary

I have done my own translation of the short obligatory prayer and decided to put it up here and explain what I have done and why. This brief analysis will shed light on the infinite meanings of the words Baha'u'llah has chosen and the English words that the Guardian chose to represent the Arabic. It is a fascinating close-up examination of the translation process, which I am learning.

Here is the Arabic:

أشهد يا إلهي بأنّك خلقتني لعرفانك وعبادتك. أشهد في هذا الحين بعجزي وقوّتك وضعفي واقتدارك وفقري وغنآئك. لا إله إلاّ أنت المهيمن القيّوم.

My translation:

"I testify, O my God, that you created me to know you and worship you. I testify, here and now, to my incapacity and your capability, my weakness and your inherent power, and my neediness and your affluence. There is no god except you, the Watchful, the Ever-living."

The Guardian's translation:

"I bear witness, O my God, that Thou hast created me to know Thee and to worship Thee. I testify, at this moment, to my powerlessness and to Thy might, to my poverty and to Thy wealth. There is none other God but Thee, the Help in Peril, the Self-Subsisting."

Commentary

The first sentence of my translation is almost the same as the Guardian's. It is a literal translation and I don't know of any difficulties or complexities with the Arabic words here.

The second sentence is where the complexities lie. The first element is straightforward: the Guardian has "I testify, at this moment", and I have run with "I testify, here and now", which I thought would give a bit of variety. The Arabic literally says "at this time".

The rest of the second sentence contains a series of three phrases in which Baha'u'llah contrasts the attributes of human beings with those of God. One of the key differences between my translation and that of the Guardian's, here, is that my translation has three such comparisons and the Guardian's has only two. There are in fact three in the original Arabic. The Guardian has chosen to collapse two contrasts down to one contrast, which makes two in total in his translation. When you look closely at the relevant Arabic words, it is easy to see why the Guardian did this, for the shades of meaning involved are barely distinguishable. But Baha'u'llah did make three comparisons in all, so I figure he must have meant something by them. I have spent quite a bit of time trying to unravel what he might have intended. I have come up with my best theory, based on my limited knowledge of Arabic. I expect the issue will be one that Arabic experts will discuss for ages. The only other thing I would say on the matter is that Baha'u'llah does say that when he utters a word, he gives it a new meaning, beyond what it meant before. "For if God speaks a word today that comes to be on the lips of all the people, before and after, that word will be new, if you only think about it." (Tablet of the Son, para 9) So we can assume that Baha'u'llah had his reasons for choosing the words he did and we cannot rely entirely on previous definitions. Also, the word of God has infinite meanings, and so the words in question no doubt mean numerous things.

Contrast 1: the first contrast is between `ajz and quwwat. It begins with our `ajz (Form I, verbal noun). What does this concept mean? The modern Hans Wehr dictionary gives the basic concept of the root as "to be weak, lack strength, be incapable, be unable" and gives definitions for the verbal noun as "weakness, incapacity, disability, failure, impotence". The 19th century Steingass dictionary gives "weakness; impotence; incapacity; poverty". According to Lane's Lexicon, a dictionary that gives meanings from classical Arabic, the fundamental idea of this word is (p1959-1960)

The being, or becoming, behind, or behindhand, or backward, with respect to a thing; or holding back, hanging back, or abstaining, from it: and its happening at the latter, or last, part, or at the end, of an affair.

The concept of `ajz is then contrasted with the concept of quwwat (Form I, verbal noun), which Hans Wehr and Lane's give as strength, vigour, power, potency, might, or force. The base concept includes the idea of having the strength or power to prevail in some way; for example, "to have influence, to be sufficiently strong, to be able to cope" (Hans Wehr). Steingass also gives "to surpass in strength or power".

The view I have formed from this is that we are weak in the sense that we lack ability, come behind in things and at the end of things, whereas God is powerful in the sense of surpassing all in ability and, therefore, is the one that prevails in the end. And so I have chosen the two contrasting words as our "incapacity" and God's "capability".

Contrast 2: the second contrast is between ḍu`f and iqtidār. It begins with our ḍu`f  (Form 1, verbal noun), for which Hans Wehr gives "weakness, feebleness, frailty"; Steingass gives "weakness, fault, defect". Lane's includes "faint, frail, infirm, or unsound" and also says it is the opposite of quwwat and a synonym of `ajz. However, Baha'u'llah contrasts it with God's iqtidār (Form VIII: verbal noun), which has the root meaning of "to possess strength, power or ability; to have power over, be master of, be equal to ... be able to do, be capable" (Hans Wehr); "be powerful, have great influence, become rich and powerful" (Steingass). Iqtidār is a verbal noun of a reflexive medio-passive verb. A reflexive verb is a verb that refers to an action that is done by the subject on the subject. Medio-passive is the middle passive, where a subject sustains an action but the agent is not referred to; for example, 'the glass filled'. The glass sustains the filling but the agency behind the filling is not referred to. And so, the word Baha'u'llah has chosen here to describe God is a reflexive (subject acting on itself) noun such as 'self-empowering', and a medio-passive (the subject sustains the action without reference to agency) noun such as 'powerful'. I take this to mean that God is powerful within God's essence and is so independently of all else.

The contrast between the two terms seems to be that we are weak in the sense of weak in body, mind and character etc, hence the ideas of frailty, being infirm, having faults and defects, and God is strong and possesses inherent power. I have chosen the two contrasting words as our "weakness" and God's "inherent power".

Contrast 3: the third contrast is between faqr and ghanā'. This contrast is more straightforward. We are faqr, which means "poverty, need, lack, want" (Hans Wehr); as well as "ascetic life; care, sorrow" (Steingass). The contrasting word Baha'u'llah has chosen for God is ghanā'. This word means "wealth, affluence, riches; sufficiency, adequacy" (Hans Wehr). The root idea is "to be free from want, be rich, wealthy" (Hans Wehr). I think the basic idea here is that we need things from God, whereas God is independent of need; that is, God is self-sufficient. I have chosen the two contrasting words as our "neediness" and God's "affluence". With "affluence", I wanted to capture the idea that not only is God rich, but that God's wealth is overflowing and limitless.

The last sentence of the prayer gives us two divine attributes. The first is muhaimin (active participle) meaning "supervising, superintending, controlling; guardian; protector; master" (Hans Wehr). The root concept includes the ideas of "to say 'amen'; to guard, watch over", "keep an eye on; control" (Hans Wehr). So it is easy to see why the Guardian opted for the phrase "Help in Peril", which I think he must have coined himself, for I have not seen it anywhere outside his translations. Interestingly, the root word here has the four letters h-y-m-n, which spells the word "hymn" in English and I think this must be related, given that one sense of the word is to say 'amen'. Steingass also gives the meaning "to cover the young ones with the wings", which has this beautiful angelic image about it (and reminds me of my white hens when they stretch their wings right up above their bodies.) So I think Baha'u'llah's meaning is guarding and protecting in the sense of keeping watch over. I have opted for "Watchful".

The second attribute Baha'u'llah gives is qayyūm. This is an interesting one because the same word is used in the title of the Bab's important book Qayyūm al-asmā'. Todd Lawson has written a book about the Qayyūm al-asmā', called "Gnostic Apocalypse and Islam", and he discusses the meaning of the word qayyūm. He says on page 32 that the word is used three times in the Qur'an (Qur'an 2:255; 3:2; 20:111.), always accompanied by the words "al-ḥayy"; that is, the Qur'an text is always "al-ḥayy al-qayyūm", meaning "the living, the self-subsisting". Todd says that: "The Bab says also that the word qayyūm refers to 'the Qā'im of the House of Muhammad and he who is ḥayy-i qayyūm (everlastingly living).'" Based on this, I have decided to run with "Ever-living". Its meaning is immediate and it nicely captures the Bab's idea of "everlastingly living" and its Qur'anic roots. Many Qur'an translators translate qayyūm as "self-subsisting", as the Guardian has done. The word is also translated as "Everlasting" and "Eternal" (Hans Wehr).

Saiedi commentary on the first verse of the revelation

The following is a transcript of two 10-minute sections from talk no 6 in Dr Nader Saiedi's series "Text and Context in the Baha'i Heroic Age", 2014.  In this talk, Dr Saiedi discusses Baha’u’llah’s three declarations:

1. the one in the Siyah Chal
2. the one in the Garden of Ridvan
3. the one consisting of the messages to the leaders of the world.

The transcript covers the section of the talk in which Dr Saiedi discusses the content of the first declaration, the one in the Siyah Chal. For this, he focuses on the first sentence of the revelation: "Verily, we shall render thee victorious by thy self and by thy pen". Dr Saiedi finds six major themes of Baha'u'llah's revelation suggested in that sentence. Dr Saiedi says: "I believe that everything about the Baha’i Faith and Baha’u’llah’s message is present in this very first sentence."

The themes are:

1. the principle of freedom of conscience
2. the rejection of the principle of violence in terms of religious belief and violence in general
3. the rejection of the culture of patriarchy
4. the rejection of miracles and the emergence of rationality
5. the agreement of reason and faith
6. the principle of the separation of church and state.

The transcript includes the last 10 minutes of the talk, in which Dr Saiedi answers a question about the issue of the separation of church and state.

All the talks in the series "Text and Context in the Baha'i Heroic Age" can be accessed at https://soundcloud.com/bahai-blog/sets/nader-saiedi-text-and-context

A transcript of a passage from talk no 5 in the series can be found here.

**********************

Text and Context in the Baha'i Heroic Age
A series of talks by Dr Nader Saiedi, 2014
https://soundcloud.com/bahai-blog/sets/nader-saiedi-text-and-context

Transcript of talk no 6, beginning 36:43-48:48 and last 10 minutes
(Prepared by Alison Marshall)

Introductory note: In this talk, Dr Saiedi discusses Baha’u’llah’s three declarations: the one in the Siyah Chal, the one in the Garden of Ridvan, and the one consisting of the messages to the leaders of the world. This transcript covers the section of the talk in which Dr Saiedi discusses the content of the first declaration, the one in the Siyah Chal. The transcript also includes the last 10 minutes of the talk, in which Dr Saiedi answers a related question. 

36:43 What happens in these declarations? What is the content? What is the message of Baha’u’llah in terms of these declarations? Let us look at the first declaration. The first moment of declaration, which is the moment of the birth of Baha’i Faith, is told us by Baha’u’llah, in terms of this particular statement, that he says that, one night, in dream he hears from all sides this particular voice. This is the emergence, this the birth of the Baha’i Faith. This sentence, this statement, is the first statement in the history of the Baha’i Faith. And this is really the essence of his concealed revelation.

37:28 The concept of dream is very interesting. You remember that I talked about dream in relation to the story of Joseph. With the story of Joseph, the Bab begins with a dream, ‘cos Joseph sees a dream, that sun and moon and eleven stars they bow down - and twelve stars bow down before Joseph. That’s the way it started. And the Bab emphasises this dream that this dream actually becomes a dream which takes place at the level of the throne of God. In other words, that dream, instead of being a shadow of reality, is the essence of reality. And this statement of Baha’u’llah in Siyah Chal that, in a dream, he sees this, this dream should not be understood simply as that he was sleeping - but that can be the first layer of the meaning. But more importantly, is dream in the sense that it is the spiritual truth, the invisible realm of the truth, of this material reality, this ?? reality of phenomenal shadows - which is, as a matter of fact, just an expression of that dream - that dream is the ultimate reality. So this is what Baha’u’llah says: “One night in a dream, these exalted words were heard on every side, ‘Verily, we shall render thee victorious by thy self and by thy pen’”. This is the first experience of revelation. This is the moment that Baha’i Faith is born. I believe that everything about the Baha’i Faith and Baha’u’llah’s message is present in this very first sentence. Since we don’t have time, I’ll be very brief analysing this statement in order to have a sense of his mission. 

39:35 Remember, this is a time that oppression has - oppression of the Babi community, genocide and tyranny and cruelty against the Babi community - has reached limits which is beyond description. And it appears to be no hope - that it is destroyed and so on. And at this time, what Baha’u’llah hears as the essence of this new spiritual attitude and values is that “verily, we shall render thee victorious”, Baha’u’llah who is in prison in that situation, “by thy self and by thy pen”. The question is, what is the response, what is the appropriate response, to experience of oppression? This is a very important sociological, political question as well. This becomes very important in all the Baha’i writings and the like. In that Tablet of Job, the Book of Job, the Surah of Patience or Job, also this issue becomes very important. 

40:41 So the first meaning of this, of course, is the principle of freedom of conscience. Namely, in the past, particularly in Islamic discourse, many times rendering the Cause of God victorious took place by the sword. The sword was used as a legitimate vehicle for promoting the faith. And Baha’u’llah is removing the sword and replacing that with two things: one is the character and personality and deeds and actions and attitudes, and the other one is with pen. So the Cause of God, which appeared to be dead and finished, is going to be rendered victorious “by thy self and by thy pen”, through our actions, values, which are expressed in our deeds, as well as by pen. So the principle of freedom of conscience becomes the fundamental issue. It is also an expression of the rejection of the principle of violence in terms of religious belief and, as you will see, the question of violence in general. In all three declarations of Baha’u’llah, the question of violence, and discourse on violence, is the central issue - the common issue among all the three declarations. Rejection of the culture of violence. 

42:22 But this statement also is a rejection of the culture of patriarchy. Baha’u’llah describes for us that this experience, this word that he hears, this voice he hears that through Maid of Heaven. Maid of Heaven becomes the truth of Baha’u’llah. (Actually, I found one tablet of Baha’u’llah in which he directly and explicitly talks about who is, and what is, this Maid of Heaven, this huriyyah. And he explains that that is the truth of the Manifestation of God.) In any case, women - the female figure - was usually the symbol and the sign of wickedness, of nafs al-`ammarah - you know, that aspect of the self and the soul which is attached to the material world and sinful and insists and is the opposite of reason and intellect and morality and so on. This was the conception that we had of female figure in Persian poetry, even in the Sufi poetry of Rumi, for example, it’s consistently that way. Women are represented as the nafs al-`ammarah. Men are represented as ‘aql, of intellect and reason, even though mystics were less patriarchal as compared to the legalistic `ulama, clergy and so on. But still in `Attar and Rumi, all of them, you see consistently the female figure becomes representative of everything which is bad and evil. Baha’u’llah turns this upside down and, aside from God, which is neither male nor female, the highest absolute reality of the world - namely, the truth of all Manifestations, the truth of all prophets - is presented symbolically as a female figure, as Maid of Heaven. The truth of Baha’u’llah is Maid of Heaven. Maybe that’s why he’s ‘Baha’u’llah’ because the word ‘Baha’’ is a female word in Arabic. And when the Bab talks in his Commentary on the Surah of Joseph, he defines, he talks about Baha’ as a mother who gives birth … “Baha’ is my mother”, “I was born by Baha’”. Baha’ is a female figure. So Baha’u’llah is identifying the truth of divine revelation as a female entity. Now why this is happening if his culture, the new spiritual culture, is rejection of the principle and culture of violence, then definitely without any surprise, this must be also rejection of the culture of patriarchy. Culture of patriarchy is not just the question of violence against half of the population, it is also a culture of a general attitude of violence with regard to life, with regard to everybody and everything. 

45:55 The other thing that you see in this same statement is rejection of miracles, a culture of magic and magical consciousness. The Cause of God is going to be rendered victorious, to be proved, to be affirmed, not by strange events defying the laws of nature called miracles, but through pen. Pen becomes the supreme proof of the sovereignty of God. The highest expression of the spiritual reality becomes consciousness, becomes emergence of a spirit in this world, not natural events. And of course, this is the emergence of a new culture of rationality. Already, the idea of agreement of reason and faith is present in this very statement. 

46:56 And of course, a very important implication of all of these statements is separation of church and state. Baha’u’llah explains in a variety of his writings that the realm of religion belongs to the realm of heart, dominion over the realm of the heart, which only can be a question of voluntary acceptance and persuasion. Political dominion, dominion on earth, is an area in which coercion sometimes may become relevant. But for Baha’u’llah, with regard to the realm of the heart, the realm of religion and religious consciousness and religious belief and so on, no coercion, no violence can be legitimate. It is a complete philosophical, sociological, theoretical separation of the two realms and that, institutionally, they cannot be one and the same. This issue, namely separation of church and state, not only is mentioned, is a statement, in the first, the very first statement of Baha’u’llah’s writing, it is also emphasised in his last work, which is his Book of Covenant. And in the Book of Covenant, two issues are emphasised. One is that successor of Baha’u’llah, and leadership of Baha’u’llah, is specifically determined in the figure of ‘Abdu’l-Baha. And the second point is, again, separation of the realm of the heart and the realm of dominion over earth. And Baha’u’llah says that this distinction can never be revoked, can never be changed. It’s an eternal covenant of God. 48:48

Transcript skips to the last 10 minutes of the recording, in which Dr Saiedi answers a question about church and state.

1:22:20 [Questioner] You mentioned that Baha’u’llah emphasises the split between church and state and how those should be kept separate. There seems to be a current strand of Baha’i thought that our institutions are going to somehow replace the secular government, in which case we’d be sticking church and state very much together and welding them forever together. So could you please comment on that with regards to the writings?

[Dr Saiedi] Yes, I have seen a number of similar statements that primarily on the sense that this separation is a temporary thing but in the future it would be different, something like that. I believe that this is contrary to all the principles of the Baha’i Faith. As I mentioned, the very first statement of Baha’u’llah deals with that. All his various statements and discussions all over his ministry is affirmation of the same thing. ‘Abdu’l-Baha has written extensively on this issue; for example, his work Risalih-i Siyasiyyih (Treatise on Politics), which was written at a particular point of time in which the religious clergy in Iran appeared to be, to have actually a progressive, apparently progressive, role. But interference in politics and so on - ‘Abdu’l-Baha writes, at that very time, to say that these two are completely different, their functions are different, and they have to be separate. And whenever the religious leaders, clergy, have interfered in politics, he says the result has been catastrophic, elimination of freedom, of liberty, of religion and so on. We are used to, in Baha’i literature, to talk of 12 principles of the Baha’i Faith. There is no such thing. And ‘Abdu’l-Baha - in one of my talks in the future I might deal with this - at least has talked about 16 principles that he discussed when he came to the West and so on. And one of these 16 principles is separation of church and state. And he mentions that - you know, in one of his talks, he says the first principle is, for instance, independent investigation of truth, the second one is agreement of reason and faith and so on - and one of them he says is about separation of church and state. 

1:24:46 It’s interesting that he discusses that in Paris, when he was in Paris. He doesn’t emphasise it when he is in United States. In Paris, because Catholicism, even at the time of ‘Abdu’l-Baha, throughout 19th century has had always struggles and tensions with question of secularism and there was this battle between church and state and the necessity of separation of that. The fact that ‘Abdu’l-Baha chooses in France to discuss this, and to affirm this, is very important. So he discusses that and he says the ‘leaders of religion’ - he doesn’t say ‘`ulama of Islam’ or something like that in general.

1:25:33 And the statement of Baha’u’llah that is in his final work, which is his Will and Testament really, his basic message to humanity and the Baha’i Faith is that he says that God has given the dominion on earth to secular figures. And he says that Baha’is, as a religious group, should be concerned with the realm of the heart. And he says that these two are separate and this separation, he says, is a law that God has decided to be a principle which can never be revoked. It won’t be subject to mahv [erasure]. If you read also one of his last works, which is Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, the entire work is a discourse on the necessity of separation of church and state. He quotes extensively from Gospel and the idea that what is due to Caesar, should give it to Caesar, and what is due to God, render it to God and so on and emphasises in a variety of ways that. The reason was that the addressee of this particular work, he himself had almost political rule. He was one of these famous intolerant, cruel religious figures in Isfahan, but he had his own private army and ruled more or less like [the] state. And Baha’u’llah at this time, which was again the time that tobacco revolt is happening and the Shi`a clergy becomes conscious of its potential for political power, he is writing this particular work, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, and constantly emphasising the necessity of this separation. 

1:27:42 So there is one statement of Baha’u’llah with regard to the House of Justice, in which he says "Amur-e siyasiyyeh kull raje` ast be bayt-al adl"[1]; namely, political affairs, issues of politics, should be referred to the House of Justice. This idea is misunderstood normally by conventional readings of that and misunderstood by a number of scholars who want to prove that there is separation of church and state in the Baha’i Faith. Both have misread it. Some wants to say the word “siyasiyyeh” does not mean siyasat, it means, ‘in general, leadership’, which is not the case here, it means ‘politics’. But the conventional understanding of this is that therefore House of Justice in the future would be the political leader. But what the statement says is very clear. It says that, for the Baha’i community - in relation to state, in relation to political issues - the authority to make decisions, in terms of our relation to state - what to do, what not to do, what position to take and so on - is the consultative body, consultative leadership of the Baha’i community. It’s not up to the individuals to decide for them what is the policy of the Baha’i Faith, but it should be through consultative leadership of the Baha’i Faith. So [the passage from Bisharat] doesn’t mean that bayt al-`adl is going to be, the House of Justice is going to be, the new state of the future. It means that the relation of the Baha’i community to state, which is a secular state, to political institutions and so on ultimately is going to be decided by the consultative leadership of the Baha’i community.

1:29:32 This issue is so fundamental, and so frequently discussed in so various ways, that it is impossible to consider it in other ways. And, if you assume that, in the future, Universal House of Justice is going to be the political, legislative power of the world and so on, what it means is elimination of all the basic principles of the Baha’i Faith. Namely, those who make decisions - political decisions - can be only Baha’is because members of the House of Justice can only be Baha’is. Non-Baha’is therefore - entire civil rights of the non-Baha’is, from the very beginning, is going to be destroyed, contrary to everything that Baha’u’llah has said from the very beginning in various fashions and so on.

1:30:22 So, in my judgement, we sometimes understand Baha’i writings in terms of pre-Baha’i cultures and ideas and so on. Coming from a Shi`a background also many Baha’is have looked at some of the Baha’i texts in those ways and so on. So my understanding of this issue is that it is categorical. Baha’u’llah has legitimised the secular state and that’s why sometimes he talks - because in the writings of Baha’u’llah, the democratic state is suggested and approved. But, in some of the writings of Baha’u’llah, you see that, about kings in general, also there are positive statements. And the reason is that he is reacting to the Shi`a dominant, increasingly dominant, clerical position that the only legitimate political rulers are `ulama, are the religious leaders, as representatives of the 12th Imam. And Baha’u’llah is rejecting that. For that, he is affirming the legitimacy of secular state. But for him, that secular state also eventually has to be, has to move, towards a democratic, consultative state.

______________

Footnote 1: Here, Dr Saiedi has quoted a verse from the 13th Bisharat (Glad Tidings). There are two differing translations of the first word of this verse: siyasiyyeh. The two translations are: 1. “Administrative affairs are all in charge of the House of Justice" (Shoghi Effendi: The Baha´i World, Vol 11 (1946-1950), p67); and 2. “All matters of State should be referred to the House of Justice.” (Habib Taherzadeh with the assistance of a Baha'i World Centre Committee in Tablets of Baha’u’llah, p27). The same verse was also revealed by Baha’u’llah in the 8th Ishraqat (Splendours). Habib Taherzadeh’s translation of this (Tablets p129) is the same as above; and Shoghi Effendi’s translation is "Administrative affairs should be referred to the House of Justice" (published in The Dawn: a monthly Bahai Journal of Burma, Vol. II, No. 7, March, 1925).

Download a PDF of this transcript.

The Word Jesus uttered that caused his disciples to flee

Written by Trevor Richardson

The following is a personal comparison study on certain aspects of the Tablet on Understanding the Cause of Opposition to the Manifestations of God and the rejection suffered by Christ in his mission on earth, which Bahá'u'lláh states, in the tablet, had no lesser purpose than "the salvation of humankind".

All source quotes are taken either from the above-mentioned tablet or from The Holy Bible, John chapter 6, King James Version.

In the Tablet on Understanding the Cause of Opposition, Bahá’u’lláh asks us to "reflect sincerely on that which has been the cause of souls turning toward the Dawning Places of revelation and the Daysprings of inspiration during the ages and centuries and what has been the reason for turning away". We are informed that "It is necessary to think about the cause and reason for this opposition" so "There can be no doubt that the purpose of creation is the recognition of God".

Bahá’u’lláh tells us in the tablet that "The Shī’ah divines believe that when the promised Qā’im appears in the House of God [Mekka], he will utter a word that will cause even his chosen disciples to turn away from him and flee". It is interesting to note that a similar event also occurred at the time of Christ many centuries earlier.

When Jesus perceived the people, and his disciples, wanted to make him king of an earthly kingdom so that he might defeat the Romans and end the occupation of Palestine, he began to speak in ways they could not comprehend or understand. He asked them to eat his flesh and drink his blood. Their response was “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” To them, this was an impossible thing to do. The reason for this was that they could only accept or understand literal truth, so what Christ was saying to them made no sense at all. Christ knew their limitations and understood their inability to change into spiritual beings. The time had come to end his association with them and drive away 'with a word' those that could not undergo the necessary process of transformation.

Baha'u'llah, in the tablet, explains the reasons for the opposition to messengers of God. "There is no doubt that if the Exponents of divine commands and the Sources of heavenly laws appeared in a way that agreed with, and conformed to, the references, traditions and texts current among the people concerning the Manifestation, not a single soul would oppose them. Rather, all would attain to that for which they stepped from non-existence into the realm of being."

The spiritual truths given by Christ were given in an allegorical language that the people could not comprehend and that hid their true meaning. This caused many of his disciples and followers deep distress, so they turned their backs to him and walked away, no longer believing in him or his teachings.

Jesus asked those who remained with him, "Will ye also go away?" and Peter replied, "Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life". Peter had made the transformation, so for better or worse, in glory or abasement, his love for Christ had so transformed him that he could no longer contemplate life without him. He had understood the hidden spiritual truths of Christ's challenging words and was of those who believed and attained the recognition of God.

The passage below is an extract from The Holy Bible John-6, which gives an account of Jesus uttering the word that caused his disciples to flee.

"When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone…

Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent…

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you…

Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?...

From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him…

Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?

Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life…

Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?

He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve."

The difference between holiness and conformity

I am reading the Iqan again and have just finished reading the part where Baha'u'llah discusses how Moses was a murderer and how Jesus was a fatherless child, whose mother appeared for all the world as unchaste. But God deliberately set these situations up this way, so that his manifestations would appear morally questionable. As a result, most people denounced these manifestations for being immoral, much less messengers of God. However, the hidden truth was that these 'immoral' manifestations were in fact the holy ones, and the people who denounced them were the unholy ones.

It got me thinking about how practised the Baha'is are at denouncing people for not being acceptable - ie, not firm in the covenant, unfit for community membership, not chaste, not this and not that. What will happen when the next manifestation comes and violates these very moral standards the Baha'is hold so dearly to? If these social standards are the measure the Baha'is cling to, how will they recognise the holy fragrance of the manifestation when s/he brings it down from heaven?

I think Baha'u'llah is pointing out that there is a difference between holiness, and conformity to socially accepted standards. Holiness is to do with the heart, not perfection of outer actions. We may not be perfect in character and we may be sinners, but what matters is that we are sincere and try to attach ourselves to Baha'u'llah and try to improve ourselves each day. I think this is the measure. It is love and all the other spiritual susceptibilities.

I think the Baha'is have made the Baha'i faith too hard for people. They have generated enormous complexity out of something that is very simple. They leave people feeling like they will never meet with Baha'u'llah's good pleasure. In my view, the pressing concern of our age now is to give people the good news that Baha'u'llah has come for everyone, and wiped their past clean and forgiven their sins. That he invites us all to everlasting life. We can all arise with joy at this momentous act of grace, which is brought to all people without exception. The Baha'is have turned the faith into a quagmire. I think the pressing need of this age is to free Baha'u'llah's message from that bog and set it free so that the message of supreme felicity can get out and renew people's lives.

Flying with Baha'u'llah

When I do briefly look at what the Bahai's get up to, I always think that they miss the point of why Baha'u'llah came. I know that the Baha'is like to emphasise the uniting of humanity - and that is certainly one goal - but it is a social goal and it misses the very personal nature of the revelation, which is addressed to each one of us in a very intimate fashion.

As I read the writings, Baha'u'llah had another purpose - one that is central to his revelation - and that is to offer each one of us the opportunity to make the spiritual journey to join him in his spiritual realm of eternal glory. In other words, he came to invite each one of us to come home with him, to be eternally reunited with him in his celestial sanctuary. In a sense, if we choose to, we can climb in our celestial rocket (or, to use Baha'u'llah's image, take the cup of wine offered by the hand of the cupbearer) and just blast on up to our everlasting nest. Baha'u'llah seeks to be with us, individually. Being a manifestation, he can multitask and give a private audience to an infinite number of people at any one time. So each one of us is invited and is important.

Here is a quote from the Hidden Words in which he tries to inspire us to make the journey to be with him: "O son of spirit! Burst thy cage asunder, and even as the phoenix of love soar into the firmament of holiness. Renounce thyself and, filled with the spirit of mercy, abide in the realm of celestial sanctity." The Hidden Words are filled with invitations for us to fly away to be with him - the same message worded differently over and over again.

It seems to me that, if the Baha'is want to be effective at promulgating the message, they need to 'renounce themselves', as the quote above says - in other words, get over themselves and see beyond the worldly reality of the community and its activities and administration, and even its development - and look to the celestial realm of Baha'u'llah. What's important is for people to know that Baha'u'llah is asking them to fly up on spiritual wings, through the experience of wonderment, delight and the joy of reunion, to live forever in their heavenly home, with the One who created them for that very purpose.

Each of us, right now, can climb into our rocket and just leave all the nightmares behind. Baha'u'llah tells us that this is the most important thing we can ever do. Never mind all the stuff about us being unworthy. Who is worthy? The very act of lifting ourselves off the earth to fly into the realm of sanctity is the very act of freeing ourselves from sin and the past. God is all-forgiving. We can take Baha'u'llah at his word on this.

Happy flying
Alison

Being a throbbing artery

I haven't written for a while because I am enthralled by the discoveries I have made in my reading. It all began when I started reading Keven Brown's writings about creation from his web site. He has researched and written extensively in this area and has made great strides in it. He has helped me to understand the process and structure of creation as taught in the Baha'i writings and Shaykh Ahmad, and I am enormously indebted to him. After reading Keven's explanations, I was able to make more sense of what the writings say. For the Baha'i authors use the jargon of their day and the implications are lost on modern readers, unless we have someone like Keven to explain them for us. Keven has done much translation work as well, translating passages on the subject of creation that are not currently available and retranslating passages, many from Abdu'l-Baha, to make the meaning clearer. He has put some of his translations up on his site.
From reading Keven's article "Abdu'l-Baha's Response to Darwinism", I found out about a dissertation written in English about Shaykh Ahmad's philosophy. It is Idris Hamid: "The Metaphysics and Cosmology of Process According to Shaykh Ahmad al-Ahsa'i". I was able to download it from Dissertation Express. I am currently about half way through reading this. It is amazing. I never realised that such a comprehensive work had been written about Shaykh Ahmad's system of thought. The dissertation focuses on Shaykh Ahmad's "al-Fawa'id Hikmiyyah" (The Wisdom Observations). Idris Hamid describes this work as "a concise summary of the author's philosophical and mystical commitments"(p5). And, because the dissertation is written within the Western philosophical tradition, Hamid has the unenviable task of making Shaykh Ahmad's Islamic concepts meaningful to a Western audience. This is the task all Baha'is face when teaching the Faith, and it is interesting to see the tack that Hamid takes. I haven't read the whole thing yet, so I can't say too much, but Hamid says that he will use the concepts of another thinker who is roughly close to Shaykh Ahmad, and compare them.
So to the phrase Baha'u'llah uses in the Tablet of Wisdom:

"Be thou as a throbbing artery, pulsating in the body of the entire creation, that through the heat generated by this motion there may appear that which will quicken the hearts of those who hesitate." (Tablets p143)

As a result of all this reading and learning, I went back to the Tablet of Wisdom to see if I could get more out of the enigmatic statements about creation that Baha'u'llah makes there. I found that I was certainly able to get more out of it. And I had a new thought about the sentence above.
One of the key things I have learned from my reading is how to look at existence. What all Baha'i authors teach and Shaykh Ahmad too, is that existence - that is, an object or a substance or even an intelligible like justice - has two parts to it - it is a pairing of 'existence' and 'essence' or, in other words, 'matter' and 'form'. Matter is like a blank canvass on which form is imprinted. Matter is like stone out of which a form is sculptured. (This gives new meaning to the phrase, "O moving form of dust"!) This pairing is at work at all levels of existence, from the most subtle reality in the highest heaven to the most solid one in the depths of the earth.
The Bab links this pairing with the process whereby the letters B and E are joined together. Baha'u'llah describes how, at the beginning of creation, God says "Be! and it is", and, in the Long Obligatory Prayer, speaks of how "the letters B and E have been joined and knit together". In relation to this, the Bab says:

'Through the "B" God created the matter (mádda) of all things...and through the "E" God created the form (Súra) of all things.' (trans Keven Brown, Excerpt 8)

And, in fact, the same pairing is being referred to in Baha'u'llah's passage in the Tablet of Wisdom about how creation came into existence:

"The world of existence came into being through the heat generated from the interaction between the active force and that which is its recipient. These two are the same, yet they are different. Thus doth the Great Announcement inform thee about this glorious structure. Such as communicate the generating influence and such as receive its impact are indeed created through the irresistible Word of God which is the Cause of the entire creation, while all else besides His Word are but the creatures and the effects thereof." (Tablets p140)

"The active force" and "its recipient" are, again, a reference to the pairing of matter and form. This helps explain why they are the same, yet different. If you look at an object, you can see how its matter is different from its form, and yet these two things cannot be separated and are, in a sense, the same thing. Baha'u'llah goes on to say that "Such as communicate the generating influence and such as receive its impact are indeed created through the irresistible Word of God...", which shows the line-up with the B and E: the generating influence is the B and the recipient is the E, for these are also created through the Word.
With these ideas in the back of my mind, I was struck anew by the language used in the passage quoted above: "Be thou as a throbbing artery, pulsating in the body of the entire creation, that through the heat generated by this motion there may appear that which will quicken the hearts of those who hesitate." I saw that we are being asked to replicate within our own selves the creation process that takes place at the level of the Word. We are being asked to become a generating influence on a recipient humanity. This new insight underscored for me the truth of an idea I've had for years, but have been unable to easily substantiate: that what is of primary importance in teaching is our own spiritual state. This principle is outlined by Baha'u'llah:

"Whoso ariseth among you to teach the Cause of his Lord, let him, before all else, teach his own self, that his speech may attract the hearts of them that hear him. Unless he teacheth his own self, the words of his mouth will not influence the heart of the seeker." Baha'u'llah: Gleanings, CXXVIII)

The reason why it is important for us to focus on our own spiritual state is because real teaching isn't, at root, an intellectual process, where we share a bunch of nice-sounding ideas ("God is one, religion is one, humanity is one - yay!"), or try to convince people of things using reason. It is an ontological process - that is, it is a process that takes place at the level of reality. For example, when a child is born, that young person comes into existence anew in this physical world - that is an ontological process in that it takes place in the arena of reality or existence. In order for us to engage with reality, our beings have to become highly crafted tools that have the ability to influence the processes and outcomes of reality. When we develop to such a refined state, we become mini creators - we actually bring into existence in this world things that were never here before. This idea of our being mini creators is found in the following tradition, which Baha'u'llah quotes approvingly:

"O My Servant! Obey Me and I shall make thee like unto Myself. I say `Be,' and it is, and thou shalt say `Be,' and it shall be." (Baha'u'llah: Fourth Valley of the four)

After writing the above, I suddenly remembered the following passage. I believe that what I have said about our being mini creators is what Baha'u'llah means by our being quickeners of mankind.

"Verily, He (Jesus) said: `Come ye after Me, and I will make you to become fishers of men.' In this day, however, We say: `Come ye after Me, that We may make you to become quickeners of mankind.'" (Baha'u'llah: Proclamation of Baha'u'llah, p91)

A note on perfection

Blessings and greetings to all on this splendid anniversary of the birth of the Bab. I thought it was fitting on this glorious day to make a note on something I have been reading by the Bab.

Yesterday, I read Sen's article "Perfection and conservation in Gate of the Heart". I recommend it. It has the clearest statement I've seen about what the Bab would say about humanity's abuse of nature's waterways.

"In the Persian Bayan He writes: 'Nothing is more beloved before God than to keep water in a state of the utmost purity, to such an extent that if a believer should become aware that the glass of water he holdeth in his hand hath passed through any impure parts of the earth, he would be grieved.' In other words, it is implicitly necessary that all streams, lakes, and seas through which the water passes be clean."

But I wanted here to note a few thoughts on perfection. Sen summarises the spiritual principle in the Persian Bayan that underpins whether an action is acceptable:

"if it is performed for God and to attain God’s good pleasure, then every single action must be a means of realizing the potentialities of things and the beautification and refinement of the world."

The implication for action of this principle is that:

"in whatever activity the Babis are engaged, whether in the realm of industry or art, they must perform that work in the best possible manner and realize the utmost perfection in all things."

This principle reminds me of the pilgrim's note that reports Baha'u'llah as saying that we should finish what we begin. There is always something to learn from finishing a project because there is a different set of lessons at the beginning of a project to at the end. But the discipline of finishing projects also forces us to think hard about what projects we start in the first place. For, if we have to finish what we start, we will confine ourselves to a few projects and be forced to think about what our priorities are. (I said to Steve the other day that I think the fundamental principle of conservation should be 'stay at home'. If everyone lived at home and didn't use their home simply as a hotel, I think this would force us to reduce the number of projects we involved ourselves in.)

But the main comment about perfection I want to make is how the Bab's principle relates to the negative messages I tell myself. For example, I now recognise the following statement as being at the root of my anxiety- and depression-inducing thoughts: 'things as they stand are wrong and should be different to what they are'. Based on this, I am culpable: for I am responsible for things being wrong, but am pretty much powerless over how things work out in the world. My response was to constantly run around trying to fix things.

Recent reading in theology has helped me through this trap. I understand now that the world is always in a state of perfection. So it isn't true that things are wrong as they stand; things are perfect as they stand. But, at the same time, things are always changing, moving toward a higher degree of perfection. And that is where I come in with my work - it is an effort in the advancement of perfection. Each day, I work to realise "the potentialities of things and the beautification and refinement of the world".

I use this new understanding to counter negative messages that come in. I feel way better now that I can focus on a small number of projects and getting them right. People around me are busy, busy, busy! But I am determined to swim against the tide, for I believe this is the straight path.

More on "He is God"

A kind reader wrote and asked me to write more about the phrase "He is God", as I suggested I might. So here's part 2.

What I had in mind to mention was the link between the new phrase "He is God" and the advent of the new "Day of God". As I discussed in my previous message, Baha'u'llah has been singled out by God for His own sake. Baha'u'llah's revelation is a supreme one in that God decided to reveal himself in Baha'u'llah. Up to now, God has set limits on what the manifestations were permitted to reveal, but with Baha'u'llah, he let the limits go. The grace associated with this generous act is infinite and has ushered in what we refer to as The Day of God. It seems to me, then, that if Baha'u'llah is the Self of God manifest, then it is logical that we would simply say of him: "He is God".

But I also think that the change in wording from "No God is there but God" to "He is God" has implications for how we are required to respond to the call of God in this Day. With this being the Day of God, the only fitting response for believers is to be wholly absorbed in God. Anything less is unacceptable. We are asked to detach ourselves from all else but God. It is a primary requirement of a seeker:

"That seeker must, at all times, put his trust in God, must renounce the peoples of the earth, must detach himself from the world of dust, and cleave unto Him Who is the Lord of Lords." (Iqan, para 213)

This idea that we must be detached from all save God is everywhere in the writings. Here are some random instances from MARS:

"Turn ye away from all that is on earth and seek none else but Me." (Tablets of Baha'u'llah,p 169)

"My sole purpose hath been to hand down unto men that which I was bidden to deliver by God, the Gracious, the Incomparable, that it may detach them from all that pertaineth to this world, and cause them to attain such heights as neither the ungodly can conceive, nor the froward imagine." (Gleanings, p 108)

"Detach yourselves from all else but Me, and turn your faces towards My face, for better is this for you than the things ye possess." (Baha'u'llah: Gleanings, p 257)

"Peruse My verses with joy and radiance. Verily they will attract you unto God and will enable you to detach yourselves from aught else save Him." (Importance of Deepening, p 188)

The quotes tell me that we are being asked to be wholly absorbed in God. In that absorbed state, it makes no sense to say, in an objective way, "There is no God but God", because now we are 'inside' God and saying "He is God". The negative forces of "no", don't have a reality there. They have been wiped away. And we should wipe their reality away from our hearts too by forgetting about them and being wholly focused on Baha'u'llah and magnifying his name.

In my own words, I would say "He is a jealous God" (in a nice way). A jealous lover is a person who forbids their beloved from turning their attention to any thing else but the lover. And a jealous lover is a serious force to be reckoned with. The slightest distraction is unacceptable. That is how I think of Baha'u'llah. But I like that, because he's so cool to be with, who would want to be with anyone else anyway? It makes my life happy because I am doing the one thing I want to do, and the one thing Baha'u'llah would have me do. It's a win-win.

Also, I've thought a lot about those negative 'no' forces, and have come to the conclusion that they are bigger than me by a mile, in any case. It was a huge relief to realise that what was required of me was to love Baha'u'llah, and not to win a battle with the negative forces. Baha'u'llah is more powerful than any negative force and is able to deal with them as he pleases. He is God, not me. The purpose of creation is for the believer to return to God; the sideshows are a mirage for those given to distractions.

"This is not the day for any man to question his Lord. When thou hearest the call of God voiced by Him Who is the Dayspring of grandeur, cry out: ’Here am I, O Lord of all names! Here am I, O Maker of the heavens! I testify that Thou hast revealed Thyself and hast revealed whatsoever Thou didst desire at Thine Own behest. Thou, in truth, art the Lord of strength and might.’” Tabernacle of Unity 2:11

The Day not followed by night

I'm finally ready to tackle this thorny one. I've been thinking about it for ages. Finally, a week or so back, I saw it in my heart and decided to record what I saw here.

I began thinking hard about this verse because it bears on the infallibility issue. Baha'is believe that, with this being the Day that shall not be followed by night, the Baha'is will never go off the straight path because the House of Justice is infallible and will guide them aright. House infallibility, therefore, is integral to the common interpretation of this verse. Needless to say, I think this interpretation is magical thinking. But it challenged me to think about what the verse does mean.

I don't know all the places where Baha'u'llah writes about this Day not being followed by night, but my commentary will be on its use in Suriy-i-Haykal, paragraph 63:

"O Temple of Holiness! We, verily, have cleansed Thy breast from the whisperings of the people and sanctified it from earthly allusions, that the light of My beauty may appear therein and be reflected in the mirrors of all the worlds. Thus have We singled Thee out above all that hath been created in the heavens and the earth, and above all that hath been decreed in the realms of revelation and creation, and chosen Thee for Our own Self. This is but an evidence of the bounty which God hath vouchsafed unto Thee, a bounty which shall last until the Day that hath no end in this contingent world. It shall endure so long as God, the Supreme King, the Help in Peril, the Mighty, the Wise, shall endure. For the Day of God is none other but His own Self, Who hath appeared with the power of truth. This is the Day that shall not be followed by night, nor shall it be bounded by any praise, would that ye might understand!"

In my view, when Baha'u'llah speaks of the Day that is not followed by night, he is referring to a transcendent spiritual reality - the one that came into existence with his appearance. The paragraph above tells us that Baha'u'llah has been singled out "for Our own Self" and that this bounty to him "shall last until the Day that hath no end in this contingent world". So the 'Day' that will not end is the spiritual reality of the bounty that came into existence when Baha'u'llah appeared.

The way I understand this is as follows: Baha'u'llah explains in the Kitab-i Iqan that no distinction is to be made between the manifestations. They are all one and reflect all the names and attributes of God. However, their revelations differ in their intensity, which means that, if some manifestations appeared not to show certain divine qualities, this was because of the purpose of their revelation not because the manifestation did not inherently posses that quality.

What we see in Baha'u'llah is God revealing "his own Self". Baha'u'llah's revelation is a supreme one in that God decided not to hold back anything and decided to reveal all of himself. Up to now, God has set limits on what the manifestations were permitted to reveal, but with Baha'u'llah, he let the limits go a great deal. The grace associated with this generous act is infinite and has ushered in what we refer to as the Day of God, for in revelation terms, God himself has been revealed in Baha'u'llah.

The logic of the phrase in question follows from this. What night could be followed by such a Day? Once God has been revealed, how could a night follow? This Day of God "shall endure so long as God, the Supreme King, the Help in Peril, the Mighty, the Wise, shall endure", as the passage above says, so basically nothing can follow it.

I am greatly struck by this idea of a reality being never ending. When I meditate on it, it forces me to think about how huge God is, that he has created this bounty that will never end. I believe the same 'never-ending' idea is also found in Baha'u'llah's Mathnavi. There, Baha'u'llah introduces the idea of a never-ending Spring. He first mentions it in line 36: "Bring a new green spring for all to see/raise up the dead for Your Resurrection", and continues discussing its qualities for another 30 verses.

But within this eternal Spring-time that Baha'u'llah's appearance has brought about, other familiar cycles continue, such as the cycle of revelation. Baha'u'llah tells us in the Kitab-i Iqan that a manifestation does not come unless the condition of 'oppression' exists in the world. In other words, for a manifestation to appear, the people of this world must have gone astray.

"What 'oppression' is more grievous than that a soul seeking the truth, and wishing to attain unto the knowledge of God, should know not where to go for it and from whom to seek it? … This 'oppression' is the essential feature of every Revelation. Unless it cometh to pass, the Sun of Truth will not be made manifest. For the break of the morn of divine guidance must needs follow the darkness of the night of error." Iqan, para 29

Here is the potential source of confusion. On the one hand, Baha'u'llah says that this Day shall not be followed by night, but on the other, he says that the darkness of error must exist before another manifestation will come. As I understand it, this apparent contradiction is explained by recognising that these two statements are true on different levels. Baha'u'llah's eternal Spring-time is an endless Day in the spiritual realm of the Kingdom. Baha'u'llah's many mystical works describe how its appearance affected that, and other, spiritual realms. This Day reigns outside of time; in fact, it reigns over all of the past and all of the future (500,000 years), which I think this verse in Tablet of the Bell refers to:

"Praised be Thou, O my God, I beseech Thee by Thy Day, whereon all days have been resurrected, and by Thy enumerating from it both former and latter times."

But within Baha'u'llah's eternal supra-Day, the cycle of revelation will continue, manifestations will come and go, and that will involve humanity passing through the darkness of error. This means that the Baha'is will experience a night too, and that, when it comes, their leaders will fall like stars from heaven, just as previous ones have.

"[The revelation of Baha'u'llah] will constitute the first stage in a series of Dispensations, to be established by future Manifestations, all deriving their inspiration from the Author of the Baha'i Revelation, and destined to last, in their aggregate, no less than five thousand centuries. "(Shoghi Effendi: Citadel of Faith, p5)

The Baha'i interpretation of 'the Day not followed by night' verse results in a similar error to the one made by Muslims over 'the seal of the prophets' verse. Again, it is a matter of understanding a verse on its correct level. It is true that Muhammad is the Seal of the Prophets, but Baha'u'llah tells us that this statement applies to the transcendent reality of the manifestation - firstly, that it is true of all manifestations and, secondly, that it is true of Muhammad specifically because it identifies his revelation as coming immediately before the Day of God. So, even though Muhammad is the Seal of the Prophets, this does not mean the cycle of revelation has ended, as most Muslims believe.

Similarly, the statement that this is the Day not followed by night is about the nature and intensity of Baha'u'llah's revelation - that Baha'u'llah revealed the Self of God. It does not mean that, all of a sudden, the Baha'is can never go off the straight path! God forbid. This interpretation is also a claim to the finality of revelation, for the night of error is a necessary requirement for a manifestation to appear.

I am not suggesting that the reality of Baha'u'llah's eternal Day does not affect what happens in this physical world. The Most Great Peace will come, and life across globe will get easier. But this does not mean that God will stop sending his messages in ways that are contrary to our idle fancies, and it also does not mean that humans will stop rejecting God's signs.

On wealth

I was inspired to write on wealth again here because I've just read a fabulous paragraph, newly translated, in which Baha'u'llah is quoted by Nabil, making one of his usual hard-hitting one-liners. The paragraph appears on a new blog called Kashkul, which is put together by Will McCants. I can't recommend the blog highly enough. Will can translate the writings from the original languages and his entries are fresh translations of material not seen in English before. Here's the paragraph from Nabil's unpublished account:

One day in the outer part of the Blessed House (in Baghdad), one of the travelers from Tehran respectfully asked the Presence (Baha’u’llah), "How large of a stipend and expenditure does the Sadr A`zam (chancellor) allot you every month such that all the expenses which arise are completely taken care of?" (Baha’u’llah) said, "I should give the likes of the Sadr A`zam a salary, not them bestow it on me. My affairs are with God and not in the trust of others."

Nabil Zarandi’s unpublished history, excerpted in Mazandarani, Zuhur al-Haqq, 4: 227-8

Translated by Will McCants in "Fool's Gold"

What a scream. Baha'u'llah's comment captures the issue of wealth in a nutshell: no one gives Baha'u'llah a stipend; he gives everyone else one!

I have certainly been hit hard economically by events of the global financial crisis. For several years, I had a greatly reduced income. I would listen to the radio and think that getting work was very unlikely, given the economic situation. I focused on the depressing things going on around me and was resigned. In my prayers, I would beg Baha'u'llah to lead me to work or some source of income.

But during the year Steve and I were preparing to move north, I had no time to worry about it. I got used to being poor and started looking at the bright side. I adjusted my habits to accommodate my lack of income. I became inventive with my cooking, so that I eventually used all items in my cupboards, which had been there for years. When I had plenty of money, I never looked at them. When I had no money, I ate in a more healthy way because I had no money to be slack and buy everything from the supermarket.

As I began to let go the worry about money, I found myself becoming increasingly joyful. I felt free. Everyone worries about money. It's very difficult not to catch the disease. I shifted my focus from worry about lack of income to a joyful reliance on God. Might as well be happy, as anything, I thought.

When we got to our new home, I was in a position to work again. I began again asking Baha'u'llah if he would send me work. But this time, I took a new approach. I saw that I could suddenly revert into my worry state again, now that I had time to think more about the reality of my situation. The minute any kind of worry about money threatened, I saw how it impacted on my connection to Baha'u'llah. The joy would disappear and the darkness would threaten. I thought: 'no, I have survived this far, I am not about to start worrying again. I will ask Baha'u'llah respectfully for help, then leave it with him.' For I had learned that being happy and near Baha'u'llah was much more fun than worrying.

Two weeks later, a guy I worked for many years ago rang out of the blue and offered me lots of work.

The moral of the story is summed up in the following Word of Wisdom:

"The essence of wealth is love for Me; whoso loveth Me is the possessor of all things, and he that loveth Me not is indeed of the poor and needy." Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p156

If you need wealth, turn your heart to Baha'u'llah and focus on your love for him. Don't hassle him about money. He is the one that dishes out the stipends; that's easy for him. Higher on his agenda is for us to love him and be near him. And that means we love him for his own sake, not because he can do things for us.

It occurred to me that this conclusion is backed up by the Tablet of Ahmad. The whole tablet is about truly recognising God and how important that is. At the very end, Baha'u'llah says he'll sort out all our problems if we say the tablet sincerely. This suggests that getting our hearts in the right place is what matters. The rest is worthy of just a final comment.

On the phrase, "He is God"

I searched MARS to find commentary on the meaning of the phrase "He is God" and found a couple of passages from Abdu'l-Baha about it. Confirming the principle that the Word of God has multiple meanings, Abdu'l-Baha gives two different, but complementary meanings, neither of which I want to dwell on here, for another meaning is found in Baha'u'llah's Commentary on a Verse of Rumi, which I do want to discuss. But I will quickly cover Abdu'l-Baha's two meanings as well.
The first comment I found from Abdu'l-Baha appears in Promulgation of Universal Peace. He mentions it while explaining the opening verse from John ("In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God") and how this bears on the station of Christ and the fact that he is the Word. In response, Abdu'l-Baha explains that Christ embodied all the perfections of God, therefore it can be said that "He is God".

"'The Word was with God.' The Christhood means not the body of Jesus but the perfection of divine virtues manifest in Him. Therefore, it is written, "He is God." This does not imply separation from God, even as it is not possible to separate the rays of the sun from the sun. The reality of Christ was the embodiment of divine virtues and attributes of God. For in Divinity there is no duality. All adjectives, nouns and pronouns in that court of sanctity are one; there is neither multiplicity nor division. The intention of this explanation is to show that the Words of God have innumerable significances and mysteries of meanings - each one a thousand and more." (Promulgation of Universal Peace, p 155)

Given that "He is God" can mean "Christ is God", it is also the case that "He is God" means "Baha'u'llah is God".
The second comment from Abdu'l-Baha is from volume 3 of Tablets of Abdu'l-Baha. It is a short tablet written specifically to explain the meaning of the phrase. Abdu'l-Baha says it means that the Essence of God cannot be accessed by humans and that our access to God is through Baha'u'llah.

"Thou hast asked regarding the phrase, 'He is God!' written above the Tablets. By this Word it is intended that no one hath any access to the Invisible Essence. The way is barred and the road is impassable. In this world all men must turn their faces toward 'Him-whom God-shall-Manifest.' He is the 'Dawning-place of Divinity' and the 'Manifestation of Deity.' He is the 'Ultimate Goal,' the 'Adored One' of all and the 'Worshipped One' of all." (Tablets of Abdu'l-Baha Vol 3*, p 485)

The point seems to be that, because our access to the essence of God is cut off, we therefore access God through Baha'u'llah; in which case, we can say: "He [Baha'u'llah] is God".
The two definitions are therefore closely related: one says "Christ is God" and the other says "Baha'u'llah is God"; but in both, the basic idea is that the Essence of God is out of reach, therefore, we say that the manifestation is God. And it doesn't matter which manifestation we are talking about, they are all "God" from the point of view of their divine stations.
Baha'u'llah's discussion of the phrase "He is God" in his Commentary on a Verse of Rumi appears to give a new, but no doubt related, meaning. It comes out of a fascinating paragraph, which begins with the bald statement: "These days are the manifestation of the firm and incontrovertible phrase, 'No God is there but He.'" [para 2] For years, I understood Baha'u'llah to be referring to the new Day of God when he used the words "these days". And perhaps he does, but I'll pass over that issue for now because more evidence about it comes up later. The rest of the first sentence - "God is there but He" - seems straightforward, until Baha'u'llah expands on its implications in the next sentence. He goes on to explain the significance of the way the famous "No" phrase is worded. In particular, the fact that the word "no" is at the beginning of the phrase and precedes the word "God" means that the negative idea of "no" appears to dominate over the positive idea of God. As Baha'u'llah puts it: "The negative particle modifying the positive noun is prior to and has taken precedence over the essence of affirmation."
This placement of the word "no" at the beginning of the phrase has implications for reality, for the Word of God is the author of reality and the way that God has chosen to word things makes a difference to how events play out in the physical world. Baha'u'llah explains that the presence of the word "no" at the beginning of the phrase has resulted in the forces of darkness appearing to win out against the forces of light in this world. He says: "What you have witnessed, that to outward seeming the letters of negation have triumphed over the letters of affirmation, is because of the influence of this phrase", and states that the phrase was consciously worded in this fashion on account of a hidden wisdom of God: "the Revealer of [the phrase] has, owing to a hidden wisdom, caused the negative particle to come first in this universal phrase." He doesn't tell us what that wisdom is because it would cause the reader to fall dead. (That's what I like about Baha'u'llah, he knows really important stuff!)
I found Baha'u'llah's point reassuring: I wasn't going mad; the baddies do seem to win. (For those who haven't seen the movie "No Country for Old Men", it is about that issue. And there's that negative particle appearing at the beginning of a phrase again.) But Baha'u'llah's next point is reassuring. He explains that although events on earth do seem to play out in a way that's contrary to God's will, on an esoteric level - that is, on a higher spiritual plane - they are playing out exactly according to God's will.
Baha'u'llah says that the "form of the words" is like a container that holds truth, and the meanings intended by God are like pearls of knowledge that are deposited in them. The people can find those pearls of knowledge only when God lifts a veil and gives us access to them. Paragraph 3 is devoted to an illustration of this principle: the Muslim clergy wrote commentaries about the Qur'an but never understood it. But with the appearance of the Bab, God has lifted a veil and this has enabled children to know more than clergymen.
At the beginning of paragraph 4 comes the other striking point: that the All-Merciful says in this dispensation: "We have removed the negative particle from before the affirmation…" (God does not give the wisdom for doing this, but might send it later). So what have we got? It seems to me that if the negative particle is removed from the beginning of the "No" phrase, we are left with something like "God is there but He", which can be turned around to the positive statements "God is He" and "He is God".
Back to the first sentence of para 2: "These days are the manifestation of the firm and incontrovertible phrase, 'No God is there but He.'" I now think that by the words "these days", Baha'u'llah refers to the early days of his dispensation before events in the physical world have had a chance to manifest the change in the wording of the phrase. For it seems clear that, with the appearance of the Bab ("In this dispensation"), the negative particle has been removed and so the influence of the "no" on the word "God" has been removed.
This gives us a new explanation of the phrase "He is God". In this new dispensation, God has removed the negative particle "no" from before the positive noun "God" in the phrase "No God is there but He". Therefore, Baha'is say, "He is God".
The implications of this new wording on the world are beyond anyone but God. But it is inspiring to think about their possibilities, knowing that anything we can dream up will be a drop in the bucket of the reality. For, how could anyone in the 1980s have imagined the implications of the Internet a decade later? I often think about how Baha'u'llah told the believers that, in future, women will be able to travel all over the world unveiled and alone, without fear of molestation. That must have seemed extraordinary to them. (I can't remember where I read that; I hope I didn't dream it up.)
More on this topic next time, provided I can get my head around it.

Baha'u'llah's images

For years, I've been grappling with the concept of detachment and how to explain it. Baha'u'llah does define it in a few places; here's one such definition:

"The essence of detachment is for man to turn his face towards the courts of the Lord, to enter His Presence, behold His Countenance, and stand as witness before Him." (Words of Wisdom, Tablets p155)"

But these are just words until the meaning dawns in the heart, and that is the understanding I am trying to fathom. I saw another vista of it the other night, when I couldn't sleep and got up to pray.
I've found over the last, say, three years that the images Baha'u'llah creates in his writings have stayed with me and have begun to paint a metaphorical picture in my mind's eye of creation through Baha'u'llah's eyes. That creation is the mind-boggling vastness of this physical world and the infinite spiritual worlds. My overall sense of the universe that I occupy has expanded. For much of my life, my sense was of living in this physical world. My world was bounded by the physical features that surrounded me. But through the images that Baha'u'llah uses in his writings, and his persistent instruction to look at him and not the world, it's as if I've 'lifted' my eyes up and looked beyond and begun to see the infinite creation around me. The world I occupy now isn't bounded by its physical features, but by the vistas Baha'u'llah has implanted in my heart.
Here are some examples of those images. A couple of early ones to get a hold on me are from the first Persian Hidden Word. Baha'u'llah tells us to live on the mount of faithfulness and in the garden of the spirit, and points out that these are my "habitation". Gee, my habitation, I thought. You mean that's where he has decreed I should be living. I knew I wasn't living there. It sounded too good, and certainly better than where I was. He ends the Hidden Word with another key point "if on the wings of thy soul thou soarest to the realm of the infinite and seekest to attain thy goal." So I realised that if I was to grab hold of what Baha'u'llah held out to me in his chalice, I had better up sticks and move myself to the designated habitation.
More recently, I have been impressed by the frequent use Baha'u'llah makes of the image of the horizon. I just did a search in MARS and there are 244 uses of the word 'horizon'. Most commonly, the horizon is the Supreme Horizon, and the other references are to images of the same thing; for example, the horizon of God's will. But when I awoke to the many references to the horizon in the writings, I began looking at the horizon in my physical world and gradually came to see it as the Supreme Horizon - not literally, but metaphorically.
And now, you see, 'canopy'. I have horizon, now what about a canopy to join the horizons all around me up? There are canopies too - the canopy of majesty, the canopy of grace and the canopy of mercy.
So maybe you are getting the idea: my habitation is in the rose garden of the spirit, on the mount of faithfulness, surrounded by the Supreme Horizon and a sky of grace. You can fill out your picture as you please, because there is no shortage of images in the writings. I like "the Orb of Thy Power" (gives me a sun), "the Day-Spring of Glory" (gives me a water source) and "the Ocean of Thy Grace"(gives me a view to die for). (Blue prayer book, pp148-9)
When I realised that I was unconsciously creating a metaphorical world around me, I had a new way of understanding detachment. For the times when I cannot see this metaphorical universe are the times when I have become caught up worrying about the details of my life. I create little dramas in my heart and mind over life's difficulties. Then I become attached to the world, and forget that the only answer to any problem is God, not me. I forget the import of the images: the Orb of Thy Power - what does that tell me? That if I need anything in my life, then having that Orb in my universe is a really smart way to go!
This, then, gives you an idea of my spiritual journey and the place I'm headed on it. I'll finish with these wonderful images: "Therefore, cast away what is in your right hand, then follow God's paradise so that you might find an august station at the center of the Garden near the sea of immortality." (Countenance of Love) I really like the image of a vast garden stretching right down to the edge of a beach and on to the sea.

He is the Unconstrained

Yesterday, I was reminded about the issue of women on the House. I hadn't thought about it for years, so I pondered the issue briefly again to register what my heart would say. First, I noticed that the issue did not raise my hackles, as it used to. I found I couldn't bring myself to care, in that I have moved on and other things interest me more now. In part, this is because my Baha'i experience is located outside of the Baha'i community these days and is therefore not concerned with the community's administrative problems.

I also found myself saying: it's inevitable that women will be on the House one day. The reason for this is the following. I have just finished reading the book "Wolf Hall" by Hilary Mantel (which is brilliant, by the way; a must-read, in my view). It is set in the time of Henry VIII - the transition time between his first and second wives. I didn't realise how much change went on in England during that time. A key issue was church and state, played out as whether the king of England was subject to the Pope, for if he was, then the Pope's religious law trumped any civil law made by Parliament. It's a fascinating subject in itself, but my point here is that reading the book threw me back into the prevailing attitudes of the time. I saw how issues that are settled by society now, back then, were being debated with great passion. And people were dying for them; for example, whether the people could have access to the gospels in English. Back then, if you had an English translation of the gospel, you would be burned. (Interesting, eh, the parallels: today the Baha'i administration tries to control scripture, too).

This is a long-winded way of saying that, viewed in this light, it is inevitable that women will one day be on the House. The Baha'is debate the issue, bringing in all manner of detail about what Abdul'Baha said here and there and bringing up 'evidence' like women having periods, but all this is like "the droning of a gnat in an endless valley" (Summons, p10). What these attitudes reflect is not related to the issue of women on the House, but to the state of the souls of those that voice them. For example, we get a picture of the spiritual state of those who burned people for having English bibles.

The way I look at issues like women on the House these days is in terms of the names and attributes of God, for these are the building blocks of reality. They explain the reality of the principle that men and women are equal: they are equal because both have the capacity to reflect all the names and attributes of God. Given this, women are able to be manifestations and House members just as much as men can. This was always true, but God has chosen to reveal it in this revelation.

And one day, the potentiality of this equality in the realm of the names and attributes will be manifested on earth in the form of women on the House. This will come about when God wills it. Baha'u'llah says that people would not be able to see the sun if God did not will for them to be able to do so. God unlocks the hidden possibilities in human souls according to his inscrutable decree. I used to hear Baha'is say in a cavalier sort of way that the next manifestation will be a woman. But, oh boy, look at the furore the mere thought of a woman on the House is causing!

God is unconstrained - this is what's important for me, above all. I can accept that the religion of God is constrained at any one time by those who reflect its light at that moment - which is why there are no women on the House now. What I can't accept is that those constrained humans have the power to constrain the outcomes of the Faith for all time. They can't, and to believe they can is chaining up the hand of God.

Here's another unconstrained thought: that, when quizzed, Baha'is will one day say: "Ruhi, what's that?"

The atmosphere of thy knowledge

I'm aware that that's a grand title, and this reflects a conflict that goes on in me over what to write here about my spiritual journey and accounts for why I have, up to now, been conservative in what I have chosen to say. I have wonderful experiences and thoughts about Baha'u'llah, but know that the minute I try to put those things into words, they're liable to sound cheap compared to the experience.

But I've noticed that often Baha'u'llah says that when he writes about the majesty of God, his words are a blasphemy in that they are not and never can be even close to the reality he is trying to describe. However, I've also noticed him ask the Lord to inspire those who believe in him with a vision of the Lord's greatness so that they will feel compelled to gush out in words what they are experiencing, in the hope that the spirit in this effusion will attract others to Baha'u'llah. From all this, I'm starting to get a picture of how it works - well, a small picture that pertains to me and enables me to make sense of something that is a mystery. Even though any attempt I make to praise the Lord will inevitably fall short, nevertheless it is a bounty for me to do this so that others might be attracted by the spirit in what I say. This new understanding has given me fresh impetus to get writing, despite my inability to say anything about the Lord that is worthy.

As I said in my previous blog entry, I have been coping with the uncertainty that goes with packing up everything and moving to the opposite end of the country. This test has forced me to focus my attention on the meditations of the Bab and Baha'u'llah, in an effort to find an inner peace in the middle of my changeable circumstances. What did I find in the writings? First, I immersed myself in the Bab's meditations in the back of the Selections book. Repeatedly, he says that God is in control of everything and that nothing happens without the Lord's permission. I learned to repeat this line to myself: "Whatever God hath willed hath been, and that which He hath not willed shall not be." This gave me comfort. And then I'd repeat the line that comes after that: "There is no power nor strength except in God, the Most Exalted, the Most Mighty." (Selections from the writings of the Bab, p 191). Here is the same idea again, in different words:

"For assuredly whatsoever God hath decreed for Me shall come to pass and naught else save that which God hath ordained for us shall ever touch us." (Selections, p 15)

But of course, it's not that simple. What happened, and still happens, is that I would repeat these verses to myself in the morning during my prayer time, then get up to work on the house during the day and promptly forget what I had been repeating and fall back into my old mode of thinking. Then I'd wind up again about my situation and get into a panic state. Daily, I fought my stress and worries in this way. In the beginning, the effort felt hopeless. I would switch back into my old thinking patterns as soon as I put my prayer books down and got up to start my day. It was all about blind faith in God's promise to me then. I knew I was hopeless; all I had was perseverance. I just kept at it morning and evening, and sometimes not in the evening because I was too tired or wound up to read.

It's been several weeks and I've noticed some improvement. What I can see now, and couldn't before, is the existence of two spiritual worlds: the spiritual world in which I was living in my daily life, and the spiritual world that Baha'u'llah was calling me into. I've often wondered about the phenomenon of human culture, how people brought up in different cultures can be human and yet experience common things completely differently, having different stories with which to interpret what's happening to them. Now I see the differences between my old spiritual world and the one Baha'u'llah calls me to as being like two different cultures. Baha'u'llah says that everything in the physical world is a symbol of a spiritual reality. Now I see that my move from my old spiritual world to Baha'u'llah's spiritual world is a culture change. It means I have to re-examine everything I once held to be true and rethink the stories I tell myself in order to make sense of my world.

It was while I was meditating on this idea of a change in culture that I came across this verse, with the phrase "atmosphere of thy knowledge":

"I implore Thee, O my God and my Master, by Thy word through which they who have believed in Thy unity have soared up into the atmosphere of Thy knowledge..." (Baha'u'llah: Prayers and Meditations, p 188)

And I got to thinking about the concept of atmosphere - we have an atmosphere here on earth, which enables us to breathe, but there is a different atmosphere on the other planets, where we can't breathe. What is Baha'u'llah saying about his spiritual world, when he says it has a special atmosphere? All I know is that I need to be breathing the air from his world and stop breathing the air from mine.