Tuesday, 3 July 2018
Thursday, 5 October 2017
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:
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."
"... 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.
"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.
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.
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."
"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
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.
Tuesday, 16 May 2017
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).
Friday, 30 December 2016
New translation: Surah of Visitation for Mulla Husayn
In late December, I put up two new translations completed by Joshua Hall on the Windflower Translations website.
The first one is an important tablet that Baha'u'llah wrote for Mulla Husayn's sister, Varaqatu’l-Firdaws (Leaf of Paradise), to say at his grave site. It is called Surah of Visitation for Mulla Husayn. It is a very beautiful tablet and is highly recommended for anyone wanting to be carried away by Baha'u'llah's lyrical style and tone. The introduction to the tablet is found here. A previous translation has also been done by William McCants, which is found at the end of an article called The Wronged One. The article focuses on the style and structure of visitation tablets in general. This surah for Mulla Husayn is faithful to the traditional style of these tablets.
The second translation recently uploaded is called Tablet of Consolation. It is a two-page letter in which Baha'u'llah consoles a believer whose father died. The tablet is an interesting window into Baha'u'llah's attitude to death and grieving. He refers to his experience upon the death of his own father.
In addition to these two new translations on Windflower, Adib Masumian has also recently uploaded new translations to his website. One is a short tablet Baha'u'llah wrote comforting a believer and telling him that if he says the tablet with sincerity, he "shall behold in his dream that which he hath desired from the Presence of God". The other translation is about Ayyam-i-Ha and how its purpose is related to generosity. There are three more new translations, which you can see at the link. Adib tells me that he is focused on preparing further translations that believers can recite on holy days.
The first one is an important tablet that Baha'u'llah wrote for Mulla Husayn's sister, Varaqatu’l-Firdaws (Leaf of Paradise), to say at his grave site. It is called Surah of Visitation for Mulla Husayn. It is a very beautiful tablet and is highly recommended for anyone wanting to be carried away by Baha'u'llah's lyrical style and tone. The introduction to the tablet is found here. A previous translation has also been done by William McCants, which is found at the end of an article called The Wronged One. The article focuses on the style and structure of visitation tablets in general. This surah for Mulla Husayn is faithful to the traditional style of these tablets.
The second translation recently uploaded is called Tablet of Consolation. It is a two-page letter in which Baha'u'llah consoles a believer whose father died. The tablet is an interesting window into Baha'u'llah's attitude to death and grieving. He refers to his experience upon the death of his own father.
In addition to these two new translations on Windflower, Adib Masumian has also recently uploaded new translations to his website. One is a short tablet Baha'u'llah wrote comforting a believer and telling him that if he says the tablet with sincerity, he "shall behold in his dream that which he hath desired from the Presence of God". The other translation is about Ayyam-i-Ha and how its purpose is related to generosity. There are three more new translations, which you can see at the link. Adib tells me that he is focused on preparing further translations that believers can recite on holy days.
Friday, 30 September 2016
New translation: Tablet on the Right of the People
The new translation of Tablet on the Right of the People (Lawh-i haqq al-nas), and its accompanying introduction, are now available on the Windflower Translations Library.
The translation is dedicated to Paula Bidwell, who died suddenly on September 17. Paula was Lakota and deeply passionate about the protest against the Dakota Access Pipeline. In relation to that issue, Paula posted the message below on her Facebook page on the day before she died. It refers to issues that are raised by Baha'u'llah, in this tablet, about the worlds of God and how they are all interconnected. Baha'u'llah's discussion in this tablet leaves no doubt that any rights that have been unjustly taken from the Native people will be restored through the processes he describes. For this reason, I was really looking forward to sharing this translation with Paula. But now, she will see the big picture anyway.
Paula, may Baha'u'llah reveal to you the mysteries of his kingdom and fill your heart with his peace. I look forward to seeing you again somewhere in the realms of the Placeless. But for now, go on with you, sweetheart.
Tablet on the Right of the People (Lawh-i haqq al-nas) is an usual tablet in that it is entirely devoted to an examination of one philosophical issue. That issue is hinted at by the term ‘haqq al-nas’ (right of the people) in the name the tablet is commonly known by. This term has a wide meaning. In its plural form, ‘huquq al-nas’ (rights of the people), it can refer to the private rights of individuals under Islamic law.[1] In the tablet, Baha’u’llah discusses three situations that relate to a person’s private rights - two relating to theft and one involving a small debt. But, beyond the legal context, the term ‘right of the people’ also refers to the spiritual rights a person has as a result of their righteous deeds. In this context, the rights are founded in God’s promise to reward a person for their good deeds and punish those who do wrong. An example of this promise is found in the following verses of the Qur’an:
This principle is restated by Baha’u’llah. In “Words of Paradise”, for example, he tells us that, on the fifth leaf of the Most Exalted Paradise, the Pen has let it be known that:
This passage tells us that, at the beginning of the world, the embodiment of Wisdom announced from the pulpit of meaning the twin principles of reward for good deeds and punishment for bad deeds. As such, these two principles are at the foundation of world order. The wording of the passage, with its focus on an announcement made in pre-eternity, underscores the idea that the principles of reward and punishment are woven into the very functioning and purpose of reality.[4] They do not just occur at a social level in the physical world, where societies use justice systems to maintain law and order. Rather, they are satisfied through the processes of reality. Baha’u’llah’s philosophical examination of the issue of the right of the people describes the metaphysical processes involved and explains how, through them, compensation for a right is made good in the physical world and the spiritual worlds.
The context for the tablet is a question put to Baha’u’llah by a correspondent who wanted to know how a person’s rights, breached in the physical world, are redressed in the spiritual worlds. The question is framed in the following way, although not in these terms. What is the mechanism by which someone’s personal rights are repaid in the next world? How is this process to be understood and how does it occur in the Day of Resurrection, which is also known to be the Day of Judgement? The physical and social structures that underpin the creation and recognition of personal rights in the physical world do not exist in the spiritual worlds. And even if a person’s rights, as conceived of in the physical world, did exist in the next world, they would not be of any use to the right-holder in that world. Therefore, how can these rights be compensated for in the next world? The questioner understands that there must be some mechanism by which restitution takes place because, as is commonly believed, God sometimes waives a debt owed to Him but never allows a debt owed to a person to be set aside.
To answer this question, Baha’u’llah begins by setting out two metaphysical principles, which are closely connected. Commentaries on these two principles will no doubt run into volumes in centuries to come.
If Principles 1 and 2 are put together, they constitute a very important statement about the functioning of reality. Principle 1 tells us that every thing in the physical world, no matter what its name and description, and form and attributes, appears in different forms, with different attributes, in each of the worlds of God. Principle 2 tells us that every thing has a reality and essence that survives the ‘death’ - that is, a change or extinction - of its forms. This means that the manifested forms of a thing can go through a process of radical change, while the essential reality of the thing is unaffected. From these two Principles, we have the general principle that every thing is, at core, a reality and essence, and that this reality and essence manifests itself in different forms in all the worlds of God.
Probably, the primary example of this general principle is the Manifestation of God. The reality and essence of the Manifestation is the Primal Will, or Word, of God. The Primal Will manifests itself in infinite forms in all the worlds of God. We witness this phenomenon in the physical world through the principle of the unity of the Manifestations. In accordance with this principle, the Primal Will has appeared in the persons of, for example, Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha’u’llah. Each one of them came with different names and descriptions, and different forms and characteristics. But their reality and essence was the same, and this did not go out of existence when one of these Manifestations died a physical death.
Baha’u’llah continues his argument by applying Principles 1 and 2 to deeds.[6] Each human being has an essence and reality - that is, the soul - and our deeds are its attributes, which have various names, descriptions and forms in all the worlds of God. The physical body is also one of its attributes. When the body dies, our deeds continue to be manifested in all the worlds of God as attributes of the soul. As a result, a person is necessarily confronted with the manifestations of their own deeds, even if those manifestations do not appear in the same form as they did when the deed was committed. Justice is carried out in whatever way God determines, in any world of God, through this process of unfolding manifestations.
The second half of the tablet is given to Baha’u’llah providing analogies, in a variety of contexts, showing how a reality and essence, can have, simultaneously, different names and descriptions, and forms and attributes in multiple worlds. The primary analogy he uses to show how this phenomenon works is the dream, which he says is like the afterlife and said to be its “brother”. In a dream, a person has an experience in the world of vision. Subsequently, the person formulates a meaning of the dream by interpreting aspects of the vision experience in terms of corresponding experiences in the person’s life in the physical world. Baha’u’llah cites as an example Joseph’s dream from Qur'an 12:4, where it is recounted that Joseph dreamed that the sun and the moon and eleven stars prostrated before him. Later, this experience is revealed in the physical world when Joseph is seated on the throne of Egypt, and his father, Jacob, and eleven brothers prostrate before him. Baha’u’llah explains that this sequence of events, involving the dream event and its subsequent physical manifestation, is an example of the principle that things have different manifestations in the worlds of God. Here, the reality and essence of Jacob appears in the physical world as a man with a certain bodily form, but in the dream world as a sun. Similarly, the brothers appear in the physical world in their respective physical bodies, but in the dream world as stars. Therefore, the essential realities of Jacob and the brothers appear in the physical world in forms that are different to those in the dream world.
Baha’u’llah makes an important enigmatic statement about the relationship between the manifestations of the essential realities of things in the dream world and their manifestations in the physical world. First of all, he has the reader consider the nature of the dream world from the perspective of the physical world. “Now consider. What kind of world is that wherein his father and mother are seen as the sun and the moon, and his brothers appear in the form of stars?” But then he reverses the perspective and has the reader consider the nature of the physical world from the perspective of the dream world. “And what is this world wherein the reverse is seen: the sun and the moon in the form of his father and mother, and the stars in the form of his brothers?” In asking these opposing, but parallel, questions, I think Baha’u’llah is calling into question the view that the physical world is real and the dream world is unreal, consisting only of transitory, ephemeral images. In asking the second question, Baha’u’llah forces the reader to view things in the physical world as symbols, where the physical bodies of the father and brothers are just corresponding metaphorical representations of the sun and stars of the dream world. From this perspective, the physical things in this world, despite their concrete appearance, are just manifestations of the realities and essences of things. Further on in the tablet, Baha’u’llah encourages the reader to see all the worlds of God, including the physical world, as metaphorical.
Baha’u’llah gives two further analogies illustrating how an essence and reality of a thing can appear in a variety of forms and characteristics. But this time, instead of focusing on the differences in form in the innumerable worlds of God, Baha’u’llah focuses on the physical world alone and the way in which the manifestations of a thing change in form through time in this world. Baha’u’llah gives the scenario of a person stealing seeds from someone else in the season of spring. The thief plants the seeds and grows plants that bear fruit in summer. A just king then determines to restore to the victim what was taken. But how would he go about doing this? Would he return the seeds or give the victim the plants and their fruit? Baha’u’llah concedes that a person could argue that the seeds no longer exist, and if they did exist would no longer be of use, and that the plants and fruit are not the same thing as the seeds. But Baha’u’llah rejects this position and argues that the seeds do still exist; they have changed in form and become plants and fruit. Giving these to the victim constitutes fair compensation for the loss of the seeds and, arguably, a more valuable return as a result of the changes in form. The scenario highlights the fact that a victim’s right does not go out of existence even though events in the world lead to changes in the appearances of things. The reality and essence of the right is preserved and is restored to the right-holder in this world in another form.
In some cases, Baha’u’llah says, a victim is compensated in this world for a loss without that person being aware of it. The scenario he gives for this is where a person loses a great deal of wealth as a result of misfortune or wrongdoing. The compensation for such a loss is the lifting of the associated afflictions that come with possessing the wealth in the first place. If the wealth is stolen, these afflictions will settle on the thief. Baha’u’llah sees this outcome as a most efficient way to administer justice.
Baha’u’llah ends the tablet with a second analogy related to changes in the manifested forms of things in the physical world. In this scenario, a Christian owes another some wine or pork. Subsequently, the two parties become Muslims, which means that the wine and pork are no longer of value. Baha’u’llah argues that a judge hearing the case would have to order that the debt be repaid in the equivalent of goods lawful under Islam or in cash. The example illustrates the same point, this time showing how the debt changes in form from wine or pork to something lawful in Islam. But the right is not extinguished by the fact that the two parties change their religion. It persists through these changes in circumstances. The scenario seems to underscore the fact that a person’s rights are not annulled by a change in religious law due to the appearance of a new dispensation.
_______________________
[1] In this case, the term is the partner to the corresponding term, ‘huquq allah’ or ‘rights of God’, which refers to the rights that relate to the public interest. Anver M. Emon: “Huquq allah and Huquq al-’ibad: A Legal Heuristic for a Natural Rights Regime”, 13 Islamic Law and Society, 2006, p. 326.
[2] Pickthall translation
[3] Tablets of Baha’u’llah, http://www.bahai.org/r/219831559
[4] Baha’u’llah makes the same point in other places too, such as in the Tablet of Maqsud: “The Great Being saith: The structure of world stability and order hath been reared upon, and will continue to be sustained by, the twin pillars of reward and punishment.” Tablets of Baha’u’llah: http://www.bahai.org/r/260206487
[5] It is my assumption that the “reality” (ḥaqiqa) and “essence” (dhāt) of a thing refers to its ‘existence’ and ‘essence’, which correspond to the active force (al-fá`il) and its recipient (al-munfa`il). Baha’u’llah: Tablet of Wisdom (Lawh-i Hikmat), in Tablets of Baha'u'llah, http://www.bahai.org/r/893372526
[6] They also apply to words, as Baha’u’llah makes clear later on: “Were I to remove the veil from the manifestations of the deeds, act, and words that appear in limitless and manifold forms in the worlds of God…” The following hidden word suggests the principles also apply to thoughts: “O heedless ones! Think not the secrets of hearts are hidden, nay, know ye of a certainty that in clear characters they are engraved and are openly manifest in the holy Presence.” Persian Hidden Word 59
Note: Another translation and introduction of Tablet on the Right of the People can be found on the Baha'i Library Online.
The translation is dedicated to Paula Bidwell, who died suddenly on September 17. Paula was Lakota and deeply passionate about the protest against the Dakota Access Pipeline. In relation to that issue, Paula posted the message below on her Facebook page on the day before she died. It refers to issues that are raised by Baha'u'llah, in this tablet, about the worlds of God and how they are all interconnected. Baha'u'llah's discussion in this tablet leaves no doubt that any rights that have been unjustly taken from the Native people will be restored through the processes he describes. For this reason, I was really looking forward to sharing this translation with Paula. But now, she will see the big picture anyway.
"We do have a strategy and prayer is our way of gaining guidance for action and strategies. So far we've done really well. I have witnessed in my life some real oddities and sincerely believe there are powers existing in this world that have nothing to do with human inventions such as corporations, governments, laws, etc. All of these things are simply "man" made constructs. In my reality they appear to be illusion in the multiple worlds that are wrapped up within this one. For instance, if one has a dream of a future event and then years later the dream occurs exactly as dreamed, doesn't that make one wonder about the multiple worlds wrapped up within this one? Isn't it possible that in the dream world one traveled to another world which exists in another time frame? Time is also a construct of "man". So, what is reality? Prayer might be the best way to guide us toward the most powerful actions. Although, for sure prayer alone is not going to do what is necessary. So, we will see... these things are all simply different ways toward truth. I am never sure in this world which is the best way. So, again let's see how this all turns out. And for me, I have to struggle not to get sooo angry that I simply let go of my traditional ways and turn to material ways. So, I am doing my best while wanting to chain myself to one of those damned machines and then praying my heart out that the powers that be will not eat me for lunch... but then they may get indigestion and gas from that - grin!" September 16 https://www.facebook.com/paulabidwell?
Paula, may Baha'u'llah reveal to you the mysteries of his kingdom and fill your heart with his peace. I look forward to seeing you again somewhere in the realms of the Placeless. But for now, go on with you, sweetheart.
******************
Introduction to Tablet on the Right of the People
by Alison Marshall
Tablet on the Right of the People (Lawh-i haqq al-nas) is an usual tablet in that it is entirely devoted to an examination of one philosophical issue. That issue is hinted at by the term ‘haqq al-nas’ (right of the people) in the name the tablet is commonly known by. This term has a wide meaning. In its plural form, ‘huquq al-nas’ (rights of the people), it can refer to the private rights of individuals under Islamic law.[1] In the tablet, Baha’u’llah discusses three situations that relate to a person’s private rights - two relating to theft and one involving a small debt. But, beyond the legal context, the term ‘right of the people’ also refers to the spiritual rights a person has as a result of their righteous deeds. In this context, the rights are founded in God’s promise to reward a person for their good deeds and punish those who do wrong. An example of this promise is found in the following verses of the Qur’an:
“As for those who disbelieve I shall chastise them with a heavy chastisement in the world and the hereafter; and they will have no helpers. And as for those who believe and do good works, He will pay them their wages in full. Allah loveth not wrongdoers.” (3:56-57) [2]
This principle is restated by Baha’u’llah. In “Words of Paradise”, for example, he tells us that, on the fifth leaf of the Most Exalted Paradise, the Pen has let it be known that:
“at the beginning of the foundation of the world [Wisdom] ascended the stair of inner meaning and when enthroned upon the pulpit of utterance ... proclaimed two words. The first heralded the promise of reward, while the second voiced the ominous warning of punishment. … Thus the basis of world order hath been firmly established upon these twin principles.”[3]
This passage tells us that, at the beginning of the world, the embodiment of Wisdom announced from the pulpit of meaning the twin principles of reward for good deeds and punishment for bad deeds. As such, these two principles are at the foundation of world order. The wording of the passage, with its focus on an announcement made in pre-eternity, underscores the idea that the principles of reward and punishment are woven into the very functioning and purpose of reality.[4] They do not just occur at a social level in the physical world, where societies use justice systems to maintain law and order. Rather, they are satisfied through the processes of reality. Baha’u’llah’s philosophical examination of the issue of the right of the people describes the metaphysical processes involved and explains how, through them, compensation for a right is made good in the physical world and the spiritual worlds.
The context for the tablet is a question put to Baha’u’llah by a correspondent who wanted to know how a person’s rights, breached in the physical world, are redressed in the spiritual worlds. The question is framed in the following way, although not in these terms. What is the mechanism by which someone’s personal rights are repaid in the next world? How is this process to be understood and how does it occur in the Day of Resurrection, which is also known to be the Day of Judgement? The physical and social structures that underpin the creation and recognition of personal rights in the physical world do not exist in the spiritual worlds. And even if a person’s rights, as conceived of in the physical world, did exist in the next world, they would not be of any use to the right-holder in that world. Therefore, how can these rights be compensated for in the next world? The questioner understands that there must be some mechanism by which restitution takes place because, as is commonly believed, God sometimes waives a debt owed to Him but never allows a debt owed to a person to be set aside.
To answer this question, Baha’u’llah begins by setting out two metaphysical principles, which are closely connected. Commentaries on these two principles will no doubt run into volumes in centuries to come.
- Principle 1: Everything in the physical world - no matter what its name and description, and its form and attributes - appears in every one of the worlds of God in a manner that is appropriate to that world. And it appears in that other world with another name and description, and another form and other attributes.
- Principle 2: If a thing dies in this physical world, this death applies only to the body or form of the thing. The reality (ḥaqiqa) and essence (dhāt) of the thing has not gone out of existence. This quintessential aspect of the thing continues to exist and to appear in the worlds of God in accordance with Principle 1.[5]
If Principles 1 and 2 are put together, they constitute a very important statement about the functioning of reality. Principle 1 tells us that every thing in the physical world, no matter what its name and description, and form and attributes, appears in different forms, with different attributes, in each of the worlds of God. Principle 2 tells us that every thing has a reality and essence that survives the ‘death’ - that is, a change or extinction - of its forms. This means that the manifested forms of a thing can go through a process of radical change, while the essential reality of the thing is unaffected. From these two Principles, we have the general principle that every thing is, at core, a reality and essence, and that this reality and essence manifests itself in different forms in all the worlds of God.
Probably, the primary example of this general principle is the Manifestation of God. The reality and essence of the Manifestation is the Primal Will, or Word, of God. The Primal Will manifests itself in infinite forms in all the worlds of God. We witness this phenomenon in the physical world through the principle of the unity of the Manifestations. In accordance with this principle, the Primal Will has appeared in the persons of, for example, Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha’u’llah. Each one of them came with different names and descriptions, and different forms and characteristics. But their reality and essence was the same, and this did not go out of existence when one of these Manifestations died a physical death.
Baha’u’llah continues his argument by applying Principles 1 and 2 to deeds.[6] Each human being has an essence and reality - that is, the soul - and our deeds are its attributes, which have various names, descriptions and forms in all the worlds of God. The physical body is also one of its attributes. When the body dies, our deeds continue to be manifested in all the worlds of God as attributes of the soul. As a result, a person is necessarily confronted with the manifestations of their own deeds, even if those manifestations do not appear in the same form as they did when the deed was committed. Justice is carried out in whatever way God determines, in any world of God, through this process of unfolding manifestations.
“It is evident, then, that deeds will be preserved and every [acquired] attribute will continue to exist, so that through the attribute or deed itself requital can be given. Every [acquired] attribute a person possesses and every deed he commits, therefore, will reveal itself and take on a particular form in each world ‘so that He may requite each soul for what it has done.’”
The second half of the tablet is given to Baha’u’llah providing analogies, in a variety of contexts, showing how a reality and essence, can have, simultaneously, different names and descriptions, and forms and attributes in multiple worlds. The primary analogy he uses to show how this phenomenon works is the dream, which he says is like the afterlife and said to be its “brother”. In a dream, a person has an experience in the world of vision. Subsequently, the person formulates a meaning of the dream by interpreting aspects of the vision experience in terms of corresponding experiences in the person’s life in the physical world. Baha’u’llah cites as an example Joseph’s dream from Qur'an 12:4, where it is recounted that Joseph dreamed that the sun and the moon and eleven stars prostrated before him. Later, this experience is revealed in the physical world when Joseph is seated on the throne of Egypt, and his father, Jacob, and eleven brothers prostrate before him. Baha’u’llah explains that this sequence of events, involving the dream event and its subsequent physical manifestation, is an example of the principle that things have different manifestations in the worlds of God. Here, the reality and essence of Jacob appears in the physical world as a man with a certain bodily form, but in the dream world as a sun. Similarly, the brothers appear in the physical world in their respective physical bodies, but in the dream world as stars. Therefore, the essential realities of Jacob and the brothers appear in the physical world in forms that are different to those in the dream world.
Baha’u’llah makes an important enigmatic statement about the relationship between the manifestations of the essential realities of things in the dream world and their manifestations in the physical world. First of all, he has the reader consider the nature of the dream world from the perspective of the physical world. “Now consider. What kind of world is that wherein his father and mother are seen as the sun and the moon, and his brothers appear in the form of stars?” But then he reverses the perspective and has the reader consider the nature of the physical world from the perspective of the dream world. “And what is this world wherein the reverse is seen: the sun and the moon in the form of his father and mother, and the stars in the form of his brothers?” In asking these opposing, but parallel, questions, I think Baha’u’llah is calling into question the view that the physical world is real and the dream world is unreal, consisting only of transitory, ephemeral images. In asking the second question, Baha’u’llah forces the reader to view things in the physical world as symbols, where the physical bodies of the father and brothers are just corresponding metaphorical representations of the sun and stars of the dream world. From this perspective, the physical things in this world, despite their concrete appearance, are just manifestations of the realities and essences of things. Further on in the tablet, Baha’u’llah encourages the reader to see all the worlds of God, including the physical world, as metaphorical.
“God willing, to the extent you are cognizant of the divine worlds, you will recognize and understand the metaphorical nature of this world, and will be able to extend it to the limitless worlds.”
Baha’u’llah gives two further analogies illustrating how an essence and reality of a thing can appear in a variety of forms and characteristics. But this time, instead of focusing on the differences in form in the innumerable worlds of God, Baha’u’llah focuses on the physical world alone and the way in which the manifestations of a thing change in form through time in this world. Baha’u’llah gives the scenario of a person stealing seeds from someone else in the season of spring. The thief plants the seeds and grows plants that bear fruit in summer. A just king then determines to restore to the victim what was taken. But how would he go about doing this? Would he return the seeds or give the victim the plants and their fruit? Baha’u’llah concedes that a person could argue that the seeds no longer exist, and if they did exist would no longer be of use, and that the plants and fruit are not the same thing as the seeds. But Baha’u’llah rejects this position and argues that the seeds do still exist; they have changed in form and become plants and fruit. Giving these to the victim constitutes fair compensation for the loss of the seeds and, arguably, a more valuable return as a result of the changes in form. The scenario highlights the fact that a victim’s right does not go out of existence even though events in the world lead to changes in the appearances of things. The reality and essence of the right is preserved and is restored to the right-holder in this world in another form.
In some cases, Baha’u’llah says, a victim is compensated in this world for a loss without that person being aware of it. The scenario he gives for this is where a person loses a great deal of wealth as a result of misfortune or wrongdoing. The compensation for such a loss is the lifting of the associated afflictions that come with possessing the wealth in the first place. If the wealth is stolen, these afflictions will settle on the thief. Baha’u’llah sees this outcome as a most efficient way to administer justice.
Baha’u’llah ends the tablet with a second analogy related to changes in the manifested forms of things in the physical world. In this scenario, a Christian owes another some wine or pork. Subsequently, the two parties become Muslims, which means that the wine and pork are no longer of value. Baha’u’llah argues that a judge hearing the case would have to order that the debt be repaid in the equivalent of goods lawful under Islam or in cash. The example illustrates the same point, this time showing how the debt changes in form from wine or pork to something lawful in Islam. But the right is not extinguished by the fact that the two parties change their religion. It persists through these changes in circumstances. The scenario seems to underscore the fact that a person’s rights are not annulled by a change in religious law due to the appearance of a new dispensation.
_______________________
[1] In this case, the term is the partner to the corresponding term, ‘huquq allah’ or ‘rights of God’, which refers to the rights that relate to the public interest. Anver M. Emon: “Huquq allah and Huquq al-’ibad: A Legal Heuristic for a Natural Rights Regime”, 13 Islamic Law and Society, 2006, p. 326.
[2] Pickthall translation
[3] Tablets of Baha’u’llah, http://www.bahai.org/r/219831559
[4] Baha’u’llah makes the same point in other places too, such as in the Tablet of Maqsud: “The Great Being saith: The structure of world stability and order hath been reared upon, and will continue to be sustained by, the twin pillars of reward and punishment.” Tablets of Baha’u’llah: http://www.bahai.org/r/260206487
[5] It is my assumption that the “reality” (ḥaqiqa) and “essence” (dhāt) of a thing refers to its ‘existence’ and ‘essence’, which correspond to the active force (al-fá`il) and its recipient (al-munfa`il). Baha’u’llah: Tablet of Wisdom (Lawh-i Hikmat), in Tablets of Baha'u'llah, http://www.bahai.org/r/893372526
[6] They also apply to words, as Baha’u’llah makes clear later on: “Were I to remove the veil from the manifestations of the deeds, act, and words that appear in limitless and manifold forms in the worlds of God…” The following hidden word suggests the principles also apply to thoughts: “O heedless ones! Think not the secrets of hearts are hidden, nay, know ye of a certainty that in clear characters they are engraved and are openly manifest in the holy Presence.” Persian Hidden Word 59
Note: Another translation and introduction of Tablet on the Right of the People can be found on the Baha'i Library Online.
Wednesday, 31 August 2016
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:
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.
- the one in the Siyah Chal
- the one in the Garden of Ridvan
- the one consisting of the messages to the leaders of the world.
The themes are:
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.
- the principle of freedom of conscience
- the rejection of the principle of violence in terms of religious belief and violence in general
- the rejection of the culture of patriarchy
- the rejection of miracles and the emergence of rationality
- the agreement of reason and faith
- the principle 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
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.
1:29:32 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.
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.
Monday, 1 August 2016
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 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."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)