Questions for the Next Manifestation
Charles
I would ask about our evolution as a species, and more about the
Creation of the universe.
How are we different from all the other creatures on this planet?
Does God really need us? and why? (I do think there is a lot about
these subjects in the Writings, but, I am greedy and want easy
answers.)
Regards
Charles
Suzanne
Hi Charles,
Baha'u'llah said:
"In the treasuries of the knowledge of God there lieth concealed a
knowledge which, when applied, will largely, though not wholly,
eliminate fear. This knowledge, however, should be taught from
childhood, as it will greatly aid in its elimination."
(Baha'u'llah, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, p. 32)
When asked about this knowledge which would eliminate fear, Shoghi
Effendi said that this knowledge hasn't been disclosed. I have my
suspicions about what it is, but I would like to know for sure. So I
would want to ask the next Manifestation of God about this.
About your questions, if there are answers to some of them are in the
Writings, and you're greedy for easy answers, why not ask other
Baha'is on SRB to help find quotes about them?
Suzanne
compx2
and
His religion, yet so common among Baha'is, that I find it difficult to
call
myself a Baha'i.
Evolution is a scientific concept, like so many others that are
refined,
re-defined, revised and renewed according to our universal models over
time.
In contrast, to gird up the loins of endeavor, to strive, to labor, to
evince every effort to better our surroundings and that of our
neigbors, is
a virtuous, spiritual endeavor likely, over time, to aid ourselves and
others. Such endeavor is timeless, spiritual, religious.
God has no need of us to better ourselves. But He is the epitome of
the
Spirit of Betterment Itself. So such endeavor calls Him to mind,
invokes
Him, demonstrates His Power, His Virtue. When we so endeavor we do so
for
Him, so to speak, though it does not aid Him as it aids us.
So the lazy, easy answer to your question is that you need to find the
answers for yourself and the rest of humanity in God's Name. In that
way
God manifests on earth.
How much more helpful is it that people should strive to virtue and
goodness
than that they should have more satisfying answers to philosophical
questions? Which end do you think involves God?
--Kent
mike3
> On Aug 2, 3:23 am, Charles <charles.uzz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Just for fun, what questions would you ask the Next Manifestation?
>
> > I would ask about our evolution as a species, and more about the
> > Creation of the universe.
>
> > How are we different from all the other creatures on this planet?
> > Does God really need us? and why? (I do think there is a lot abou
t
> > these subjects in the Writings, but, I am greedy and want easy
> > answers.)
>
> > Regards
> > Charles
>
> Hi Charles,
>
> Baha'u'llah said:
>
> "In the treasuries of the knowledge of God there lieth concealed a
> knowledge which, when applied, will largely, though not wholly,
> eliminate fear. This knowledge, however, should be taught from
> childhood, as it will greatly aid in its elimination."
> (Baha'u'llah, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, p. 32)
>
> When asked about this knowledge which would eliminate fear, Shoghi
> Effendi said that this knowledge hasn't been disclosed. I have my
> suspicions about what it is, but I would like to know for sure. So I
> would want to ask the next Manifestation of God about this.
>
So does this mean that we will be full of fear then for the next 800+
years (next messenger isn't supposed to come for at least 1000 years
since the last one and that was in the 1800s and this is 2009 now so
that makes 850 or so years at minimum from now)? Would this mean
we can't have peace or any of that before then?
Charles
I work with one-year-old children... every day... for the last 20
years (I am a Montessori teacher). And yes, I would love to know what
that lil' piece of knowledge is! <smile> I suspect it has something
to do with knowledge of the existence of an afterlife, but doggoneit,
I can't figure out how to put it into lil' brains. I think that a lot
has already "happened" by one year of age... certainly by two and a
half, we are quite developed as humans. At about 10 months old, some
children develop a very intense fear that we know as "stranger
anxiety." Briefly, my response-point is that whatever it is probably
occurs in the age range (zero to three) I work with & that is a time
when language is poorly developed. Yours is an excellent question.
I would want to know more about the "ancient Manifestations" and how
they changed mankind and go on back in time to that point at which we
no longer were merely apes, though we may have resembled them. ie, If
Adam is the first Manifestation, was that the moment at which we
became "human?" Or was there another cycle before the Adamic Cycle?
Did Adam appear concurrently with the beginning of our species at
about 200,000 years ago? Did homo erectus, that thrived about 1.8
million years ago, have a rational soul? etc. etc.
"They find that his anatomy has undergone successive changes, finally
assuming human form, and that these intermediate forms or changes are
like links connected. Between man and the ape, however, there is one
link missing, and to the present time scientists have not been able to
discover it." (`Abdu'l-Baha: Promulgation of Universal Peace, Page:
358)
Why were "we" chosen for the human spirit, and not, say, the dolphin
or octopus? Do all creatures throughout the universe that "contain"
the human spirit look more or less like us physically? (By the way,
in my opinion, yes, aliens would look a lot like we do.)
--c
Suzanne
> When asked about this knowledge which would eliminate fear, Shoghi
> Effendi said that this knowledge hasn't been disclosed. I have my
> suspicions about what it is, but I would like to know for sure. So I
> would want to ask the next Manifestation of God about this.
Mike wrote:
So does this mean that we will be full of fear then for the next 800+
years (next messenger isn't supposed to come for at least 1000 years
since the last one and that was in the 1800s and this is 2009 now so
that makes 850 or so years at minimum from now)? Would this mean
we can't have peace or any of that before then?
Hi Mike,
No, I think it means that fear may not be eliminated in the next 800+
years, but not that we will all be full of fear for that long.
Personally, I think that Charles was right that the knowledge that
will eliminate fear has to do with the next world. I imagine that we
will pretty much everyone will ultimately have a happy afterlife.
This knowledge may not be timely right now because some people do
still need to have fear of a negative afterlife to motivate them to do
good, but when we get to the point that we don't need this anymore,
then I think we can be told this.
But, in the meantime, does this passage seem to be conditional?
O SON OF THE SUPREME! I have made death a messenger of joy to thee.
Wherefore dost thou grieve? I made the light to shed on thee its
splendor. Why dost thou veil thyself therefrom?
(Baha'u'llah: Arabic Hidden Words, Page: 32)
Best wishes,
Suzanne
mike
The learned men, that have fixed at several thousand years the life
of this earth, have failed, throughout the long period of their
observation, to consider either the number or the age of the other
planets. Consider, moreover, the manifold divergencies that have
resulted from the theories propounded by these men. Know thou that
every fixed star hath its own planets, and every planet its own
creatures, whose number no man can compute.
(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 162)
All praise to the unity of God, and all honor to Him, the sovereign
Lord, the incomparable and all-glorious Ruler of the universe, Who,
out of utter nothingness, hath created the reality of all things,
Who, from naught, hath brought into being the most refined and subtle
elements of His creation, and Who, rescuing His creatures from the
abasement of remoteness and the perils of ultimate extinction, hath
received them into His kingdom of incorruptible glory. Nothing short
of His all-encompassing grace, His all-pervading mercy, could have
possibly achieved it. How could it, otherwise, have been possible for
sheer nothingness to have acquired by itself the worthiness and
capacity to emerge from its state of non-existence into the realm of
being?
(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 64)
You don't need to wait for an answer. Baha'u'llah alludes to the fact
that the universe was created from nothing. It could be my
interpretation is wrong, so you should read it for yourself. But I'd
imagine at some point in time there may have been nothing (whatever
that is?).
Baha'u'llah has also alluded to the fact that the earth is ancient in
several locations beyond those cited, well beyond the 6-10,000 year
limit placed on it by some of the 'scholars' of his time. He never
gives a specific age (to my knowledge) but does seem to indicate that
it is grossly beyond the conventional 6000 year time frame given by
his peers.
Consider how all other phenomenal existence and beings are captives of
nature. The sun, that colossal center of our solar system, the giant
stars and planets, the towering mountains, the earth itself and its
kingdoms of life lower than the human, -- all are captives of nature
except man.
(Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 235)
Alot could be said about animals and man. We know they share many of
our emotions like love, hate...etc. But the most telling difference is
we are not captives to nature. You'll find ants that farm, and herd
other insects or worms, and that they can have complex social
structures and some animals have basic languages, even a limited tool
making ability. But the key is their ultimate captivity to nature.
I'd like to also interject my own thought that free will to a
certain extent is lacking in animals. A dog's sense of fairness,
loyalty and in large part its' freedom to operate is explainable by
conventional psychology and genetics. But people still defy those more
conventional explanations. You can breed a dog to exhibit noble
qualities and it will do so because it must. But a human is more
complex.
In regards to your evolution question I've come to really like the
seed analogy. You can find the DNA code that codes for the leaf in a
seed for a tree. When a tree grows, every step of the way, that part
of the tree was destined to be a leaf. While it may have shared forms
and DNA with other parts of the tree along the way, that specific code
for the leaf was always going to be a leaf. If you correctly
transplant that code into another tree, you'll get that leaf. I'd
imagine that evolution for man is much the same. We may have shared
forms and even intelligence with many other species out there, but we
were always man, right back to the code.
Since the inception of religion evolution for man has moved from
being the preservation of our genetic code to the preservation of our
conscious state. You can easily see how evolution for animals seems to
always center on fitness and viability, but with man, our goal isn't
to preserve our genetic code so much as it is to preserve who we
are.
Charles
> Questions like these, Charles, are so foreign to my conception of God
> and
> His religion, yet so common among Baha'is, that I find it difficult to
> call
> myself a Baha'i.
I debated whether or not to "bite" on this part of your post, but
decided that I was the one that started it. I question everything,
always, and constantly, often to my own embarrassment. For example,
this little bit (which has been published here in the past):
I asked... most sheepishly and embarrassed I was, too... Mr. Furutan
why Shoghi Effendi did not have any children. He looked at me very
carefully and intensely for a moment, then said,
"I was secretary of the NSA for 24 years and I know personally several
people that went to the Guardian and said 'Beloved Guardian, I can't
have children.' and the Guardian would pray for them and...." [Mr.
Furutan lifted his hands in a gentle fashion and smiled sweetly] "They
became fathers. Now I know that the Guardian was capable of doing for
himself what he was able to do for others. This means that it was not
wise for the him to have children."
So, my most burning question WAS answered while I was on pilgrimage.
It wasn't the answer that I expected, but it satisfies me completely.
I still can't beleive that I had the nerve to ask Mr. Furutan! What
was I thinking! Gad! What a birdbrain.... I was drinking tea later,
and recovering from my red face, when I told another pilgrim about
this question. This other pilgrim said he had been at a conference
when Ruhiyyih Khanum spoke, and somebody asked from the audience why
they didn't have children, and she answered humorously, "I can assure
you it was not for lack of trying!"
Shoghi Effendi, who died of Asiatic Flu on Nov 4, 1957 in London,
married Mary Maxwell in 1937. She was surnamed 'Amatu'l-Baha Ruhiyyih
Khanum, and passed away herself in 2000.
'Ali Akbar Furutan who was born in 1905 in Sabrizra, Khurusan,
Persia.
So, I appreciate that you don't like for Baha'is to ask stupid
questions, but, that is in some strange way how we eventually grow up
and become capable of helping others in a spiritual way. I prefaced
the whole deal with "this is just for fun."
>
> Evolution is a scientific concept,
Evolution is also a religious concept, in that we are here to evolve
into a united planet?
like so many others that are
> refined,
> re-defined, revised and renewed according to our universal models over
> time.
Some matters of science are also "facts" and are not likely to be
radically altered with time. Of course, some things do come along and
re-arrange the state of things. For example, the plate tectonics that
came along in the 60's changed everything about geology and a variety
of other disciplines that depend on that science.
> In contrast, to gird up the loins of endeavor, to strive, to labor, to
> evince every effort to better our surroundings and that of our
> neigbors, is
> a virtuous, spiritual endeavor likely, over time, to aid ourselves and
> others. Such endeavor is timeless, spiritual, religious.
>
> God has no need of us to better ourselves. But He is the epitome of
> the
> Spirit of Betterment Itself. So such endeavor calls Him to mind,
> invokes
> Him, demonstrates His Power, His Virtue. When we so endeavor we do so
> for
> Him, so to speak, though it does not aid Him as it aids us.
>
> So the lazy, easy answer to your question is that you need to find the
> answers for yourself and the rest of humanity in God's Name. In that
> way
> God manifests on earth.
>
> How much more helpful is it that people should strive to virtue and
> goodness
> than that they should have more satisfying answers to philosophical
> questions?
Perhaps it depends on which "Valley" I am currently operating out of?
I do not disagree with your post.
Regards
c
>Which end do you think involves God?
>
> --Kent
>
> On Aug 1, 10:23 pm, Charles <charles.uzz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Just for fun, what questions would you ask the Next Manifestation?
>
> > I would ask about our evolution as a species, and more about the
> > Creation of the universe.
>
> > How are we different from all the other creatures on this planet?
> > Does God really need us? and why? (I do think there is a lot abou
t
> > these subjects in the Writings, but, I am greedy and want easy
> > answers.)
>
> > Regards
> > Charles- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Suzanne
> > Questions like these, Charles, are so foreign to my conception of God
> > and
> > His religion, yet so common among Baha'is, that I find it difficult to
> > call
> > myself a Baha'i.
Charles wrote:
> I debated whether or not to "bite" on this part of your post, but
> decided that I was the one that started it. I question everything,
> always, and constantly, often to my own embarrassment.
Hi Charles,
Wonderful. That's independent investigation of the truth, and you are
actually trying to understand things from the point of view of the
Manifestation of God and the Expounder of His Word. That's even
better. I'm very happy to look at these questions with you. As I'm
sure you know, in Baha'i consultation 'Abdu'l-Baha said that "it is in
no wise permissible to belittle the thought of another" or to "insist
on one's own view." I really believe this forum would be much more
interesting and welcoming if we would follow 'Abdu'l-Baha's advice.
Charles cited Mr. Furutan:
..Now I know that the Guardian was capable of doing for
> himself what he was able to do for others. This means that it was not
> wise for the him to have children."
Yes. If it had been the will of God that Shoghi Effendi would have a
son who would become the second Guardian of the Faith, he would have
had a son who would have had a stainless character and would be
devoted to God and to the Faith. This, obviously, wasn't the will of
God. In this age of unity and oneness, there isn't any one single
individual who is in a higher station than anyone else. The members
of the Universal House of Justice have no personal power. There is
no Holy Family. We are all one and equal. It seems to me that this
was the reason.
Charles wrote:
> So, my most burning question WAS answered while I was on pilgrimage.
> It wasn't the answer that I expected, but it satisfies me completely.
> I still can't beleive that I had the nerve to ask Mr. Furutan! What
> was I thinking! Gad! What a birdbrain....
You were just trying to understand something that troubled your mind.
I'm sure Mr. Furutan didn't take offense. Many of our Writings were
written in the response to people's questions. And this forum would
be much more intersting if there were someone around asking
interesting questions and offering the potential for exploration of
our Writings.
> So, I appreciate that you don't like for Baha'is to ask stupid
> questions
You haven't asked any stupid questions. And since the Writings talk
about all the things you would ask a future Manifestation of God, then
obviously they are perfectly reasonable questions for a Baha'i to ask
or wonder about.
> Evolution is also a religious concept, in that we are here to evolve
> into a united planet?
Exactly. According to 'ABdu'l-Baha, man has evolved in the "matrix" of
this world just as a fetus evolves in the womb of its mother.
However, just as in the case of the fetus who has a soul attached with
it from the moment of conception, mankind has always had a soul. That
is something that has made us different right from the beginning. So
although we may have looked like other creatures at different times,
we were always human beings in development. Also religion has been
evolving. From age to age God has sent Manifestations to renew the
essentials of His faith and to teach us new things as we develop. So
evolution is very much a religious concept as it is taught in our
Faith. What is progressive Revelation if not religious evolution?
I wrote an answer to your first posting which I haven't seen here
yet. If this is a repeat, please forgive me. But Baha'u'llah
actually does talk about Manifestations of God before Adam:
"And now regarding thy question, "How is it that no records are to be
found concerning the Prophets that have preceded Adam, the Father of
Mankind, or of the kings that lived in the days of those Prophets?"
Know thou that the absence of any reference to them is no proof that
they did not actually exist. That no records concerning them are now
available, should be attributed to their extreme remoteness, as well
as to the vast changes which the earth hath undergone since their
time..."
(Baha'u'llah: Gleanings, Pages: 172-174)
Best wishes,
Suzanne
Suzanne
> Alot could be said about animals and man. We know they share many of
> our emotions like love, hate...etc. But the most telling difference is
> we are not captives to nature. You'll find ants that farm, and herd
> other insects or worms, and that they can have complex social
> structures and some animals have basic languages, even a limited tool
> making ability. But the key is their ultimate captivity to nature.
Hi Mike,
I now understand why we need designations like Mike3. I'll try to
make the distinction in future postings.
I agree with what pretty much everything you wrote in this posting,
but I would like to add that human beings have immortal souls which
come into existence at the moment of conception. There are vegetable,
animal and even mineral spirits, but, as far as I can make out, the
soul is unique to human beings. And it is the capacities of the soul
which enable us to transcend the laws of nature and give us the
capacity to know and love God, and the free will to follow His
commandments or not.
Best wishes,
Suzanne
Suzanne
> I would ask about our evolution as a species, and more about the
> Creation of the universe.
When I think about the creation of the Universe from the standpoint of
the Writings, this passage comes to mind:
"As regards thine assertions about the beginning of creation, this
is a matter on which conceptions vary by reason of the divergences in
men's thoughts and opinions. Wert thou to assert that it hath ever
existed and shall continue to exist, it would be true; or wert thou to
affirm the same concept as is mentioned in the sacred Scriptures, no
doubt would there be about it, for it hath been revealed by God, the
Lord of the worlds...
That which hath been in existence had existed before, but not in
the form thou seest today. The world of existence came into being
through the heat generated from the interaction between the active
force and that which is its recipient. These two are the same, yet
they are different. Thus doth the Great Announcement inform thee about
this glorious structure. Such as communicate the generating influence
and such as receive its impact are indeed created through the
irresistible Word of God which is the Cause of the entire creation,
while all else besides His Word are but the creatures and the effects
thereof."
(Baha'u'llah: Tablets of Baha'u'llah, Page: 140)
The points I notice in the above is that it isn't a purely
materialistic scientific view of the creation of the Universe, but it
is about God and the creation of the Universe. Of course this is a
Manifestation of God speaking, and that would be the thing He would
stress, and, of course, that would be one thing which is different
from pure science. However, it's not nearly as allegorical as the
story of creation in Genesis, for instance. It's quite subtle and
nuanced. I also like what He says about whatever exists now has
existed previously but in another form. Even if the big bang theory
was true, where did all the matter come from? Wouldn't it have had to
have been around in another form? Does anything come from nothing?
And the only difference I can make out in the Baha'i teachings on
evolution and the theory of evolution taught in science, is that
'Abdu'l-Baha says that human beings have always had human souls, in
whatever form they were, and they were always going to be human and
never another species. So again, 'Abdu'l-Baha is speaking aobut
something that science cannot speak about -- the soul. Otherwise,
'Abdu'l-Baha says to "put all your beliefs into harmony with science.
There can be no opposition."
> Does God really need us? and why?
God doesn't need us. He is, in the words of Baha'u'llah:
"...self-sufficient, above any need of His creatures."
(Baha'u'llah: The Kitab-i-Aqdas)
But He loves us, and He wants to be in relation with us:
O SON OF MAN! I loved thy creation, hence I created thee. Wherefore,
do thou love Me, that I may name thy name and fill thy soul with the
spirit of life.
(Baha'u'llah: Arabic Hidden Words, Page: 4)
Charles wrote:
(I do think there is a lot about
> these subjects in the Writings, but, I am greedy and want easy
> answers.)
The Writings are vast and sometimes it's difficult to find just the
quotes which would speak about a subject you're interested in. That's
why newsgroups like this exist, though, so please feel free to ask. I
love to research questions from the Writings, and there are others
here (Doug and Mike), who seem to enjoy that too. You are doing us a
service by asking questions, so go ahead and ask.
Best wishes,
Suzanne
Douglas McAdam
In addition to what Suzanne has shared let me add some thoughts.
When we think of researching a topic we do a word search but yet there
are many other relevant quotes indirectly relating to such a topic.
For example if we wanted to know about the word "education" we would
do a word search in Ocean or one of the other search engines and
collect all quotes that contain the word "education". Yet here is
another quote that for sure relates -
"How great the multitude of truths which the garment of words can
never contain! How vast the number of such verities as no expression
can adequately describe, whose significance can never be unfolded, and
to which not even the remotest allusions can be made! How manifold
are the truths which must remain unuttered until the appointed time is
come! Even as it hath been said: "Not everything that a man knoweth
can be disclosed, nor can everything that he can disclose be regarded
as timely, nor can every timely utterance be considered as suited to
the capacity of those who hear it."
Of these truths some can be disclosed only to the extent of the
capacity of the repositories of the light of our Knowledge, and the
recipients of Our hidden grace. We beseech God to strengthen thee
with His power, and enable thee to recognize Him Who is the Source of
all knowledge, that thou mayest detach thyself from all human
learning, for, "what would it profit any man to strive after learning
when he hath already found and recognized Him Who is the Object of all
knowledge?" Cleave to the Root of Knowledge, and to Him Who is the
Fountain thereof, that thou mayest find thyself independent of all who
claim to be will versed in human learning, and whose claim no clear
proof, nor the testimony of any enlightening book, can support." P.
176 Gleanings LXXXIX
What I am trying to demonstrate is that doing a word search on the
subject of fear is not going to give us all the necessary information
to reach an informed conclusion. However I happen to know that soon a
new data base search engine of both the word and subject type
(synopticon) will soon be up on the web and which will make it much
easier to research the Writings on any subject. Having had access to
the manual data and version of this new Index gave me a whole new
understanding of many issues facing us. So I would like to share some
thoughts and please remember these are simply my own understandings.
And forgive me for not posting quotes because it would simply take up
too much time and space to do so.
We are created as living souls in seed form with the potential of
acquiring all the virtues revealed to us by God through His
Manifestation. Without these virtues we are going to have their
opposites in terms of human faults. For example without patience we
have impatience, without courtesy we have rudeness, without justice we
have injustice, without faith we have fear. All the virtues and their
opposite human faults have been identified. It really is quite
simple in that if we can identify a human fault within us we then can
identify the corresponding and remedial virtue. So having these
feelings is in a way a wonderful thing cause it highlights what virtue
we need to acquire. Many think of fear as of being afraid of
something but there is another definition to consider that of having
respect for something, for example fear of God is having respect for
God and His power. We respect the law of gravity and other natural
laws. We are told as Baha'is to shun Covenant Breakers because their
illness is a disease that is highly contagious spiritually and so we
fear that kind of association with them.
So without getting into a long and complex essay on the subject of the
elimination of fear let me say that I believe that as we acquire faith
and certitude we will eliminate fear to a great extent but still we
will retain the respect of those things that can harm our spiritual
development. We will fear God (have respect for Him and His laws) and
at the same time have Faith that He will assist us in our time of
need if we but strive to obey.
regards,
doug
mike3
> Suzanne wrote:
> > When asked about this knowledge which would eliminate fear, Shoghi
> > Effendi said that this knowledge hasn't been disclosed. I have my
> > suspicions about what it is, but I would like to know for sure. So I
> > would want to ask the next Manifestation of God about this.
> Mike wrote:
>
> So does this mean that we will be full of fear then for the next 800+
> years (next messenger isn't supposed to come for at least 1000 years
> since the last one and that was in the 1800s and this is 2009 now so
> that makes 850 or so years at minimum from now)? Would this mean
> we can't have peace or any of that before then?
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> No, I think it means that fear may not be eliminated in the next 800+
> years, but not that we will all be full of fear for that long.
> Personally, I think that Charles was right that the knowledge that
> will eliminate fear has to do with the next world. I imagine that we
> will pretty much everyone will ultimately have a happy afterlife.
I.e. for pretty much everyone, there is no *eternal* hell.
> This knowledge may not be timely right now because some people do
> still need to have fear of a negative afterlife to motivate them to do
> good, but when we get to the point that we don't need this anymore,
> then I think we can be told this.
>
But isn't it much better to do good for reasons other than fear? I've
hear something about that good actions alone are not enough for
"good" and it requires more (think for example about doing "good"
but just to make yourself feel good. I've also heard stuff about
problems
with doing good out of hope of reward and/or fear of punishment, that
this isn't best or something like that.).
compx2
You: "> So, I appreciate that you don't like for Baha'is to ask stupid
> questions...
I wouldn't and didn't call it "stupid" I said the question was
foreign to my conception of my religion, which I still call the Baha'i
Faith.
It is as though a physicist joins a relativity forum asking questions
about the power of prayer and sacrifice, just for fun. I would
probably answer in pretty much the same way. The questions are
foreign to the subject matter. Not stupid or inapporiate, just out of
place.
> Evolution is also a religious concept, in that we are here to evolve
> into a united planet?
You lost me.
> Some matters of science are also "facts" and are not likely to be
> radically altered with time.
Name one. Every concept changes with time. You say "unlikely". I
say inevitably.
> Perhaps it depends on which "Valley" I am currently operating out of?
Again, you lost me.
Thanks for answering, however. It is nice to talk. --Kent
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Charles
Nice post (and Suzanne's too!). I like your seed analogy.
anyway, per memory, Baha'u'llah does say that "the universe was
created from the heat generated by the interaction between the active
force and that which is its recipient.". That is in Gleanings, and I
should look up the exact quote. Meanwhile, we are looking at a
universe created by HEAT. This makes since scientifically, but nobody
can fully suss out the mechanisms of that heat, and how it will play
out over the next few billion years. (expand, contract, steady state,
etc.) We know that all the galaxies in the universe are expanding
away from each other, as though from a central point in either time or
space.... We can look out into space and measure the velocity of the
galaxies and surmise this. Pretty cool stuff.
Meanwhile, there is this tiny issue about "active force" and it's
"recipient" which are the same, did we but know. I have wondered if
there is some connection here with the Yin-Yang concept? This would
be the "creation" moment, though. God somehow exuding or creating or
expelling or whatever an "active force." And also receiving the exact
same force. Perhaps it is literally the Word of God? I just don't
know, and this is what I would ask if I were alive in 850 +/- years.
I do think that the concept is clear in the Writings that if God were
to remove His influence for even the tiniest second, then the entire
universe would cease to exist. This implies that some "force" from
God maintains the structure of the universe. Now, does that mean it
is at the atomic level? or the galactic level? or at some point back
from galaxies? Each solar system? etc. Or all of the above?
Gotta scoot... can't reply for another couple days from now...
regards
charles
Suzanne
> Baha'u'llah does say that "the universe was
> created from the heat generated by the interaction between the active
> force and that which is its recipient.". That is in Gleanings, and I
> should look up the exact quote. Meanwhile, we are looking at a
> universe created by HEAT.
Yes. It was hidden in the middle of the quote I cited. Here it is on
its own:
"The world of existence came into being
through the heat generated from the interaction between the active
force and that which is its recipient. These two are the same, yet
they are different."
(Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 140)
Charles wrote:
> I do think that the concept is clear in the Writings that if God were
> to remove His influence for even the tiniest second, then the entire
> universe would cease to exist. This implies that some "force" from
> God maintains the structure of the universe. Now, does that mean it
> is at the atomic level? or the galactic level? or at some point bac
k
> from galaxies? Each solar system? etc. Or all of the above?
I think all of the above. I am wondering if the power is love. God
is love. Love is the power of attraction which holds and sustains
everything. If it weren't there, the whole universe and everything
that's in it would fall apart.
Here's what 'Abdu'l-Baha says:
"We declare that love is the cause of the existence of all phenomena
and that the absence of love is the cause of disintegration or
nonexistence. Love is the conscious bestowal of God, the bond of
affiliation in all phenomena. We will first consider the proof of this
through sense-perception. As we look upon the universe we observe that
all composite beings or existing phenomena are made up primarily of
single elements bound together by a power of attraction. Through this
power of attraction, cohesion has become manifest between atoms of
these composing elements. The resultant being is a phenomenon of the
lower contingent type. The power of cohesion expressed in the mineral
kingdom is in reality love or affinity manifested in a low degree
according to the exigencies of the mineral world. We take a step
higher into the vegetable kingdom where we find an increased power of
attraction has become manifest among the composing elements which form
phenomena. Through this degree of attraction a cellular admixture is
produced among these elements which make up the body of a plant.
Therefore in the degree of the vegetable kingdom there is love. We
enter the animal kingdom and find the attractive power binding
together single elements as in the mineral, plus the cellular
admixture as in the vegetable, plus the phenomena of feelings or
susceptibilities. We observe that the animals are susceptible to
certain affiliation and fellowship, and that they exercise natural
selection. This elemental attraction, this admixture and selective
affinity is love manifest in the degree of the animal kingdom.
Finally we come to the kingdom of man. As this is the superior
kingdom, the light of love is more resplendent. In man we find the
power of attraction among the elements which compose his material
body, plus the attraction which produces cellular admixture or power
augmentative, plus the attraction which characterizes the
sensibilities of the animal kingdom, but still beyond and above all
these lower powers we discover in the being of man the attraction of
heart, the susceptibilities and affinities which bind men together,
enabling them to live and associate in friendship and solidarity. It
is therefore evident that in the world of humanity the greatest king
and sovereign is love. If love were extinguished, the power of
attraction dispelled, 89 the affinity of human hearts destroyed, the
phenomena of human life would disappear.
(Abdu'l-Baha, Foundations of World Unity, p. 88)
Best wishes,
Suzanne
Suzanne
I imagine that we
> > will pretty much everyone will ultimately have a happy afterlife.
Mike3 wrote:
>
> I.e. for pretty much everyone, there is no *eternal* hell.
Right.
Mike3 wrote:
> But isn't it much better to do good for reasons other than fear?
Yes, it's much better. It is really what we should be doing. The
Bab said:
"That which is worthy of His Essence is to worship Him for His sake,
without fear of fire, or hope of paradise."
(The Bab, Selections from the Writings of the Bab, p. 77)
But some people aren't that spiritually mature yet and they still need
the hope of reward and the fear of punishment to do what's right. At
least it would seem that that's so, from this passage by Baha'u'llah:
"O people of God! That which traineth the world is Justice, for it is
upheld by two pillars, reward and punishment."
(Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 26)
Mike3 wrote:
I've
> hear something about that good actions alone are not enough for
> "good" and it requires more (think for example about doing "good"
> but just to make yourself feel good. I've also heard stuff about
> problems
> with doing good out of hope of reward and/or fear of punishment, that
> this isn't best or something like that.).
The best is to love God so much that you want to do whatever He says
we should do. There is no attachment to rewards, fear of punishment,
or concern about what people will think of you for doing or not doing
a thing. Your true aim is to please God in whatever way possible.
Few of us are that spiritually developed yet, although, if we are
reading the Writings daily and striving to translate those Writings
into action in our lives, and bringing ourselves to account when we
fall down, then we should be making progress along this path. And our
children should make even more progress along this path, and their
children, and their children's children, ad infinitum. That is how
the world is advancing, little by little, day by day, towards the
Golden Age when there most likely (in my view) won't be any need of
incentives like fear and hope.
Best wishes,
Suzanne
Suzanne
> It is as though a physicist joins a relativity forum asking questions
> about the power of prayer and sacrifice, just for fun. I would
> probably answer in pretty much the same way. The questions are
> foreign to the subject matter. Not stupid or inapporiate, just out of
> place.
Hi Kent,
There isn't anything Charles brought up here that isn't spoken about
in our Writings. He is not looking at evolution and the formation of
the universe from a purely materialistic scientific viewpoint but from
the standpoint of God and spiritual laws. If these themes were so
alien to our Faith, then why would Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha have
written so much about them? And if we're citing quotes from the
Baha'i Writings themselves, how could it be inappropriate for a Baha'i
forum to discuss them?
I honestly don't understand where you're coming from with this,
Kent.
Best wishes,
Suzanne
John MacLeod
perhaps for different reasons. I used to think Scripture gave the answer
to every possible question but I am more and more coming to the view
that Scripture, or at least Baha'u'llah, gives every possible answer to
every possible question and helps us to see the wisdom in all sides of
an argument. Still as its just for fun there does appear to be a
specific answer to one of your questions . You said "Does God really
need us?"
Baha'u'llah says "....verily, God is Self-Sufficient, above any need of
His creatures"
With a bit more context.
"Immerse yourselves in the ocean of My words, that ye may unravel its
secrets, and discover all the pearls of wisdom that lie hid in its
depths. Take heed that ye do not vacillate in your determination to
embrace the truth of this Cause -- a Cause through which the
potentialities of the might of God have been revealed, and His
sovereignty established. With faces beaming with joy, hasten ye unto
Him. This is the changeless Faith of God, eternal in the past, eternal
in the future. Let him that seeketh, attain it; and as to him that hath
refused to seek it -- verily, God is Self-Sufficient, above any need of
His creatures."
(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 136)
Hopefully someone will find a quote that appears to contradict this so
we can understand both sides.
The Bab said something rather similar to Baha'u'llah:
".....the purpose of God in creating man is but for him to know Him.
Indeed God hath knowledge of all things and is self-sufficient above the
need of all mankind."
(The Bab, Selections from the Writings of the Bab, p. 62)
John MacLeod
> I asked... most sheepishly and embarrassed I was, too... Mr. Furutan
> why Shoghi Effendi did not have any children. He looked at me very
> carefully and intensely for a moment, then said,
>
> "I was secretary of the NSA for 24 years and I know personally several
> people that went to the Guardian and said 'Beloved Guardian, I can't
> have children.' and the Guardian would pray for them and...." [Mr.
> Furutan lifted his hands in a gentle fashion and smiled sweetly] "They
> became fathers. Now I know that the Guardian was capable of doing for
> himself what he was able to do for others. This means that it was not
> wise for the him to have children."
>
>
the Faith. I suppose we should remember that Mr Furutan was not
infallible but still he deserves our respect. I have always
understood that out of respect for the true purpose of a
Manifestation we do not emphasise and repeat whatever we may think are
miraculous events involving the Manifestation and I would have thought
the same principle would apply to the other major figures of our
Faith. Baha'u'llah said:
"In these days enemies have compassed Us about, and the fire of hatred
is kindled. O peoples of the earth! By My life and by your own! This
Wronged One hath never had, nor hath He now any desire for leadership.
Mine aim hath ever been, and still is, to suppress whatever is the
cause of contention amidst the peoples of the earth, and of separation
amongst the nations, so that all men may be sanctified from every
earthly attachment, and be set free to occupy themselves with their
own interests. We entreat Our loved ones not to besmirch the hem of
Our raiment with the dust of falsehood, neither to allow references to
what they have regarded as miracles and prodigies to debase Our rank
and station, or to mar the purity and sanctity of Our name."
(Baha'u'llah, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, p. 32)
Now I appreciate that there is a difference between working an out-and-
out miracle and having a prayer answered but. in this case, one would
presume that at least some of the couples concerned would have prayed
often for a child so the implication is that wasn't prayer per se
being answered but Shoghi Effendi's prayer being answered without any
other action. I think a lot of people outside the Faith would find
the line between that and his possessing miraculous powers hard to
draw. Mirza Abu'l-Fadl pointed out how tales of supernatural miracles
and prophecies only really convince those who already believe but can
be a barrier to those who are still seeking. For me this story falls
into that category.
Douglas McAdam
I thought you might be interested in the following.
THE BEGINNING INDICATES THE SOURCE, AND NOT THE TIME OF CREATION
(a) "Know that it is one of the most abstruse spiritual truths that
the world of existence, that is to say this endless universe, has no
beginning.' BWF p.297
(b) " There are two kinds of priorities one is essential...not
preceded by a cause. As, for example, the sun has light in itself...;
therefore the sun, with regard to light, is the cause...the precedent,
the antecedent...'' (Thus in the beginning" was the sun it 'created
the light; 'The second sort of pre-existence is the pre-existence of
time, and that has no beginning.... The past, the present, the future,
all in relation to God, are equal. Yesterday, today, tomorrow do not
exist in the sun." SAQ p.132
(c) " For God the end is the same thing as the beginning," SAQ p.174
Our problem appears to be that unlike God we are limited by such
things as "beginning and end", "up and down", "in and out", etc. and
it is most difficult for us to try to imagine or prove how all this
Creation began and works. Maybe when we are more spiritually
developed we will understand it all to a greater extent. For example
here in the USA we say "I fell down" and in Australia they might say
the same thing but to us they are falling up. Now that we know about
gravity etc. we can more accurately say, "I fell into the ground" and
yet that would not be precise either because we don't really fall into
the ground we call on top of the ground. Anyway I'm just trying to
show that our perceptions are limited because of our human limitations
and capacity.
regards,
doug
Douglas McAdam
On Aug 5, 2009, at 11:03 AM, John MacLeod wrote:
> I rather share Kent's aversion to seeking answers in the Writings
> though perhaps for different reasons. I used to think Scripture gave
> the answer to every possible question but I am more and more coming
> to the view that Scripture, or at least Baha'u'llah, gives every
> possible answer to every possible question and helps us to see the
> wisdom in all sides of an argument.
On the other hand I am wondering how it is that the Manifestation of
God recreates and endows Creation with a new potential and yet does
not have the answer to all questions. All knowledge is revealed to us
and it seems logical to me that the Revealer can answer all
questions. All the sciences and arts come from God. I tend to remain
more open to the possibility that the main reason we have troubles
today in seeking answers in the Writings has to do with the fact that
we are not yet spiritual developed enough to find them for we are
imposing our ego prompted imaginations on things.
regards,
doug
Douglas McAdam
into this at all. The idea that pray can accomplish things is not
miraculous for we are told that our prayers are answered. The problem
is that the answer may not appear to us immediately because it must be
revealed according to God's Timetable not ours. I can related many
incidences in my own experiences that defy logic and reason and the
only answer is that God made it happen when it was needed.
regards,
doug
Suzanne
> Meanwhile, there is this tiny issue about "active force" and it's
> "recipient" which are the same, did we but know. I have wondered if
> there is some connection here with the Yin-Yang concept? This would
> be the "creation" moment, though. God somehow exuding or creating or
> expelling or whatever an "active force." And also receiving the exact
> same force.
Hi again Charles,
There are so many points in your posting, that I look again and it
makes me think of other things. This point of yours made me think of
an analogy given by former House member, Mr. Taherzadeh in his book,
The Revelation of Baha'u'llah. He speaks of the coming into being of
a new world civilization based on a new Revelation from God.
Simplified, God is the active force and the Manifestation is the
recipient. Then the Manifestation is the active force, and humanity
is the recipient, and I suppose you could say that those who receive
the Revelation become active players and work on elements in the
civilization, which are then the recipients. So at one point one
player is the receptive one, and the other active, and then later the
receptive one becomes the active force. He uses the analogy of male
and female and mystic intercourse to get this across. Here''s the
passage I was thinking of:
"All created things, whether tangible or intangible, come into being
as a result of the intercourse between two elements which assume the
functions of male and female. This pattern is followed throughout the
whole of creation and the birth of a religion is no exception.
Consider a table which comes into being when a carpenter chooses a
piece of wood to work on. In this operation, the piece of wood assumes
a female role and is shaped to the carpenter's design. The table --
the child born of the intercourse between the mind of the carpenter
and the piece of wood -- combines within itself the characteristics of
both its parents. Its style, its beauty and proportions, its shape and
construction all represent the art and craft of its father, the
carpenter; whereas its colour, quality and consistency are inherited
from its mother, namely, the piece of wood.
A similar principle governs the birth of a civilization whose founder,
by imparting his ideas and principles to a society, plays the part of
the male. The society, the recipient of his teachings, acts on the
other hand as a female agent. The child of this mystical intercourse
is a new civilization which reflects the characteristics of the
founder as well as those of the society within whose womb it was
conceived.
Religions are born as a result of the spiritual intercourse between
God, on the one hand, and the person of the Manifestation of God, on
the other. In His inscrutable wisdom, God chooses one of His servants
from among humanity and makes Him the recipient of His Revelation. He
releases within the soul of His chosen One the spiritual forces of His
Revelation, while the person of the Manifestation, emptying Himself of
self and human qualities and submitting Himself entirely to the will
of His Creator, becomes a worthy recipient of these spiritual
energies.
Once this relationship is established, as a result of the interaction
between God and His chosen Mouthpiece, the child of a new religion is
conceived and the Manifestation of God, in the fullness of time, by
declaring His mission gives birth to this child and presents it to
humanity. The Báb, the Forerunner of Bahá'u'lláh, declared His statio
n
about a year after the intimation of His sacred mission, but
Bahá'u'lláh waited for ten years to make His mission known.
Every religion embodies within itself, on the one hand, the
characteristics of God in the form of spiritual teachings which are
eternal and, on the other, the characteristics of the Prophet in the
form of human and social teachings which vary from age to age. The
advent of the Manifestation of God is accompanied by the release of
spiritual energies into human society. Like the rays of the sun in
springtime which give new life to this physical world, these energies
bestow a new capacity upon mankind and enable it to attain a higher
state of spiritual and material development.
Through His Revelation, Bahá'u'lláh, the Manifestation of God for this
day, has released in the world of man the forces of universality and
of the oneness of mankind. These forces are exerting pressure upon
humanity and their intensity increases day by day. Those who have
recognized Bahá'u'lláh and followed Him are, in a mysterious fashion,
propelled forward in the direction taken by these forces and are
assisted, through His divine power, in their task of erecting the
framework of His new World Order for mankind. Those who, whether
consciously or unconsciously, oppose these forces -- and they
constitute the majority of mankind, its rulers and wise men -- have
set up, within their various societies, forces of reaction which by
their very nature are destructive and are responsible for the breaking
up of the old order."
(Adib Taherzadeh, The Revelation of Baha'u'llah v 1, p. 3)
It's really interesting how spiritual principles in nature are also
found in every level of creation, including the spiritual realm.
Best wishes,
Suzanne
Suzanne
> > "I was secretary of the NSA for 24 years and I know personally several
> > people that went to the Guardian and said 'Beloved Guardian, I can't
> > have children.' and the Guardian would pray for them and...." [Mr.
> > Furutan lifted his hands in a gentle fashion and smiled sweetly] "They
> > became fathers. Now I know that the Guardian was capable of doing fo
r
> > himself what he was able to do for others. This means that it was no
t
> > wise for the him to have children."
John MacLeod wrote:
>
> I find this little story troubling. There are many similar stories in
> the Faith. I suppose we should remember that Mr Furutan was not
> infallible but still he deserves our respect. I have always
> understood that out of respect for the true purpose of a
> Manifestation we do not emphasise and repeat whatever we may think are
> miraculous events involving the Manifestation and I would have thought
> the same principle would apply to the other major figures of our
> Faith.
Dear John,
I think the problem isn't repeating stories which speak of one or
another Central Figure's spiritual influence or powers. The problem
is naming "miracles" as a proof to try to convince seekers about the
validity of Baha'u'llah's station. And miracles aren't things like
prayers which are answered. That's a given if this religion is from
God. It's things like turning water into wine; walking on water etc.
That sort of thing may be proof for the people who witness them but
not for others who have not and don't yet believe in the Manifestation
of God. It's the sort of things that turns the religion of God into a
circus sideshow. This is, I believe, what Baha'u'llah was objecting
to.
John wrote:
Mirza Abu'l-Fadl pointed out how tales of supernatural miracles
> and prophecies only really convince those who already believe but can
> be a barrier to those who are still seeking.
Although I don't see this in the realm of supernatural miracles, I
agree that miracles only convince people who already believe.
However, even if this was such a story, Mr. Furutan was talking to
people who already believe. His point wasn't to use this as a method
for teaching the Faith to seekers. And if there's something in the
Writings that says stories of prayers being answered are a barrier to
seekers, I'd like to see it.
Best wishes,
Suzanne
Suzanne
> With a bit more context.
> "Immerse yourselves in the ocean of My words, that ye may unravel its
> secrets, and discover all the pearls of wisdom that lie hid in its
> depths. Take heed that ye do not vacillate in your determination to
> embrace the truth of this Cause -- a Cause through which the
> potentialities of the might of God have been revealed, and His
> sovereignty established. With faces beaming with joy, hasten ye unto
> Him. This is the changeless Faith of God, eternal in the past, eternal
> in the future. Let him that seeketh, attain it; and as to him that hath
> refused to seek it -- verily, God is Self-Sufficient, above any need of
> His creatures."
> (Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 136)
>
> Hopefully someone will find a quote that appears to contradict this so
> we can understand both sides.
Hi John,
I'm not sure I get your point. If we're looking for a quote that
appears to contradict the above, would that be something that says not
to read the Writings of Baha'u'llah because there's nothing of value
in them, and His Cause has no spiritual potency?
Best wishes,
Suzanne
compx2
You: "There isn't anything Charles brought up here that isn't spoken
about in our Writings."
To extend my comparison with relativity and physics, there is a lot of
discussion in that area about prayer and sacrifice as well. I am sure
physicists think and wonder about karma, fasting and the influence of
prayer. But it is not the concern of their vocation.
It is my contention, clearly stating that contention for the umpteenth
time, that the Baha'i Faith is not about the answers to scientific
questions.
For example, in Some Answered Questions 'Abdul'-Baha named five
spiritual powers. No one else I know of in history has referred to
five such powers except 'Abdu'l-Baha. Is this a call to Baha'is to
take up arms and re-write the sciences of psychology and sociology
according to an infallible Witness? I don't think so, but I am not
opposed to such re-writing. Those sciences could use a little
examination in my opinion, and such a discussion among social and
psychological scientists would be useful, in my opinion. But I doubt
the sciences will ever be re-written to use 'Adu'l-Baha's
conceptuality any time soon.
But here, well, is such a discussion useful? That is my question.
Should we extrapolate about what Baha'u'llah might have meant when He
uttered the word translated as "heat" in a passage widely considered
to refer to His Conception of what present day scientists are thought
by Baha'is to refer to as related to a "Big Bang" theory?
I can't imagine any relationship at all between those two conceptions,
personally, and that is my point. Baha'u'llah, in my opinion, was not
referring to the Big Bang or any other scientific theory, but rather
offering a conceptuality which relates a materialistic conception of
the universe (in the sense of matter, not in the negative sense you
have been discussing in another thread) with a spiritual conception of
the universe, as 'Abdu'l-Baha offers in Some Answered Questions and
elsewhere. It is not a basis of a new understanding of empiricism and
scientific method, but rather an alternative or complementary or
otherwise related explanation of a universal conceptuality using early
nineteenth century Persian and Arabic vocabulary.
To mis-characterize it as infallible science is common among Baha'is
who are unschooled in the sciences, and in my opinion, such
discussions harm my religion. It is like discussing homosexuality or
women's rights bringing to the forefront so many misconceptions of the
principles of my religion as to make me cringe to read them.
You: "If these themes were so alien to our Faith, then why would
Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha have written so much about them?"
I did not say the themes were so alien to our Faith. I said his
questions are foreign to the subject matter. In my mind, as I said,
it is like imagining a visit to the foremost scientific source on
earth, say, a forum on physics and relativity and asking, in general
terms, about Einstein's professed belief in God, and how that relates
to prayer and sacrifice.
It is not about Einstein's quote to that effect: "A knowledge of the
existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of
the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this
knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious
attitude" but rather referring to his belief in the most general
terms and asking how such a belief, which is only very tenuously
related to Einstein or physics or relativity, can be reconciled with a
material universe and the undeniable existence of the One True God.
It invites misconception and mischaracterization of those partaking in
the discussion.
You: " And if we're citing quotes from the Baha'i Writings themselves,
how could it be inappropriate for a Baha'i forum to discuss them?"
No, of course not. If we are talking about the Source then sure,
let's try to clarify in our minds the meanings, the teachings, the
conceptuality from the Sourse. That was not my understanding of the
point of this thread as it began.
You: " I honestly don't understand where you're coming from with
this,"
Unlike many others, Suzanne, at least you seem interested.
Warm Baha'i Love, --Kent
compx2
You: "Scripture, or at least Baha'u'llah, gives every possible answer
to every possible question and helps us to see the wisdom in all sides
of an argument."
Well said.
--Kent
John MacLeod
> I'm not sure I get your point. If we're looking for a quote that
> appears to contradict the above, would that be something that says not
> to read the Writings of Baha'u'llah because there's nothing of value
> in them, and His Cause has no spiritual potency?
>
could find a quote that seemingly contradicted the " - verily, God is
Self-Sufficient, above any need of
Charles asked. Curiously, I can't find anything at all in the
Writings that gives an alternative view.It seems to me that this may
be one of the few things on which the Baha'i Writings are adamant and
unequivocal.
I would indeed love to see a quote that gave some reason for seeing
wisdom in the view that God does in some way need His creatures.
As far as finding a quote that gives an alternative view to the fuller
quote I posted for context I don't think that would be hard. For
example though Baha'u'llah here urges us to immerse ourselves in the
Writings and uncover all the Pearls that lie hid in its depths we
should also bear in mind:
"Pride not yourselves on much reading of the verses or on a multitude
of pious acts by night and day; for were a man to read a single verse
with joy and radiance it would be better for him than to read with
lassitude all the Holy Books of God, the Help in Peril, the Self-
Subsisting. Read ye the sacred verses in such measure that ye be not
overcome by languor and despondency. Lay not upon your souls that
which will weary them and weigh them down, but rather what will
lighten and uplift them, so that they may soar on the wings of the
Divine verses towards the Dawning-place of His manifest signs; this
will draw you nearer to God, did ye but comprehend."
(Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 73)
At first glance this advice seems contrary to the 'immerse' yourself
advice though in my personal view with care they be followed
simultaneously. Perhaps it is the reconciliation of different
passages of the Writings that leads to understanding.
John MacLeod
wrote:
>
> On the other hand I am wondering how it is that the Manifestation of
> God recreates and endows Creation with a new potential and yet does
> not have the answer to all questions. All knowledge is revealed to us
> and it seems logical to me that the Revealer can answer all
> questions. All the sciences and arts come from God. I tend to remai
n
> more open to the possibility that the main reason we have troubles
> today in seeking answers in the Writings has to do with the fact that
> we are not yet spiritual developed enough to find them for we are
> imposing our ego prompted imaginations on things.
>
I think perhaps what I am suggesting is that the core of knowledge,
wisdom, and truth is not a set of answers to questions and we should
be careful of thinking that what we can get from the Revelation is
merely answers to questions.
The Bab actually forbade asking questions of "He Whom God will make
Manifest". Baha'u'llah lifted this restriction but it is worth
looking at the texts involved.
From the Bab:
"IT is not permissible to ask questions from Him Whom God will make
manifest, except that which well beseemeth Him. For His station is
that of the Essence of divine Revelation... Whatever evidence of
bounty is witnessed in the world, is but an image of His bounty; and
every thing owes its existence to His Being... The Bayan is, from
beginning to end, the repository of all of His attributes, and the
treasury of both His fire and His light. Should anyone desire to ask
questions, he is allowed to do so only in writing, that he may derive
ample understanding from His written reply and that it may serve as a
sign from his Beloved. However, let no one ask aught that may prove
unworthy of His lofty station. For instance, were a person to inquire
the price of straw from a merchant of rubies, how ignorant would he be
and how unacceptable. Similarly unacceptable would be the questions of
the highest-ranking people of the world in His presence, except such
words as He Himself would utter about Himself in the Day of His
manifestation.
Methinks I visualize those who would, prompted by their own deluded
conceptions, write to Him and ask Him questions about that which hath
been revealed in the Bayan, and He would answer them with words not of
His Own, but divinely inspired, saying: 'Verily, verily, I am God; no
God is there but Me. I have called into being all the created things,
I have raised up divine Messengers in the past and have sent down
Books unto Them. Take heed not to worship anyone but God, He Who is My
Lord and your Lord. This indeed is the undoubted truth. However, alike
shall it be to Me; if ye believe in Me, ye will provide good for your
own souls, and if ye believe not in Me, nor in that which God hath
revealed unto Me, ye will suffer yourselves to be shut out as by a
veil. For verily I have been independent of you heretofore, and shall
remain independent hereafter. Therefore it behooveth you, O creatures
of God, to help your own selves and to believe in the Verses revealed
by Me...' III, 13.
(The Bab, Selections from the Writings of the Bab, p. 100)"
And in another place:
"WHEN the Day-Star of Baha will shine resplendent above the horizon of
eternity it is incumbent upon you to present yourselves before His
Throne. Beware lest ye be seated in His presence or ask questions
without His leave. Fear ye God, O concourse of the Mirrors."
(The Bab, Selections from the Writings of the Bab, p. 164)
And from Baha'u'llah
"In the Bayan it had been forbidden you to ask Us questions. The Lord
hath now relieved you of this
prohibition, that ye may be free to ask what you need to ask, but not
such idle questions as those on which the men of former times were
wont to dwell. Fear God, and be ye of the righteous! Ask ye that which
shall be of profit to you in the Cause of God and His dominion, for
the portals of His tender compassion have been openedbefore all who
dwell in heaven and on earth.
(Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 64)"
I suspect Kent must love the Bab's comment " For instance, were a
person to inquire the price of straw from a merchant of rubies, how
ignorant would he be and how unacceptable. "
John MacLeod
> Dear John,
>
> I think the problem isn't repeating stories which speak of one or
> another Central Figure's spiritual influence or powers. The problem
> is naming "miracles" as a proof to try to convince seekers about the
> validity of Baha'u'llah's station. And miracles aren't things like
> prayers which are answered. That's a given if this religion is from
> God.
I agree with this. If the point of the story is only that Shoghi
Effendi prayed for other people to have children, then He probably
prayed for himself to have children and the prayers went unanswered
so it must have been God's will that he have no children then I have
no problem with this. I have no problem with the idea that it was
God's will whether or not Shoghi Effendi prayed for children or not.
However, I think the story is likely to create he impression that when
Shoghi Effendi prayed for other people to have children the prayer was
normally answered because it was Shoghi Effendi praying.
In the story as told I think the phrasing "Now I know that the
Guardian was capable of doing for
himself what he was able to do for others." can too easily be read as
"the Guardian was able to help infertile couples have children
miraculously by prayer".
I am reminded of Abdul-baha's quote
"Spirit has influence; prayer has spiritual effect. Therefore we pray,
"O God; heal this sick one!" Perchance God will answer. Does it matter
who prays? God will answer the prayer of every servant if that prayer
is urgent. His Mercy is vast, illimitable. He answers the prayers of
all His servants."
(Compilations, Baha'i Scriptures, p. 381)
My concern is that it is very easy to read this story in terms of it
DOES matter who prays. If Shoghi Effendi or the Universal House of
Justice pray for you that is more likely to be answered. For me this
is troubling.
> It's things like turning water into wine; walking on water etc.
> That sort of thing may be proof for the people who witness them but
> not for others who have not and don't yet believe in the Manifestation
> of God. It's the sort of things that turns the religion of God into a
> circus sideshow.
Yes, this kind of circus sideshow religion still exists too. I
remember the claims of levitation and the like which acquired some
popular credence in my lifetime. However shortly before I posted this
I had watched a documentary on TV in whch Lois Theroux looked with
loving but not believing eyes at some American charismatic religious
communities. One of the big attractions for some of those religions
was the drawing down of the healing powers of God through the prayers
of the pastor. I see this as just another sdeshow and just as much a
'miracle and prodigy' as turning water into wine.
> John wrote:
> And if there's something in the
> Writings that says stories of prayers being answered are a barrier to
> seekers, I'd like to see it.
>
I know of none though I know I know of seekers who find the whole
concept of prayer and especially answered prayers very difficult and
challenging.
> Best wishes,
>
> Suzanne
mike3
> Suzanne wrote;
>
> I imagine that we
>
> > > will pretty much everyone will ultimately have a happy afterlife.
> Mike3 wrote:
>
> > I.e. for pretty much everyone, there is no *eternal* hell.
>
> Right.
>
> Mike3 wrote:
> > But isn't it much better to do good for reasons other than fear?
>
> Yes, it's much better. It is really what we should be doing. The
> Bab said:
>
> "That which is worthy of His Essence is to worship Him for His sake,
> without fear of fire, or hope of paradise."
> (The Bab, Selections from the Writings of the Bab, p. 77)
>
> But some people aren't that spiritually mature yet and they still need
> the hope of reward and the fear of punishment to do what's right. At
> least it would seem that that's so, from this passage by Baha'u'llah:
>
> "O people of God! That which traineth the world is Justice, for it is
> upheld by two pillars, reward and punishment."
> (Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 26)
>
So then for a bit those things are good, but past that point they
aren't
enough any more.
> Mike3 wrote:
>
> I've
>
> > hear something about that good actions alone are not enough for
> > "good" and it requires more (think for example about doing "good"
> > but just to make yourself feel good. I've also heard stuff about
> > problems
> > with doing good out of hope of reward and/or fear of punishment, that
> > this isn't best or something like that.).
>
> The best is to love God so much that you want to do whatever He says
> we should do.
That would make the most sense.
> There is no attachment to rewards, fear of punishment,
> or concern about what people will think of you for doing or not doing
> a thing. Your true aim is to please God in whatever way possible.
> Few of us are that spiritually developed yet, although, if we are
> reading the Writings daily and striving to translate those Writings
> into action in our lives, and bringing ourselves to account when we
> fall down, then we should be making progress along this path. And our
> children should make even more progress along this path, and their
> children, and their children's children, ad infinitum. That is how
> the world is advancing, little by little, day by day, towards the
> Golden Age when there most likely (in my view) won't be any need of
> incentives like fear and hope.
>
Though that doesn't mean it is impossible for someone to become
that developed, however.
And I definitely do not think the right approach to religion is to
fill oneself
up with fear first or something, like what certain "Christian"
churches
like/try to do to a person.
mike
>say inevitably.
The circle. The same equation then as now as it ever will be, 20
million years from now it will still be the same. Some concepts are
immortal, precede man and can never change. We didn't invent them, we
discover them. My longstanding question is where do they really exist?
What does this signify?
> It is as though a physicist joins a relativity forum asking questions
>about the power of prayer and sacrifice, just for fun. I would
>probably answer in pretty much the same way. The questions are
>foreign to the subject matter. Not stupid or inapporiate, just out of
>place.
In our desire to seek unity between science and religion I think it's
okay to investigate and entertain questions like the physics of
prayer, this creative line of thinking is okay. It's perfectly normal
to make intuitive leaps and seek to use science to prove this.
Creativity is never out of place in science.
For example, Einstein, first did his thought experiments and then
followed up with the math to prove it. What's not okay is when you
ignore scientific evidence that may disprove your intuitive or
spiritual leap. At that point you may join the flat earth society.
Our Baha'i texts are littered with striking examples of intuitive
leaps many of which are proving to be true. Ie. 'seas of light'
perfectly describes the wave/particle duality. I don't see anything
wrong with exploring these thoughts and being open minded about it. I
can say that so far I have low confidence in Abdu'l-Baha's science.
Much of what he says appears to be a reflection of the science for his
time. I reserve the right to be wrong on this point. But by contrast I
am amazed at how accurate Baha'u'llah is proving to be. Frankly, I
haven't found a single scientific inference from Baha'u'llahs
statements to be wrong.
Suzanne
<<To extend my comparison with relativity and physics, there is a lot
of
discussion in that area about prayer and sacrifice as well. I am sure
physicists think and wonder about karma, fasting and the influence of
prayer. But it is not the concern of their vocation.>>
I'm not sure how extending your analogy helps. Do you think we're all
here for our vocation?
<<For example, in Some Answered Questions 'Abdul'-Baha named five
spiritual powers. No one else I know of in history has referred to
five such powers except 'Abdu'l-Baha. Is this a call to Baha'is to
take up arms and re-write the sciences of psychology and sociology
according to an infallible Witness?>>
This is a straw man argument. Who in our Faith is taking up arms
against science? Also, you are creating false problems between
science and what 'Abdu'l-Baha said. I have my master's in
psychotherapy, so I have studied many models of human psychology.
Some of these models contradict one another; others build on things
other people have said, adding extra things to them. It's all very
fuzzy, at best. There is no consensus. It is not an exact science.
I don't see anything in what 'Abdu'l-Baha said that requires Baha'is
to take issue with psychologists, or anything that psychologists would
take issue with.what 'ABdu'l-Baha said. 'Abdu'l-Baha gives some
interesting points to think about.
Kent:
<<It is my contention, clearly stating that contention for the
umpteenth
time, that the Baha'i Faith is not about the answers to scientific
questions.>>
I don't think that the point of the Baha'i Faith is to teach science.
It's to teach about spiritual reality. There are spiritual principles
found in nature. 'Abdu'l-Baha expounds on these. Baha'u'llah was
talking about the creation of the Universe from the perspective of
God. It may be intriguing, but scientists still need to figure it all
out. 'Abdu'l-Baha's talk about evolution added something that
scientists would be incapable of doing -- the spiritual element. He
said that we were always human in potential and we always had souls.
No scientist could possibly confirm or deny this. It isn't science.
It's the sort of thing that one has to take on faith, or reject on
faith. But it certainly all makes a great deal of sense to me, and
I'm quite happy to discuss it with anyone who is interested in doing
so. Those who aren't interested can start their own threads talking
about the subjects which interest them.
All best wishes,
Suzanne
compx2
You: "If we're looking for a quote that appears to contradict the
above, would that be something that says not to read the Writings of
Baha'u'llah...."
I can think of several way Baha'u'llah might suggest we should trust
our inner guidance, use our intuition, help our neighbors, busy
ourselves with that which will help ourselves and the world, if we
could but see it, do something useful instead of secluding ourselves
to contemplate abstruse wisdom...
Baha'u'llah advises us from several different standpoints. A literal
or myopic reading of His advice might appear contradictory, but I
believe John's clear point is that there is wisdom on every side of
every issue, if we look for it. Baha'u'llah gives us all of that
wisdom, and more, if we don't grasp too tightly onto a single
standpoint.
--Kent
Suzanne
<<I think I expressed myself badly. What I meant was I hoped someone
could find a quote that seemingly contradicted the " - verily, God is
Self-Sufficient, above any need of
His creatures." which is the 'answer' to one of the 'questions'
Charles asked. Curiously, I can't find anything at all in the
Writings that gives an alternative view.>>
Hi John,
I don't think there is an alternative view. Actually, I don't think
that there are alternative views in the Writings at all. I have found
them to be quite consistent, but it is true that some Writings are
needed to modify other ones. That's why it's important to read the
Writings a lot, because then you find all the nuances and don't see
them in such a black and white way. Of course you need to do it in a
way that doesn't make you proud or tire you, as the passage you pasted
here pointed out.
<<I would indeed love to see a quote that gave some reason for seeing
wisdom in the view that God does in some way need His creatures.>>
We were created to be God's lover:
I have breathed within thee a breath of My own Spirit, that thou
mayest be My lover
(Baha'u'llah: Arabic Hidden Words, Page: 19)
Lovers are very close and both gain from the relationship. I think
God wants us to be very near to Him, but if we stray or become
rebellious, it doesn't harm God. It just harms us. I think that is
the point.
John:
<<At first glance this advice seems contrary to the 'immerse' yourself
advice though in my personal view with care they be followed
simultaneously. Perhaps it is the reconciliation of different
passages of the Writings that leads to understanding.>>
Yes, exactly! They can only be read like that. I like to think of
various quotes as being like pieces of a giant puzzle. One piece may
have a picture on it, but until you see how it fits into the puzzle
you don't get the big picture of what is trying to be brought across.
Often in religions people take a few quotes out of context and exalt
them to a level that is above all the other ones which might modify
them. This is where distortions come in.
By the way, I'm off to summer school tomorrow morning, so I won't be
able to write for a while.
All best wishes,
Suzanne
mike3
So maybe we should get more development then?
Douglas McAdam
Yes, and in that same Baha'i Revelation is the instructions on how to
become developed. The knowledge we need is all there including an
application technique. We know our purpose, our powers, and the most
efficient behavior pattern. It is all there in the package.
The beloved Master Abdu'l-Baha said the following -
“The attainment of any object is conditioned upon knowledge, volition
and action. Unless these three conditions are forthcoming there is no
execution or accomplishment.” ( FWU p.101)
So we need to seek and find the knowledge, use our will power to
devise and apply a proper action.
We learn in three ways, i.e. Discovery, Experience and Revelation.
Our power of faith enables us to accept an Enlightener and what is
revealed to us but we also must experience it and for that we use our
intellectual powers and that of our senses. The harmony of our
faith and reason will produce sciences and religion that is in harmony
and we will then gain an overall view of reality to replace our
egocentric or personal views. But we will have to develop new
methodologies that can help us accept and test what is revealed. We
can only know the effects of things. But if, because of our limited
views, we decide that we cannot test spiritual realities, then we will
not develop such methods and our progress will remain slow.
It does not take rocket science to observe the negative effects
historically from failure to abide by the Ten Commandments. How about
the new laws revealed by Baha'u'llah? Can we see negative effects in
society from our failure to accept and abide by these new laws and
teachings? I believe we are seeing such effects now.
regards,
doug
>
compx2
> Do you think we're all
> here for our vocation?
We are here because we are Baha'is. I presume each of us, like you
and me, have something which we believe is desireable Baha'i-wise to
share. A lot of us consider that our vocation.
> This is a straw man argument. Who in our Faith is taking up arms
> against science?
I don't get how my reference to 'Abdu'l-Baha'is concept of five
spiritual powers is an argument at all, much less a straw one. My
point is that the Writings supply conceptualities to understand
relationships, aspects and atributes of all things. My religion is
not science, and doesn't try to be, but is in harmony with science as
'Abdu'l-Baha's reference to our spiritual powers illustrates.
Nice talking with you, however. --Kent
compx2
> Some concepts are
> immortal, precede man and can never change.
I don't understand how a concept can precede man. On the other hand,
order preexists its discovery.
> We didn't invent them, we
> discover them. My longstanding question is where do they really exist?
> What does this signify?
'Abdu'l-Baha talked about rational preexistence. The order that
preexists the discovery of that order is not intellectual or rational
in its essence. But that is how we understand it.
> In our desire to seek unity between science and religion ...
My understanding is the harmony of science and religion is a decree, a
command, like elimination of prejudice, a universal auxiliary
language, and daily prayer. Baha'is need to be sure our conceptions of
science are in accord with our religion, and vice versa. We need
constant vigilence, like with our racism and daily prayer.
> ... it's
> okay to investigate and entertain questions like the physics of
> prayer, this creative line of thinking is okay.
We have differing opinions. I see it as pointless speculation.
> ... Frankly, I
> haven't found a single scientific inference from Baha'u'llahs
> statements to be wrong.
Of course not.
Warmly, --Kent
Douglas McAdam
I'm also having trouble to understand about all this and past
experience has dictated I best not participate yet I also realize
there are others who might be lurking and who truly are interested in
hearing diverse views about such things as are often brought up on the
Internet discussions by Baha'is of all ranks and understandings, and
so I thought maybe I might share yet "another point of view".
I have been a Baha'i now for 41 years and have perused most of the
Writings available several times over as well as much that is written
by Baha'is about their understanding of things and I have served on
many Assemblies and taught in most of the USA as well as several other
countries, including two Native American Reservations and so I think I
have a fairly broad experience with the Baha'i community at large and
I am proud to be a Baha'i and member of this community. Sure I have
seen many bizarre things, experienced many problems with Baha'is who
are struggling to become more spiritual, but on the whole I feel our
community is far more advanced than any other in many ways. I have
experienced dealing with child abuse, common law marriage, youth
selling drugs to other youths at a Baha'i Summer Camp, various types
of disunity, the loss of an Assembly and some really terrible
communication problems, especially on the Internet, and in most cases
the most communication problems appear to come from the well educated,
not the lay person. Maybe it is something inherent in our
intellectual community, I don't know, but it seems to me that instead
of Baha'i consultation we are seeing old world styles of debate
wherein both sides are trying to win at all costs instead of achieving
love and unity, which after all is the purpose of consultation from
which the truth will emerge. With all this as a backdrop I'd like to
share some thoughts about the harmony of science and religion, why we
should delve into questions related to both branches of knowledge in
spite of not being scientists.
God has created all this, and the Writings show us the He created the
Perfect Man, the Manifestation of God, who resides in a separate realm
from that of God and His Creation. We have the realm of God, the
realm of the Manifestation and the realm of Creation. We in Creation
can never share in the realm of the Manifestation nor can the
Manifestation reach the level of God. But the Manifestation shares in
both His own realm and that of Creation by having a human body.
God gives the Manifestation the power to recreate Creation and endow
it with a new potential. Each time He appears, in a different body
and title, such as Moses, Christ, Muhammad, Baha'u'llah, etc., He
endows Creation with a new potential. How could He do this without
knowledge of the Creation? He tells us that all our sciences and arts
come from the next world. They are gifts, but we must discover and
experience them. We learn through three ways, i.e., Discovery,
Experience and Revelation. The Manifestation reveals knowledge to us,
and we discover and experience it by the use of our powers of faith,
intellect and senses. Our faith enables us to accept the
Manifestation and what He is revealing to us and we are told we must
independently investigate this truth by the use of our senses and
intellectual powers with the spirit of faith added. All these powers
have a purpose which Baha'u'llah has explained to us. If He says
fundamentally science and religion, the products of our discovery by
faith and reason, are in harmony then so be it. The problem is that
we make the disharmony between science and religion by imposing our
limited understanding on both branches of knowledge. We hear some
people say that the two are separate and should not interfere with
each others domain and of course this is a good principle, but that
does not mean that both cannot understand each other. I find far too
many scholars claiming in absolute terms that science cannot be
applied to spiritual realities and that there is no scientific
knowledge in the Revelations from God and I do not agree with these
self-limiting thoughts and to me they do not represent true science,
for a scientist is concerned about investigating and understanding
mysteries that appear to us, and for sure the spiritual realm is a
huge mystery. So if a scientist says we cannot understand religion or
spiritual realities, he or she will not investigate, but to me that
is a self-limiting decision, because Baha'u'llah has told us that true
science and true religion are in harmony. If He is Who He claims to
be, i.e., representing God's Will to Creation then He must know what
He is talking about. How could he diagnose the ills of society and
prescribe a Remedy if He did not have the necessary knowledge to do so?
From my perspective, whatever He has revealed, whether historical
knowledge, knowledge about Creation, both its spiritual and material
aspects is knowledges that we can observe and understand and if our
present methodologies are inadequate then we must develop a new one.
In fact the House of Justice told us in a letter that current
methodologies in the scholarly community are not sufficient to study
the Baha'i Faith and that we need to design a new one.
I could go into more generality and details about how I see all this
but it has already probably gone beyond the patience of most of the
friends and so I will simply summarize all this by saying that when we
run into information in the Writings about the physical creation
which seem to disagree with our understanding of science we tend to
want to find some way to rationalize this, and so we often conclude
that Revelation is only about morals and ethics and any other
information that appears to be about history or the phenomenal world
is taken to be metaphorical or symbolism because we believe our
ability to reason and formulate sciences, is far more absolute truth
than what the Manifestation knows about such things.
Personally, I think we should remain open-minded and devote our
energies and time to being of service to God and humanity by acquiring
virtues which in time will increase our intelligence and the use of
all our faculties and then we will more fully understand the harmony
of science and religion. From my perspective I take it literally that
all sciences are supposed to be a pathway to God and if scientists
were to remain open-minded about all this we might find our
understanding of both the physical and spiritual realities
dramatically improving.
God bless us all,
doug
Douglas McAdam
I'm also having trouble to understand about all this and past
hearing diverse views about such things as are often brought up on the
I have been a Baha'i now for 41 years and have perused all Writings
available several times over as well as about 90% of all that is
written by Baha'is about their understanding of things and I have
served on many Assemblies and taught in most of the USA as well as
several other countries including two Native American Reservations and
so I think I have a fairly broad experience with the Baha'i community
at large and I am proud to be a Baha'i and member of this community.
Sure I have seen many bizarre things, experienced many problems with
Baha'is who are struggling to become more spiritual but on the whole I
feel our community is far more advanced than any other community at
large. I have experienced dealing with child abuse, common law
marriage, youth selling drugs to other youths at a Baha'i Summer Camp,
various types of disunity, the loss of an Assembly and some really
terrible communication problems, especially on the Internet, and in
most cases the most communication problems appear to come from the
well educated, not the lay person. Maybe it is something inherent in
our intellectual community, I don't know, but it seems to me that
instead of Baha'i consultation we are seeing old world styles of
debate wherein both sides are trying to win at all costs instead of
achieving love and unity, which after all is the purpose of
consultation from which the truth will emerge. With all this as a
backdrop I'd like to share some thoughts about the harmony of science
and religion, why we should delve into questions related to both
branches of knowledge in spite of not being scientists.
God has created all this and the Writings show us the He created the
Perfect Man, the Manifestation of God who resides in a separate realm
of that of God and His Creation. We have the realm of God, the realm
of the Manifestation and the realm of Creation. We in Creation can
never share in the realm of the Manifestation nor can the
Manifestation reach the level of God. But the Manifestation shares in
both His own realm and that of Creation by having a human body.
God gives the Manifestation the power to recreate Creation and endow
it with a new potential. Each time He appears, in a different body
and title, such as Moses, Christ, Muhammad, Baha'u'llah, etc. He
endows Creation with a new potential. How could He do this if without
knowledge of the Creation? He tells us that all our sciences and arts
come from the next world. They are gifts but we must discover and
experience them. We learn through three ways, i.e., Discovery,
Experience and Revelation. The Manifestation reveals knowledge to us
and we discover and experience it by the use of our powers of faith,
intellect and senses. Our faith enables us to accept the
Manifestation and what He is revealing to us and we are told we must
independently investigate this truth by the use of our senses and
intellectual powers with the spirit of faith added. All these powers
have a purpose which Baha'u'llah has explained to us. If He says
fundamentally science and religion, the products of our discovery by
faith and reason, are in harmony then so be it. The problem is that
we make the disharmony between science and religion by imposing our
limited understanding on both branches of knowledge. We hear some
people say that the two are separate and should not interfere with
each others domain and of course this is a good principle but that
does not mean that both cannot understand each other. I find far too
many scholars claiming in absolute terms that science cannot be
applied to spiritual realities and that there is no scientific
knowledge in the Revelations from God and I do not agree with these
self-limiting thoughts and to me they do not represent true science
for a scientist is concerned about investigating and understanding
mysteries that appear to us and for sure the spiritual realm is a hugh
mystery. So if a scientist says we cannot understand religion or
spiritual realities then so be it he or she will not investigate but
to me that is a self-limiting decision because Baha'u'llah has told us
that science and religion are in harmony. If He is Who He claims to
be, i.e., representing God's Will to Creation then for sure He must
know what He is talking about. How could he diagnose the ills of
society and prescribe a Remedy if He did not have the necessary
knowledge to do so?
From my perspective whatever He has revealed, whether historical
knowledge, knowledge about Creation, both its spiritual and material
aspects are knowledges that we can observe and understand and if our
present methodologies are inadequate then we must develop a new one.
In fact the House of Justice told us in a letter that current
methodologies in the scholarly community are not sufficient to study
the Baha'i Faith and that we need to design a new one.
I could go into more generality and details about how I see all this
but it has already probably gone beyond the patience of most of the
friends and so I will simply summarize all this by saying that when we
run into what appears to be Writings concerning history, information
about the physical creation which seem to disagree with our
understandings of science we tend to want to find some way to
rationalize this and so we then conclude that Revelation is only about
morals and ethics and any other information that appears to be about
history or the phenomenal world we take it to be metaphorical or
symbolism because we believe our ability to reason and formulate
sciences is far more absolute truth than what the Manifestation knows
about such things.
Personally I think we should remain open minded and and devote our
energies and time to being of service to God and humanity by acquiring
virtues which in time will increase our intelligence and the use of
all our faculties and then we will more fully understand the harmony
of science and religion. From my perspective I take it literally that
all sciences are supposed to be a pathway to God and if scientists
were to remain open minded about all this we might find our
understanding of both the physical and spiritual realities
dramatically improving.
God bless us all,
doug
On Aug 5, 2009, at 10:48 AM, Suzanne wrote:
mike3
Thank you for the response.
Douglas McAdam
I know what you mean and yet to me we find answers to questions in
both science and religion. Knowledge is revealed to us by God through
His Manifestations and we discover and experience it in many ways. So
to me Revelation is indeed a set of answers to questions and so is
science.
I think of the human being as having three levels of awareness, i.e.,
our knowing power of the senses in the physical level, and next higher
is the intellect which also depends on the senses, and still higher
the knowing power of faith. None separately can be relied upon to
report all of reality to us for the senses are limited and can report
things that do not exist, such as seeing railroad tracks coming
together in a distance. Our intellect also is not totally dependable
because of its reliance on the senses and what knowledge gained from
limited education. And our power of faith can enable us to believe in
an untruth as well as a truth. So we need to have unity in these
augmentative degrees of knowing power. Thus when we focus on the
overall purpose of existence, such as to know and love God, to carry
forth an ever advancing civilization, love and unity, be of service
etc. then our powers are unified and more efficient.
Baha'u'llah gives us an Overall View of things and we have a limited
or Personal View. Both in a way are evolving. Each Revelation gives
us more Overall Knowledge and as we become unified we find our
Personal Views improving.
From my Personal and present limited view I cannot in any way limit
the Revelation of Baha'u'llah. If I have questions I look to
Baha'u'llah's Revelation, the primary and secondary sources and I also
look to science. And when I find what appears to be a contradiction
in the Writings I know from experience it is due to my present and
limited understanding and in time this will be more fully understood.
As to the subject of questions and the quote of the Bab etc. I think
since Baha'u'llah has lifted this restriction we should go by what
Baha'u'llah has revealed. It is my understanding that questions are
an attribute.
I simply prefer not to limit myself by saying the Writings are only
this or that like some do. The Writings are quite clear about how to
value man's knowledge.
To me any question is valid and should be answered. The analogy you
offered from the Bab does not to me mean we should not ask questions,
it means we should try to find answers in the right place and for some
that might be the Writings and for others it might be science.
Another quote to consider it that of the following -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“The attainment of any object is conditioned upon knowledge, volition
and action. Unless these three conditions are forthcoming there is no
execution or accomplishment.” ( FWU p.101)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So using our will power and taking action is how we learn.
regards,
doug
On Aug 6, 2009, at 10:29 AM, John MacLeod wrote:
> On Aug 6, 12:51 pm, Douglas McAdam <douglasmca...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On the other hand I am wondering how it is that the Manifestation of
>> God recreates and endows Creation with a new potential and yet does
>> not have the answer to all questions. All knowledge is revealed to
>> us
>
>> and it seems logical to me that the Revealer can answer all
>> questions. All the sciences and arts come from God. I tend to remai
> n
>> more open to the possibility that the main reason we have troubles
>> today in seeking answers in the Writings has to do with the fact that
>> we are not yet spiritual developed enough to find them for we are
>> imposing our ego prompted imaginations on things.
>>
> I think perhaps what I am suggesting is that the core of knowledge,
> wisdom, and truth is not a set of answers to questions and we should
> be careful of thinking that what we can get from the Revelation is
> merely answers to questions.
> The Bab actually forbade asking questions of "He Whom God will make
> Manifest". Baha'u'llah lifted this restriction but it is worth
> looking at the texts involved.
>
John MacLeod
wrote:
Just a response to a couple of things you said:
> As to the subject of questions and the quote of the Bab etc. I think
> since Baha'u'llah has lifted this restriction we should go by what
> Baha'u'llah has revealed.
I entirely agree. And even the quote from the Bab actually softened
itself to allow questions in writing. And furthermore I think there
is a real difference between asking the Manifestation direct questions
when He was in this world and seeking answers in His freely revealed
Writings. So I agree that it is perfectly permissible to seek answers
to questions in the Writings.
Nevertheless, I feel there is guidance on what kind of questions we
should be seeking answers to from the Revelation. In the quote I gave
Baha'u'llah Himself counselled:
"....but not such idle questions as those on which the men of former
times were wont to dwell." Unless someone can find some authoritative
guidance that describes these questions in more detail I guess its up
to each of us to decide what were the idle questions of the past. For
myself I tend to regard them as the doctrinal or pseudo-philosophical
type that for me at least 'begin with words and end with words'.
I think more obviously useful is the other part of the quote:
"Ask ye that which shall be of profit to you in the Cause of God and
His dominion, for
the portals of His tender compassion have been opened before all who
dwell in heaven and on earth."
Again each person has I suppose to decide what will profit them in the
Cause of God but it does at least give me a criteria to apply as to
what is appropriate to seek in the Writings.
>
> To me any question is valid and should be answered. The analogy you
> offered from the Bab does not to me mean we should not ask questions,
No certainly not.
>
> it means we should try to find answers in the right place and for some
>
> that might be the Writings and for others it might be science.
Agreed
Douglas McAdam
In general I agree but have some specific thoughts generated by some
of your statements below.
Please see my comments below each paragraph in question.
On Aug 11, 2009, at 7:42 AM, John MacLeod wrote:
> On Aug 10, 3:44 am, Douglas McAdam <douglasmca...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
> Just a response to a couple of things you said:
>
>> As to the subject of questions and the quote of the Bab etc. I think
>> since Baha'u'llah has lifted this restriction we should go by what
>> Baha'u'llah has revealed.
>
> I entirely agree. And even the quote from the Bab actually softened
> itself to allow questions in writing. And furthermore I think there
> is a real difference between asking the Manifestation direct questions
> when He was in this world and seeking answers in His freely revealed
> Writings. So I agree that it is perfectly permissible to seek answers
> to questions in the Writings.
The only difference I see is that when asking Him direct questions
when alive is that He would be able to answer fully and directly but
in the case of the Writings the answers are there but we must discover
them. And we won't discover them if we ourselves limit things. First
of all we must ourselves be in a certain spiritual condition to
perceive holistically those same Writings for we must be able to put
things into context. For example compilations are a help but at the
same time they do not present all available Writings on a given
subject for they are a word index, not a subject index. The best
example I can give is a compilation on education or say teaching for
it will give us quotes citing those that have the words education and
teaching in them and yet here is another quote that most certainly and
logically relate to both.--
"How great the multitude of truths which the garment of words can
never contain! How vast the number of such verities as no expression
can adequately describe, whose significance can never be unfolded, and
to which not even the remotest allusions can be made! How manifold
are the truths which must remain unuttered until the appointed time is
come! Even as it hath been said: "Not everything that a man knoweth
can be disclosed, nor can everything that he can disclose be regarded
as timely, nor can every timely utterance be considered as suited to
the capacity of those who hear it."
Of these truths some can be disclosed only to the extent of the
capacity of the repositories of the light of our Knowledge, and the
recipients of Our hidden grace. We beseech God to strengthen thee
with His power, and enable thee to recognize Him Who is the Source of
all knowledge, that thou mayest detach thyself from all human
learning, for, "what would it profit any man to strive after learning
when he hath already found and recognized Him Who is the Object of all
knowledge?" Cleave to the Root of Knowledge, and to Him Who is the
Fountain thereof, that thou mayest find thyself independent of all who
claim to be will versed in human learning, and whose claim no clear
proof, nor the testimony of any enlightening book, can support." P.
176 Gleanings LXXXIX
>
> Nevertheless, I feel there is guidance on what kind of questions we
> should be seeking answers to from the Revelation. In the quote I gave
> Baha'u'llah Himself counselled:
> "....but not such idle questions as those on which the men of former
> times were wont to dwell." Unless someone can find some authoritative
> guidance that describes these questions in more detail I guess its up
> to each of us to decide what were the idle questions of the past. For
> myself I tend to regard them as the doctrinal or pseudo-philosophical
> type that for me at least 'begin with words and end with words'.
> I think more obviously useful is the other part of the quote:
> "Ask ye that which shall be of profit to you in the Cause of God and
> His dominion, for
> the portals of His tender compassion have been opened before all who
> dwell in heaven and on earth."
> Again each person has I suppose to decide what will profit them in the
> Cause of God but it does at least give me a criteria to apply as to
> what is appropriate to seek in the Writings.
Yes I agree but my problem stems from someone telling me or the
community at large through an Internet discussion what is appropriate
and what is not. Like you said it is a matter each person must decide.
How often have I run into friends who are Baha'is or seekers who want
to discuss something and it opens a door for me to share something
they had not imagined, nor I. People often do not at first reveal
what they really want to discuss. And often I find many seeking souls
arguing with a truth I shared and later came back and told me the same
thing as if they themselves thought it up. I think this is because
the soul is created to see the Truth but the ego fights against it and
then the soul takes over and the person thinks they had their own
inspiration, which in a way is true.
About the only thing that I would say we need not waste time in is in
speculation about 500 or 1,000 years into the future when we are
supposed to have a World Commonwealth. That to me is like a cave man
trying to speculate about today when they do not have the necessary
knowledge to do so. Gosh we are only a few hundred years into a 5,000
century cycle and probably 500 years in the future they will look back
on us as barbarians. Not to say we cannot learn something from such
speculations but I think we have more important and current goals to
achieve.
regards,
doug
>
Charles
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hi Kent,
I didn't mean to sound like a patootie in my previous post, and I
apologize. I have been away from the internet for a week & oh my! a
lot of reading to catch up on just in this lil' thread.
Oddly, I agree & disagree with what you said. First, yes, it isn't
really proper to jump into the ng with a physics questions in a Baha'i
forum, yet, as other posters pointed out, there is apparently a rather
high degree of "science" in the Writings. So I will admit to being
wrong for being abrupt, but not OT. I do have a degree in physics,
but have not used it professionally. moving on from that now...
I guess what concerns me is that we already need "more" Revelation, in
order to clear up a few more issues. This is only my humble opinion
(IMHO). Now, once I mentioned this to a fellow that I consider to be
quite wise and well-read in the Writings, and he responded, "Do you
understand Gleanings yet?" ... well, no. can any of us ever fully
comprehend "Gleanings?" I suppose that the "amount" of Revelation
that is now before us is just the right amount for what we currently
need & will need into the near future. Makes one wonder about those
tablets that were washed off right after they were revealed!
I would like more "science" in my Writings. :)
and I would love to see a few of those issues resolved that are part
of our current time.... homosexuality (but this does not need to be
another thread about that issue.), evolution. nature of our
creation. distant history. ancient Revalators. etc.
History is essentially a philosophy that "begins and ends" in words,
yes? I LOVE history, and am saying this as one that loves it. but,
really, what good does it do me to learn about, say, how mankind
evolved, or what the Etruscans did in their day to day lives? I read
a lot... I read a lot of biographies (the one right now is on Abraham
Lincoln.) I have grappled with this issue in my head... does this
"begin and end in words?" yes, but I also will say that I think
humans have a deep need to understand where they come from, and to
what end they are heading... and that is the stuff of history. .... a
different poster in this thread mentioned that it is the useless
philosphies that were in question... and like the grammarian worried
about the truth of the Quran because of the odd grammar used in the
Book.
maybe it is analogous to that idea that we should renew the
furnishings in our houses every 19 years... but don't throw out the
priceless antiques!
regards
charles
compx2
Sound like a patootie? No way, you are the only one who reads what I
say.
But we are still miles apart.
>... there is apparently a rather
> high degree of "science" in the Writings.
Am not sure I agree, depends upon what a "high degree" is. Like my
example of five spiritual powers. Is that a high degree of science?
> ...can any of us ever fully
> comprehend "Gleanings?"
Can anyone fully comprend anything? It is not as though Gleanings is
a text book, or a treatise, or a theorem, or socratic dialog, or
philosophical elucidation of wisdom, or poem, or riddle. It is
spiritual inspiration. It also contains advice, mostly ignored,
however. There are no mysteries, at least none that are will change
anyone's life. In essence, the Word of God tells us to behave, to act
good, to learn and acquire virtues, to act, to work hard. If we are
good we will do good things, help others, make the world a better
place. It really is that simple, and it is not magic, unless magic is
hard work with no visible, evident reward, but rather invisible,
inevident and bounteous rewards.
> Makes one wonder about those
> tablets that were washed off right after they were revealed!
Probably said something to the effect that humans won't do what needs
to be done unless they are tricked by thinking they have magic.
> I would like more "science" in my Writings. :)
Why? Would that help humanity? Who would it help?
> History is essentially a philosophy that "begins and ends" in words,
> yes?
History is a story. It is useful to the extent that it betters the
behavior of those who have heard it. It really is that simple.
> humans have a deep need to understand where they come from, and to
> what end they are heading... and that is the stuff of history.
We love stories. The trick is not to get us to listen. It is to get
us to act.
> maybe it is analogous to that idea that we should renew the
> furnishings in our houses every 19 years... but don't throw out the
> priceless antiques!
What makes them priceless?
Nice talking to you. --Kent
> charles- Hide quoted text -
Suzanne
I have been at a Baha'i summer school all week, and one of the
speakers was talking about the Writings of Shoghi Effendi.
Occasionally passages that were cited made me think about your
question about evolution, in the broadest sense of the word. Besides
the obvious passages of 'Abdu'l-BAha about biological evolution, the
Writings of this Faith talk about societal and religious evolution a
great deal. Here's just a few examples:
"The long ages of infancy and childhood, through which the human race
had to pass, have receded into the background. Humanity is now
experiencing the commotions invariably associated with the most
turbulent stage of its evolution, the stage of adolescence, when the
impetuosity of youth and its vehemence reach their climax, and must
gradually be superseded by the calmness, the wisdom, and the maturity
that characterize the stage of manhood. Then will the human race
reach that stature of ripeness which will enable it to acquire all the
powers and capacities upon which its ultimate development must depend.
"
(Shoghi Effendi: World Order of Baha'u'llah, Page: 202)
"...the organic evolution of mankind has been slow and gradual, and
involved successively the unification of the family, the tribe, the
city-state, and the nation, so has the light vouchsafed by the
Revelation of God, at various stages in the evolution of religion, and
reflected in the successive Dispensations of the past, been slow and
progressive. Indeed the measure of Divine Revelation, in every age,
has been adapted to, and commensurate with, the degree of social
progress achieved in that age by a constantly evolving humanity.
(Shoghi Effendi: The Promised Day is Come, Page: 117)
Also, Shoghi Effendi spoke about the evolution of the Baha'i Faith:
"...the successive stages of unmitigated obscurity, of active
repression, and of complete emancipation, leading in turn to its being
acknowledged as an independent Faith, enjoying the status of full
equality with its sister religions, to be followed by its
establishment and recognition as a State religion, which in turn must
give way to its assumption of the rights and prerogatives associated
with the Baha'i state, functioning in the plenitude of its powers, a
stage which must ultimately culminate in the emergence of the
worldwide Baha'i Commonwealth, animated wholly by the spirit, and
operating solely in direct conformity with the laws and principles of
Baha'u'llah.
(Shoghi Effendi: The Advent of Divine Justice, Page: 15)
"The Faith is divided into three Ages: the Heroic, the Formative,
the Golden Age, as has been outlined in His Writings. The Heroic Age
closed with the Ascension of Abdu'l-Baha. The Formative Age is
divided into epochs. The first epoch lasted 25 years. We are now
actually in the second epoch of the Formative Age. How long the
Formative Age will last is not known, and there will probably be a
number of epochs in it.
"The Divine Plan of Abdu'l-Baha is divided into epochs. The first
Seven-Year Plan constituted the first stage of the first epoch; the
second Seven-Year Plan constitutes the second stage; while the Ten-
Year Crusade will constitute the third stage of the first epoch of the
Divine Plan. The first epoch of the Divine Plan will conclude with
the conclusion of the Ten-Year Crusade."
(Shoghi Effendi: Directives of the Guardian, Pages: 2-3)
Evolution is clearly the process God uses in bringing into being new
creations, whether they are physical, spiritual or societal.
Thanks for bringing this theme to my attention.
All best wishes,
Suzanne