That is because, as I offered, this indwelling is explained in different terms.
But the texts you cite are just statements about the various 'realities' –
they don't address the question.
Baha'u'llah answers that.
"And now concerning thy question regarding the soul of man and its survival after death...
I'm not talking about
after death, I'm talking about while in the flesh.
+++
Further on, Abu'l-baha says:
"... Every soul who believed in Jesus Christ became revivified and resuscitated through this spirit, attained to the zenith of eternal glory, realized the life everlasting, experienced the second birth and rose to the acme of good fortune."
Why the past tense?
He fails to grasp the Eternal Word is Ever Present: "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and today, and forever.” (Hebrews 13:8).
From a broader viewpoint, in the teachings of the Great Traditions – of the Taoist, the Hindu or the Buddhist, for example, then there is the same principle, of salvation, or deliverance, or enlightenment – of realisation – expressed in its own terms. Every Traditional Path is complete and entire to itself, and is self-sufficient in that regard, and as it rises in the Eternal, it never ceases in its effectiveness and effulgence.
(His many assertions that the followers of the Great Religions are just mimicing their fathers, going through the motions and following empty rituals and practices is just ignorant and actually quite offensive.)
+++
The final paragraph under the heading 'Eternal Unity' says:
"There is also the divine unity or entity which is sanctified above all concept of humanity. It cannot be comprehended nor conceived because it is infinite reality and cannot become finite."
But no-one says that ... ?
Here Abu'l-baha just sets out a list of logical fallacies which none of the Great Traditions – in their orthodox forms – adheres to. So why do it? It's just hyperbole.
What he
does not say is what the other Traditions
do say –
While the Absolute remains inviolate, there must be something of the Absolute about the relative, even if that cannot be put into words – or more accessibly put: the Infinite must include in itself the finite, because if it does not include that 'other', it is neither Absolute nor Infinite.
"Human minds are incapable of surrounding that reality ... "
Indeed so, but what of the sanctified soul which finds itself 'surrounded' by the Transcendent? What of that?
"... because all thoughts and conceptions of it are finite, intellectual creations and not the reality of divine being which alone knows itself."
Hence the saints and sages talk of something beyond finite, intellectual comprehension. Beyond words and images. Where is mention of that?
The Darkness of God. The Cloud of Unknowing. What of that?
This 'dark knowing' gave rise to the style of language which, in the Christian Tradition, we call
apophasis, a 'negative theology' in which nothing can be affirmed of the utterly Transcendent – this is what the Sage means when he writes "The Tao that can be spoken of is not the enduring and unchanging Tao"; this is what is meant by the Sanskrit '
neti-neti' of Hindu Jnana Yoga and the Advaita.
"The reality of divinity is sanctified above this degree of knowing and realization. It has ever been hidden and secluded in its own holiness and sanctity above our comprehending ... the Sun of Reality never descends from its own highest point and station.
Then he really doesn't comprehend the Christian Tradition, the Incarnation, the Christ-hymn of Philippians 2:6-11.
"According to Phil. 2:6
et seq., the same Christ, who was in the figure of God and was equal to God took the form of a servant and became like unto man. This Kenosis, on account of the absolute immutability of God, cannot be understood as a renunciation of the Divine Nature, but only as a renunciation (in His human nature) of the Divine Glory. To the Divine nature which He retained, He added the human nature ... The Christ who appeared in the form of a servant is therefore a Divine Person, who possesses the Divine as well as a human nature."
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. "The Unity of Christ's Person" on
kenosis.
But this is by-the-by ... we're still talking past each other, and I see no hope of it being otherwise.
Let's call it there.
