The Archeology of the Kingdom of God: Diving a Bit Deeper into a Baha'i Approach to Metaphysics

You do not accept the Quran was revealed to Muhammad (pbuh) by the angel Jibreel -- as the agent of Allah? Muhammad was just experiencing a mind state?

Abdu'l-Baha tells Baha'is who or what Gabriel is in the Writings. Here is a full text of Abdu'l-Baha's position on angels (with some quotes from the Qur'an and Baha'u'llah):

2. On the Meanings of the Terms “Angels” and “Jinn”​

translated by Adib Ma'sumian and Peyman Sazedj at adibmasumian.com


The original text of this passage is published in Vahid Rafati, Badáyiʻ-i-Maʻání va Tafsír, pp. 252–255.

O thou who hast turned thy face towards the court of eternity, and art even as a brand afire with the flames of the Burning Bush! Concerning thy question about the term “angels” and the meaning thereof in Divine Scripture—know, verily, that by “angels,” various meanings are intended.

In relation to creation, the term “angels” applieth to those who have sanctified the hem of their garments from corrupt desires, and who mirror forth every attribute of Him Who is the Lord of the heavens. The term “angel” is a reference to their spiritual condition and a testimony to their inner being and reality. These are they whom God hath mentioned in His verses and remembered by various names. I will now recount unto thee some of these names and expound their meanings, that thou mayest understand what the Adored One hath intended through His words. Among them is “the bearers of the throne.” [1] Know thou that by “throne” is meant the heart of man, even as He Who is the Nightingale of Eternity and the Celestial Dove hath warbled: “The heart of the believer is the throne of the All-Merciful,” [2] and the Tongue of Grandeur hath, in the Hidden Words, proclaimed: “Thy heart is My home; sanctify it for My descent. Thy spirit is My place of revelation; cleanse it for My manifestation.” [3] For the heart is the recipient of the effulgences of divine Beauty, and the seat upon which the love of God, the Lord of the beginning and the end, hath established its sovereignty.

In relation to God, the term “angels” referreth to the Prophets of God and His Messengers, even as He hath said in the Qurʼán: “Praise be to God, Fashioner of the heavens and the earth, Who sendeth forth the angels as His Messengers with two, or three, or four pairs of wings…” [4] That which the All-Glorious God hath intended by “wings” in this verse are the modes of revelation and the kinds of proofs wherewith He hath sent His Messengers. These “wings” He hath made the means by which men may attain to the Wellspring of divine guidance, and all creation be led aright to the paradise of love and affection. For this, above all else, will conduce to the advancement of the world, and serve as the most potent of wings whereby the pure in heart may soar unto the Paradise of Oneness and the sacred abode of Divine Unity. Thus hath it been referred to as “wings” in the Scriptures of God.

I swear by God, O thou who hast set thy face towards Him! Were a man to incline his inner ear unto but a single verse of his Lord, and discover the delight of discerning the hidden meanings concealed therein, he would assuredly rise unto the highest peaks of righteousness, and ascend from the nether worlds of dust unto the lofty realms of truth.

In another sense, the term “angels” referreth to the pervading influence of the Will of God—as well as His perfect, all-encompassing purpose—inasmuch as it is the cause of the world’s creation, and the reason for which the frame of non-existence was arrayed with the raiment of existence. Indeed, the term “angels” may be interpreted as all the attributes of God. Were I to further elaborate on this matter, my discourse would grow overly lengthy. Whoso wisheth to fully apprise himself thereof, let him read the verses of God—the Almighty, the Beneficent—and ponder the manifold meanings revealed therein. Thereupon shall he understand the intent, and may well dispense with such things as are recorded in the books of men.

In yet another sense, the term “angels” referreth to the laws sent down from the heaven of the Will of the All-Merciful, which He hath made the supreme instrument for the protection of the world, and ordained as the source of both life and death. When these laws confer upon the believers the spirit of life, they are called “the angel of life” [5]; when they divest the ungodly of that same spirit, they are called “the angel of death” [6]; and when they protect the servants of God from misfortune, they are called “guardian angels.” In each case have they been given a specific name in the verses of God, but those who are endued with true understanding will feel neither doubtful nor perplexed by the differences among the names revealed in the Books of the Prophets.

Know, then, O thou who believest in God, that the One Who created existence from sheer nothingness, and “taught man what he knew not,” [7] is unconstrained to do what He willeth, and powerful to fashion a new creation as He pleaseth. No man of discernment can deny the peerless potency of His power, or gainsay the subduing force of His might. Indeed, those possessed of insight rest well assured that, if God so willeth, He would call into being creatures that are impervious to the changes and chances of this world, and inscrutable to the senses of all that dwell on earth. I will now cite for thee, in this connection, what hath been sent down from the Kingdom of God—the Mighty, the Incomparable—in response to him who had asked his Lord, the All-Glorious, about Gabriel. He saith, exalted be His grandeur and magnified be His might:

Regarding thine inquiry about the angel Gabriel, lo, He hath now arisen before Our face and proclaimeth: “O thou inquirer! Know verily that no sooner had the Tongue of Grandeur uttered His exalted words, ‘O Gabriel,’ than thou couldst behold Me outwardly manifested in the most beauteous of forms. Be not astounded thereby, for verily thy Lord is the Almighty, the Most Powerful.” [8]

Now concerning thy question about the “jinn”—know thou that God, exalted be He, hath created man from four elements: fire, air, water, and earth. Out of fire, heat hath been produced, and from heat, motion hath been engendered. The term “jinn” applieth when the temperament of fire in man dominateth the others, and pertaineth primarily to them that believe in God, are well assured in His signs, and strive in His path, for they were created from the fire of the divine Word which the Tongue of God hath uttered. It is for this reason that He hath said, and His Word is the Truth: “And He created the jinn from a smokeless fire.” [9] Thus hath He described them in His lucid Book through these weighty words: “Powerful over the disbelievers [are they that are with Muḥammad],” [10] for when they wage war against the perverse, thou seest them swift as brilliant lightning and subduing as a piercing spear. Exalted is He Who hath animated them with that fire kindled by the divine Lote-Tree! But when instead thou dost regard their mercy, their kindness, and their obedience to the Cause of God—as well as their sanctification from all else but Him—we refer to them as “angels,” just as we mentioned in the beginning of our explanation.

In another sense, the term “jinn” applieth to those who so excel others in their faith that thou seest them spurred into motion—a motion born of the fire which the Word of God hath ignited. For the sighs of tender affection rise from their hearts, and the flame of the love of God, the Lord of the beginning and the end, burneth brightly within their breasts.

Know thou, O inquirer, that we have expounded unto thee the true meaning of “jinn.” But know, moreover, that, in a metaphorical sense, the term “jinn” also applieth to the disbelievers, due to the pride and arrogance they demonstrate in the Cause of God, as well as the quarrels and disputes they raise with His Prophets. That which hath been sent down in the Súrih of Jinn from the Heaven of the Will of God, the Lord of the worlds, is a sufficient testimony unto the truth of both interpretations. He saith, exalted be He: “Say: It was revealed unto Me that a group of jinn gave ear [to the Qurʼán], and they said, ‘We, verily, have heard a wondrous Qurʼán; it guideth aright, therefore we believe in it and shall never ascribe any partner unto our Lord…some among us are righteous, while others are not; many and divergent are the paths we follow.’” [11]

————–

  1. Notes
    [1] A reference to Qurʼán 69:17: “And the angels will be on its sides, and over them on that day eight will bear up the throne of thy Lord.”
    [2] A tradition attributed to Muḥammad.
    [3] Baháʼuʼlláh, Arabic Hidden Word #59.
    [4] Qurʼán 35:1.
    [5] Literally, Isráfíl, which in Islam refers to the angel who will sound a trumpet-blast on the Day of Resurrection that will cause the dead to rise from their graves.
    [6] Literally, ʻIzráʼíl, which in Islam refers to the angel of death.
    [7] Qurʼán 96:5.
    [8] ʻAbduʼl-Bahá is quoting a passage from an untranslated Tablet of Baháʼuʼlláh, published in Majmúʻiy-i-Alváḥ-i-Mubárakih, pp. 330–334. This particular passage appears on p. 334 of that collection.
    [9] Qurʼán 55:15.
    [10] Qurʼán 48:29.
    [11] Qurʼán 72:12 and 72:11.
 
Last edited:
@Ahanu
Would this be the most concise definition of 'the anthropic principle' as intended here in the Baha'i context?
Sure.

It doesn't seem to agree with the commonly accepted scientific use of the term, as given in my post #167
It does not agree. In the Baha'i context, the Anthropic Principle focuses on the idea that a universe without a conscious being to know its creator would be incomplete. It describes the inherent connection between creation and the ability to comprehend it at various levels.

Are you aware of the cosmic Fine Tuning argument, that gives rise to the necessity for the Anthropic Principle in the first place?
Wiki: Fine Tuned Universe
Yes.
Scientists are easily irritated by woo-woo use of scientific terms by various spiritual groups
Fair enough.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
removed
see #185 below
 
Last edited:
I tend to regard angels/demons are more than internal psychological states, and that such states can be triggered by apprehension of external entities, for example, or the interplay between the individual self, and the transcendent Self.

I read Henry Corbin's 'Imaginal Realm' is an intermediate/interface state between the human and the Divine – that 'imaginal' is not read to mean the same as 'imaginary'.

Here are some quick quotes from Jean-Marc Lepain about the complicated debates within Islam about the Imaginal Realm.

On al-Ghazali:
"Al-Ghazali is, after al-Makki, the first to set forth an onto-cosmological (or cosmo-ontological, it is a question of nuance) system of the worlds of God. For the first time, this theory is articulated with a certain coherency; yet without always clearly resolving all the problems which it poses. One of these problems resides in the concept of an intercourse between the two worlds, sensible and intelligible.Many authors were tempted to imagine an intermediary world between these two, and for certain among them this would be “the Imaginal World” ('alam al-mithal), while for others it would be, as we will see with the Shaykhi School, the “world of Huqalya”. Al-Ghazali also seems to have been the first thinker to link the problem of the world of the Platonic ideas to the Aramaic-Arab lexicon of the divine worlds. It is for this reason that he and al-Makki should be regarded as the fathers of all the later developments of this theory."
On al-Suhrawardi:
"In his “Book of the Verb of Sufism” (Kitab Kalimat al-Tasawuf), al-Suhrawardi draws closer links between the two systems and gives a resume of the hierarchy of the worlds:

“There is the world of Intelligence ('aql) and it is Jabarut. There is the world of the Soul (nafs) and of the Verb (Kalima) and it is the world of Malakut. There is the visible material world (Mulk), which obeys the Soul, this one [obeys] Intelligence, this one [obeys] its principle (Mubdi')”186

There would be much to write in order to give a thorough exegesis of these citations, and this is unfortunately impossible in the narrow framework which we have fixed for ourselves. However, what is important here, is less the theory of the divine worlds than the exploration of Malakut and Jabarut in which the Shaykh was engaged, for al-Suhrawardi had difficulty distinguishing between these two worlds. The only innovation which he seems to have introduced was in making Malakutthe domain of the soul and Jabarut the domain of Intelligence. Even this distinction is directly derived from a Neoplatonic approach to the problem and represents nothing entirely original.Malakut and Jabarut appear to the eyes of the soul, he says in the “Book of the Temples of Light”, like twins187.

This confusion has no importance, for what interests al-Suhrawardi is not the ontological scheme, but rather the development of a theory of visionary knowledge founded upon the Imaginal World.This theory would become a classic, and even if it was left to the later philosophers to enrich and develop it, all the credit returns to al-Suhrawardi.

It is not easy to determine if al-Suhrawardi places the Imaginal World ('alam al-mithal) in Malakut or in Jabarut, or rather if this Imaginal World encompasses these two at the same time or if it is separate from them. This question greatly troubled later commentators such as Ghiyathu'd-Din Shirazi, who, commenting on one of the passages which we have cited, believes it necessary to explain that the worlds are four in number, that so as to include the Imaginal World, for one must distinguish “the world of Intelligences...the world of bodies which encompasses the spheres and the elements which that which they include, the world of Souls...the Imaginal World ('alam al-mithal wa al'khayal) designated as barzakh (the between-two, the inter-world) and that the philosophers also designate as the world of appearing Forms (ashbah mujarrada), a world to which the ancient philosophers already refer.

Authors argued about this for a long time, and the same questions rose again to the surface with Shaykh Ahmad Ahsa'i, and discover him trying to determine where the Imaginal World is situated. In our judgment, the problem is insoluble in the framework of Avicennian Neoplatonism, and even in Platonism in a general sense, because of certain irreducible axioms from which this theory is composed. We will ultimately discuss the manner in which Baha’u’llah resolves the problem, by completely transforming the nature of the intelligible realities (haqa'iq). In fact, in al-Suhrawardi, Malakut progressively absorbed the Imaginal World.

Malakut is the world of spiritual realities, and these realities are not abstract; rather they are angelic realities which, reflecting themselves in the soul of the contemplative, determine a spiritual state which results in a transubstantiation of his whole being and to an expansion of interior space in which the imaginative faculty is deployed. In its capacity as interior space, Malakut is the domain of the events of the soul, events which have nothing to do with the events of the world or of consciousness. In its capacity as ontological sphere, Malakut is the domain of the universal Soul and of the human soul that is related to it. The primordial question for al-Suhrawardi is thus not so much to explain the relations of the sphere of Malakut with inferior or superior spheres, but rather to find a practical way which would permit the human soul to elevate itself from the sensible world to Malakut. This is possible through actualizing in the soul an angelic state (malakiyya) thereby permitting it to have access to the contemplation of superior realities. The acquisition of this angelic state is at the same time the result of a cultivated asceticism, and the fruit of a gnosis. This gnosis results as much from a teaching as from a putting into practice a theory of the faculties of the soul, the methods of their control and their deployment, and awareness of the different types and modes of knowledge which are the fruits thereof."
 
the term 'angels' applieth to those who have sanctified the hem of their garments from corrupt desires, and who mirror forth every attribute of Him Who is the Lord of the heavens. The term 'angel' is a reference to their spiritual condition and a testimony to their inner being and reality. "
To Baha'u'llah in other words?

In relation to God, the term “angels” referreth to the Prophets of God and His Messengers
Why am I not surprised, lol
 
In another sense, the term “angels” referreth to the pervading influence of the Will of God—as well as His perfect, all-encompassing purpose—inasmuch as it is the cause of the world’s creation, and the reason for which the frame of non-existence was arrayed with the raiment of existence. Indeed, the term “angels” may be interpreted as all the attributes of God.
I can accept this, although not in the sense Baha'u'llah means it -- as applying to himself. I fully accept angels, as the ministers of God, carrying out the purpose of God.

In yet another sense, the term “angels” referreth to the laws sent down from the heaven of the Will of the All-Merciful, which He hath made the supreme instrument for the protection of the world, and ordained as the source of both life and death. When these laws confer upon the believers the spirit of life, they are called “the angel of life”; when they divest the ungodly of that same spirit, they are called “the angel of death”; and when they protect the servants of God from misfortune, they are called “guardian angels.”
An inventive interpretation, but nothing close to the true nature of the angels, imo
 
Sigh. My previous posts were erased.
Explanation:
 
Somewhere in the lost posts I recall @Thomas made an attempt to use Paul's words "for now we see in a mirror dimly" to show Christianity has some inkling of the concept of phenomenal consciousness overflowing access consciousness. Basically, the argument boiled down to the following: "nothing is new here." However, I think we are talking about something new here that is not in Christian texts. I think Paul's words were taken out of context, because he is mostly concerned with the limitation of human spiritual understanding in comparison to a future, perfected state of knowledge after death. He is not talking about the development of humanity's intrinsic perspective over long periods of time in history.

For more on this idea about the development of our intrinsic perspective, I would recommend watching Erik Hoel here around the 19-minute mark:


Formless angels and demons disappear because our intrinsic perspective has developed. Baha'i theology has historicized this concept. As Baha'i writer Jean-Marc Lepain would say, "the question which is found at the heart of the philosophy of Baha’u’llah is an inquest upon the nature of man."
 
Last edited:
Well this is the Baha'i board, so suffice to say I disagree with your assumed reading of Paul ... that's rather a modern perspective, I would have thought, and that kind of data was not the stuff he's writing about.

For my part, I contemplate it along with 1 John 3:1-3.
 
so suffice to say I disagree with your assumed reading of Paul ...

Which assumed reading of Paul?

that's rather a modern perspective, I would have thought

What's a modern perspective? "That" refers to my assumed reading of Paul? The development of the intrinsic perspective over time? What's my assumed reading of Paul? I listed two readings of Paul.
 
For my part, I contemplate it along with 1 John 3:1-3.

These verses don't contradict my assumed reading of Paul. But you need to clarify what you mean by "your assumed reading of Paul." I am genuinely confused.
 
I am genuinely confused.
Apologies, the fault is mine, as I managed to entirely misconstrue what you wrote.

Let me try again:
Somewhere in the lost posts I recall @Thomas made an attempt to use Paul's words "for now we see in a mirror dimly" to show Christianity has some inkling of the concept of phenomenal consciousness overflowing access consciousness.
I would not use those terms as the American self-help movement defines 'access consciousness'. If there is a different definition of the two modes of consciousness, I'm not aware of them.

I think Paul in 1 Corinthians 13 (and its development through 14 & 15) is speaking of a transcendent order of consciousness, of being, seeing and knowing, that far exceeds anything we are aware of currently.

Christ died, and rose, and was seen. Christ then ascended to heaven, and when Christ subsequently 'appeared' to Paul, it was in a 'blinding light', Paul did not actually see Him, neither in the flesh nor in a vision, but knew it was He who spoke, hence seeing 'in a dark manner'.

But in his letter Paul says "but then face to face. Now I know in part; but then I shall know even as I am known" and this corresponds to the Johannine scribe's "we shall be like to him: because we shall see him as he is"– or put another way, 'we shall see him as he is because we shall be like to him" – I rather tend to think this is post the 'change' Paul speaks of in Chapter 15.

Basically, the argument boiled down to the following: "nothing is new here."
Well Paul's preaching on this point was 'new' – in the sense he wrote this before the Gospels were written, although of course it is in line with his own revelation and the 'Gospel' teaching he had received.

However, I think we are talking about something new here that is not in Christian texts.
Now I'm confused? If it's in Paul, it's in a Christian text.

I think Paul's words were taken out of context, because he is mostly concerned with the limitation of human spiritual understanding in comparison to a future, perfected state of knowledge after death. He is not talking about the development of humanity's intrinsic perspective over long periods of time in history.
I don't think anyone assumed he was?

For more on this idea about the development of our intrinsic perspective, I would recommend watching Erik Hoel here ...
Well this is just a theory of consciousness? It's not a theory of spiritual incorporation nor theosis.

Formless angels and demons disappear because our intrinsic perspective has developed.
Sorry, I don't but this assumption of 'progress' at all.

One might argue that the First Nation reverence of nature has disappeared because our intrinsic perspective with regard to nature and the environment has developed, only it seems to be progress up a blind ally ...
 
One might argue that the First Nation reverence of nature has disappeared because our intrinsic perspective with regard to nature and the environment has developed, only it seems to be progress up a blind ally ...

Reverence without understanding is the very definition of a blind alley, @Thomas.

Lack of understanding led to harmful actions, just like the lack of understanding of the ancients regarding mind. If their intrinsic perspective was more developed than our so-called blind alley perspective, how come the Chimu handled in such a violent manner an El Nino event that led to devastating floods in Peru, prompting over one hundred child sacrifices in response? Who is really in the blind alley here?

These deadly reactions often reflected an Indigenous worldview that sought to appease deities believed to control natural forces.

The greatest ecologists in our human civilization today have plenty of reverence and a greater understanding.
 
Last edited:
Basically, the argument boiled down to the following: "nothing is new here."
Well Paul's preaching on this point was 'new' – in the sense he wrote this before the Gospels were written, although of course it is in line with his own revelation and the 'Gospel' teaching he had received.


I'm saying that while the development of our intrinsic perspective is not on Paul's radar, it is on the Baha'i radar. Therefore, it constitutes something new within Baha'i teachings that is not in Christian teachings.
 
For more on this idea about the development of our intrinsic perspective, I would recommend watching Erik Hoel here ...
Well this is just a theory of consciousness? It's not a theory of spiritual incorporation nor theosis.

I am not sure what you mean by spiritual incorporation. Please explain.
 
For more on this idea about the development of our intrinsic perspective, I would recommend watching Erik Hoel here ...
Well this is just a theory of consciousness? It's not a theory of spiritual incorporation nor theosis.

I think it is also a theory of spiritual capacity.
 
Same about your formless thoughts. Concepts of God will continue to evolve.
A symbol for an intellectual reality that Baha'u'llah attempts to convey in words.
Scammers are usually easy enough to identify. Ever seen one in a crowded tourist spot or temple?
My thoughts and beliefs are in step with science and evidence.
He should have described it in better words. What he said what similar to what Muhammad said about Jibreel. A heavenly maiden!
Yeah, scammers are not difficult to identify, but people still believe in them. Particularly in Abrahamic religions - prophets, sons, messengers, manifestations, mahdis.
 
Back
Top