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

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

I assume it's been written for a Baha'i audience who are happy to accept the author's claims and insights without question.

That is not how it works Thomas. They are personal views and opinions that were expressed, which have no authority in interpretation.

Regards Tony

 

[RJM]

OK ... rethink ...

My problem here is that the author is, I believe, a scholar, but this is a markedly unscholarly work, in which claims are made but not substantiated, and matters affirmed without sufficient explanation. As this work would not get through the starting gate of critical review, I assume it's been written for a Baha'i audience who are happy to accept the author's claims and insights without question.

That's not me throwing stones, the author has faults, the book its flaws, but neither he nor it are alone in that.

But two serious stumbling blocks for me:
1: It's total misrepresentation of classical Neoplatonism was a red flag, and the same with regard to many of his comments on Christin doctrine, are so jarring in places as to suggest polemical intent.
2: Based on that, how can I assume any credibility with regard to his presentation of a Baha'i metaphysics which he states is implicit, but nowhere explicitly stated – and that's worse for me because I have nothing to fall back on.

+++

The author points out – quite correctly – that the founders of religion did not write a metaphysical treatise. Dogmas and doctrines, theologies both metaphysical and pastoral (commentaries esoteric and exoteric) do not appear overnight, and in the same 180 year timespan, you can count the number of substantial Christian exegetes on the fingers of one hand.

I will say it's renewed my interest in Henry Corbin, and to be truthful as a result I'm more favourable to Corbinism than Baha'ism.

It's also sparked an interest in Ismaili Islam. Besides works by Corbin, I have a couple by Reza Shah-Kazemi and have posted a video by Dr Khalil Andani. It seems to me that here is a dialogue between a Christian and a Muslim (Shi'i Islam?) from the standpoint of the Sophia Perennis and the Transcendent Unity of Religions.

Dr Andani's brief presentation on the idea of 'Manifestation' in Ismaili gnosis, and his mention on the image of the mirror, central to Baha'i understanding, gave me some grounding in the concepts.

+++

So here is A Second Attempt.

This time I will simply delete a text that I think is extraneous or erroneous ... if anyone wants a Catholic apologia in the face of the misrepresentations above (Part 5 on the soul is riddled with them) I'm happy to provide, but I fear in the context of dialogue here, we'll just get bogged down into constant dispute.

I'll also attempt to keep it brief, but that is no disservice – I've written pages of notes on reading this stuff!

+++

Lastly – a cri de cœur – if you could come up with an author or text that is concise, succinct and to the point, then that would be so welcome.
The writers of the Sophia Perennis can sum up the whole thing in a phrase – I regard their brevity as a mark of their spiritual lucidity and depth.

(A tutor, reading one of my essays, commented: "St Augustine writes long and convoluted sentences, and so do you. The problem for me is that I know to stick with it with Augustine, because has something to say. I'm not sure you do." – My course director thought it a tad cruel. I thought it was funny – clearly so, because I haven't learned the lesson!)

Wow!
@Thomas you are really in amongst this stuff

Looking forward to your next instalment ...

That is not how it works Thomas. They are personal views and opinions that were expressed, which have no authority in interpretation.

Regards Tony

I don't think he implied this was an official Baha'i publication. He said it was probably written primarily aimed at a Baha'i audience?

 

[Thomas]

That is not how it works Thomas. They are personal views and opinions that were expressed, which have no authority in interpretation.

Oh ... OK ... who does have authority in interpretation?

 

[Thomas]

Let's start off with a comparison between Baha'u'llah's approach and the general approach of classical metaphysicians...

OK... First a word on metaphysics as such by one of its foremost exponents in the last century, Réne Guénon:
"... pure metaphysics being essentially above and beyond all form and all contingency is neither Eastern nor Western but universal. The exterior forms with which it is covered only serve the necessities of exposition, to express whatever is expressible ... but under the appearance of diversity there is always a basis of unity, at least, wherever true metaphysics exists, for the simple reason that truth is one."
(Oriental Metaphysics)

1. Classical metaphysics begins with God and a descent through the hierarchy of Being. Baha'u'llah's approach works the other way around:

But to count as metaphysic, one would have to define man according to some order of ontology, some over-arching universal principle – otherwise it's simply anthropology?
Does not a Baha'i metaphysic define man in relation to its Revelation? That is surely its beginning, establishing the Divine Principle that determines all else?

"It is because one begins by defining the nature of man that one can thereafter ascend the degrees of the hierarchy of Being.

It seems to me the author's system first defines the nature of man according to the Baha'i Revelation, then subsequently works a hierarchy, again according to revealed Principles – so I think this statement is somewhat vague, suggesting it's doing somethign differently, whereas it's actually not. The only difference is the Revelation – we, as Christians, utilise the NT. The Baha'i utilises the Baha'i texts.

This explains that the philosophy of Ideas or of Forms appropriate to Platonism or Aristotelianism is replaced by a philosophy of values. It is in the function of the meaning which is given to human life that one can define the finality of the physical reality of the universe."

Some comments:
Plato speaks of the 'Form of the Good', and it's from this that we derive 'values' – so at face value (excuse the pun), the forms are prior to and establish values – 'value' is the measure of worthy or importance of a thing, they're not things in themselves.

But Christian metaphysics, for example, stands distinct from Plato or Neoplatonism, although there are correspondences – so we replaced the philosophy of Ideas or Forms by a (Christian) Logos metaphysic.

"For Baha’u’llah, there are two complementary ways of apprehending the world: the one rational and scientific which exists from our exteriority, and the other intuitive and mystical which exists from our interiority.

From a metaphysical POV, the contemplation of the world, it's not exterior/interior, rather it's objective and subjective.
"The 'Metaphysical' is the study of universal realities considered objectively. The 'Mystical' concerns the same realities considered subjectively, that is, in relation to the contemplative soul, insofar as they enter operatively into contact with it."
(Frithjof Schuon, Logic and Transcendence, "Understanding and Believing")

Furthermore, in that which concerns God and the spiritual worlds in general, the way of interiority alone exists
As long as we acknowledge the way of interiority are twofold, the Metaphysical and Mystical, which are complementary. The Hindu tradition counts other yogas ...

This is why Baha’u’llah, after the knowledge of self, assigns as finality to human existence “to know and love God”.
Already stated in the Abrahamic Scriptures.

This is what we have called “the anthropic principle” of Baha’u’llah.
I see this principle as explicit in the New Testament.

This principle overturns all of philosophy ...
I don't think it does, nor do I see why it should. I would say this principle is encompassed in Christian theology.

It is this principle which explains that the reality of the universe appears to be structured in its functioning by a law of intelligibility which the universe shares with the human spirit.
Well that's one way of explaining it, but that the universe 'appears' a certain way is not actually evidence that it is that way – it could be a logical fallacy.
It certainly doesn't overturn all other philosophies ... as there are explanations that do not involve the necessity for God, as well as explanations as to why the universe only appears anthropocentric.

It is this principle which also implicates the necessity of a noetic and epistemological link between the creature and the Creator which is at the source of the Baha’i hermeneutic. From that also follows that Being cannot be at the center of the metaphysic, and even of the ontology, of Baha’u’llah.
Non sequitor, I think. The hermeneutic may well deny the centrality or an ontology of Being, but in the absence of demonstration, the hermeneutic seems to depend on the argument from authority – in this case Baha'u'llah – so is neither conclusive nor compelling.

"Being is no longer at the center of metaphysics; it is replaced by the spirit and the consciousness."
As I understand it, 'spirit' and 'consciousness' describe a mode of being?

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

Oh ... OK ... who does have authority in interpretation?

Since Shoghi Effendi passed, there will be no more authority for interpretation. The Universal House of Justice provides responses based on scriptures that have already been interpreted. They also offer guidance by providing writings specific to questions asked.

Thus translations also become tricky. The 'center of the study of the texts' has a role to play here. In the translation of new unpublished works, they study previous interpretations of Abdul'Baha and Shoghi Effendi in the context it was provided.

We have to be very careful not to add out own ideas into the official writings. This is a balancing act that is monitored by the Universal House of Justice.

So all of us have the prerogative of interpretation for our own selves and in discussions amongst ourselves, as long as we make it known they are our own private interpretations. Some Baha'i Achademia have struggled with this in the past. There are now numerous unofficial translations available on the net. We all appreciate they have been provided, by some very educated individuals and groups, but must understand that when translations are made, sometimes there is also a level of interpretation needed, so until they are placed in the official writings, having been subjected to official scrutiny, they will remain unverified translations.

There is now a lot of commentary and books on the Baha'i Writings made by Baha'i Scholars, all these are personal opinions.

Maybe this will indicate why we like to support anything we offer with an official quote. Or not even say anything, let the quote talk for itself.

Regards Tony

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

This is why Baha’u’llah, after the knowledge of self, assigns as finality to human existence “to know and love God”.Already stated in the Abrahamic Scriptures.

Personally I would say it is the "Apex" of human existence, is to Know and love God. It is indeed a core understanding of the Abrahamic line of Messengers. So I do not know why the word finality would be used. Maybe in the context that one is Born Again into the Spirit, and when that is achieved and the material death is not able to overtake!

RegardsTony.

 

[Thomas]

Since Shoghi Effendi passed, there will be no more authority for interpretation. The Universal House of Justice provides responses based on scriptures that have already been interpreted. They also offer guidance by providing writings specific to questions asked.

I wonder if there's a confusion between interpretation and revelation?

I can see the Baha'i saying after Shogi Effendi there will be no more revelation – in the Christian tradition, we speak of the end of the 'Apostolic Era' as marking the end of the Christian Revelation, but interpretation goes on?

If the UHJ provides responses, are they not considered authoritative?

If one has a question regarding a text, how do I get an 'orthodox' or 'accepted' interpretation?

We have to be very careful not to add out own ideas into the official writings. This is a balancing act that is monitored by the Universal House of Justice.

No Tradition, as far as I know, adds to its core texts. How it interprets them is something else.

Maybe this will indicate why we like to support anything we offer with an official quote. Or not even say anything, let the quote talk for itself.

Hmmm ...

 

[Thomas]

"This will lead us to affirm that the important points of contact which are attested by both of these two visions of the world derive from the fact that the one (Neoplatonism) and the other (Baha'u'llah) are both philosophies of emanation.Christianity is not a philosophy of emanation. Or rather, once the idea of creatio ex nihilo is accepted as a principle, the term 'emanation' can be used in the Platonic sense – the Divine, being transcendent, remains distinct and unaffected, whereas in a deist or naturalist emanationism the cause pertains to the same ontological order as the effect. Christian (and I think Platonic and Neoplatonic) emanationism is strictly discontinuous because of the immutability of the Divine.

"For the thought of Baha’u’llah aims at avoiding a fundamental stumbling-block of Neoplatonism which consists in regarding matter and the sensible world as a sort of degeneration of the spiritual and the intelligible, entailing a downfall of the spirit, and with it the downfall of man.
As said, this is the Gnostic view and the 'stumbling block' is the author's misunderstanding of Neoplatonism. Any idea of 'degeneration' in the hierarchy of being is a misreading. Rather, there is a hierarchy that is, overall, a harmony: 'A place for everything, and everything in its place' (anon) – there is no sense of 'fall', no evil as such, just degrees of goodness, without anthropological bias.

Neoplatonism corresponds to the Biblical creation in which the work of each day is 'good' and the totality of the six days is 'very good'.

"Baha’u’llah, by eliminating all reference to the fall, and in showing that matter is one of the ways in which the Spirit evolves ...
Ah, here we categorically part company, for obvious reasons. For us, neither the Holy Spirit of God, nor spirits, angelic or otherwise, 'evolve'.

"For Corbin, the mediation of the angelic hierarchies replaces all terrestrial mediations, and this is of course opposed to Christian dogma, which sees in the ecclesiastical hierarchy the earthly reflection of the celestial hierarchies ..."
As said, this is not Christian dogma.

"... The “fear of the angel” brings about the degeneration of spiritual symbolism into simple allegory, and the reduction of hermeneutic to exegetical commentary.
I'm not sure where Corbin get's his 'fear of the angel' from, or in reference to what, as he seems to be discussion disputes within the Islamic world?

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

I wonder if there's a confusion between interpretation and revelation?

I can see the Baha'i saying after Shogi Effendi there will be no more revelation – in the Christian tradition, we speak of the end of the 'Apostolic Era' as marking the end of the Christian Revelation, but interpretation goes on?

If the UHJ provides responses, are they not considered authoritative?

If one has a question regarding a text, how do I get an 'orthodox' or 'accepted' interpretation?

It is definitely no more interpretation. The Universal House of Justice states this in the Constitution.

:....The provenance, the authority, the duties, the sphere of action of the Universal House of Justice all derive from the revealed Word of Bahá’u’lláh which, together with the interpretations and expositions of the Centre of the Covenant and of the Guardian of the Cause—who, after ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, is the sole authority in the interpretation of Bahá’í Scripture—constitute the binding terms of reference of the Universal House of Justice and are its bedrock foundation. The authority of these Texts is absolute and immutable until such time as Almighty God shall reveal His new Manifestation to Whom will belong all authority and power..."

The Constitution of the Universal House of Justice - 21 April 1963

The official website for the Universal House of Justice. The Universal House of Justice guides the activities of the global Bahá’í community. This site is the official source of information about the UHJ.

universalhouseofjustice.bahai.org

All approved translations, and all the Persian and Arabic originals are available in the Baha'i Library.

Bahá’í Reference Library | The Bahá’í Faith

www.bahai.org

The other Baha'i Library/s are not an official sites, they are individuals initiatives and they have a great deal of yet to be authorised translated material, such as this site.

Notes about and history of the Bahá'í Library Online

Background of the Bahá'í Library.

bahai-library.com

Regards Tony

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

No Tradition, as far as I know, adds to its core texts. How it interprets them is something else.

I see an issue there Thomas, as you have stated, it is interpretation at the core of all the current misunderstandings.

Please, I do not offer what is offered as an example below to enter into a dispute, or in any ill intent, it is just offered in the light of how interpretation can become an issue. It is really a core teaching of the Baha'i Faith. To protect the integrity of the original Revelation that was given by the Bab and Baha'u'llah and which Abdul'baha and Shoghi Effendi interpreted by Authority, that is the end of the line for authorised Interpretation of ours and past scriptures that are quoted in the Baha'i Writings.

Jesus did warn us about adding to the words of the Book and I see this is the authority now given to the Universal House of Justice. To protect the Writings from added interpretations, that would become part of official understandings of Scripture.

You are aware that a teaching such as the Trinity is an example I would offer. It is an additional interpretation not given by Jesus or the disciples. It is now cemented in the minds as an infallible teaching of the Bible. For hundreds of years people who saw the founding passages in the Bible of that doctrine in a different light, were persecuted for not embracing the accepted interpretation.

It is about preserving the 'Word of God', so future generations also get to decide what the Word is Telling us and not be told what it is telling us, unless it is clearly written or has an authorised interpretation. The Universal House of Justice has been given to maintain that balance.

I see the Catholic Church played the role of preserving the Word as close to the original as possible, very successfully, as we have Bibles containing that word, that is proven to be accurate when ither ancientmanuscrips are uncovered.

I do think you would agree that interpretations of those scriptures have become part of the process of current worship.

Regards Tony

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

No Tradition, as far as I know, adds to its core texts. How it interprets them is something else.

I see an issue there Thomas.

Please, I do not offer what is offered as an example below to enter into a dispute, or in any ill intent, it is just offered in the light of how interpretation can become an issue. It is really a core teaching of the Baha'i Faith. To protect the integrity of the original Revelation that was given by the Bab and Baha'u'llah and which Abdul'baha and Shoghi Effendi interpreted by Authority, that is the end of the line for authorised Interpretation of ours and past scriptures that are quoted in the Baha'i Writings.

Jesus did warn us about adding to the words of the Book and I see this is the authority guven to the Universal House of Justice. To protect tye Writings from added interpretations, that would become part of official understandings of Scripture.

You are aware that a teaching such as the Trinity is an example I would offer. It is an additional interpretation not given by Jesus or the disciples. It is now cemented in the minds as an infallible teaching of the Bible. For hundreds of years people who saw the founding passages in the Bible of that doctrine in a different light, were persecuted for not embracing the accepted interpretation.

It is about preserving the 'Word of God', so future generations also get to decide what the Word is Telling us and not be told what it is telling us, unless it is clearly written or has had an authorised interpretation. I see in this day, the Universal House of Justice has been given to maintain that balance.

I also see the Catholic Church played the role of preserving the Word as close to the original as possible, very successfully. As we have Bibles containing that word, that have been proven to be accurate, when other ancient manuscrips are uncovered.

I do think you would agree that interpretations of some Biblical scripture have become part of the process of current worship.

Regards Tony

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

"Baha’u’llah, by eliminating all reference to the fall, and in showing that matter is one of the ways in which the Spirit evolves ...
Ah, here we categorically part company, for obvious reasons. For us, neither the Holy Spirit of God, nor spirits, angelic or otherwise, 'evolve'.

I do not see it in that light either Thomas, thus I agree with you. The author is not here to clarify why he said that, it may be he means our understanding of that Spirt does evolve with each subsequent Revelation.

Example all the Messengers are from the same Holy Spirit, that Spirit being the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End, the Alpha and Omega. That is a change in understanding if we look at the Christian perspective, on to what Muhammad offered and then what Baha'u'llah expanded upon.

Regards Tony

 

[Ahanu]

@Ahanu

With this quote

"... The psychology of Baha’u’llah avoids this peril because it is trichotomous. We describe as trichotomous a psychology that distinguishes in the whole human not two entities (dichotomy) such as the soul and the body, but three entities, that is to say, the soul, the spirit and the body. We have seen in the preceding chapter how this trichotomy is established in the writings of Baha’u’llah. It now remains to see the philosophical consequences thereof..."

Abdu'l-Baha in one talk says the the Spirit and Soul of man are essentially describing the same thing.

Is the above quote talking of Soul/Spirit of man, an intermediary spirit (Spirit of faith) and the Body, a station of being born again? (See quote below)

This has always been a point of confusion from my readings of the writings.

I quote Abdul'baha from 'Some Answered Questions'

".....The human spirit, which distinguishes man from the animal, is the rational soul, and these two terms—the human spirit and the rational soul—designate one and the same thing. This spirit, which in the terminology of the philosophers is called the rational soul, encompasses all things and as far as human capacity permits, discovers their realities and becomes aware of the properties and effects, the characteristics and conditions of earthly things. But the human spirit, unless it be assisted by the spirit of faith, cannot become acquainted with the divine mysteries and the heavenly realities. It is like a mirror which, although clear, bright, and polished, is still in need of light. Not until a sunbeam falls upon it can it discover the divine mysteries...."

‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions, Spirit, Soul, and Mind

‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions, Spirit, Soul, and Mind

Translated. Original Persian

oceanoflights.org

Regards Tony

P/S A product of my black and white approach to knowledge.

I am still reading up on this question. So far I have established that there is definitely a distinction between body, soul, and spirit in the writings of the Bab and Baha'u'llah. As for Abdu'l-Baha, sometimes he uses soul interchangeably with spirit. Sometimes there are distinctions. I'll share some of my notes below.

The ontological circle, according to Nader Saeidi in Logos and Civilization, can be represented two different ways. In one of them four aspects of the human being (e.g., inner body, soul, spirit, heart) are clearly identified in the writings of the Bab:

Through "ascent" one progresses through the stages of the spiritual journey from the inner body to the heart. In his commentary on the writings of the Bab, he wrote:

Also, his explanation of these four stages can be found in the next paragraph:

This provides rich symbolism in the writings of the Bab:

The soul is the self, which itself traverses many stages.

Your question was as follows: "Is the above quote talking of Soul/Spirit of man, an intermediary spirit (Spirit of faith) and the Body, a station of being born again? (See quote below)"

Many stages of the soul are mentioned by Abdu'l-Baha. See, for example, his Commentary on the Qur'anic Verses Concerning the Overthrow of the Byzantines, in which he mentions nine stages of the soul's ascent. He provides a definition of the human soul there:

"And as for 'the human soul' (an-nafs al-insániyyah), it consists of the rational soul that is to say an essence within which arises the powers of the human being, the outer and inner senses, the divine perfections and knowledge, the heavenly sciences, the eternal arts, and the hidden wisdom. Likewise, it is the place where dark passions and earthly (násútiyyah) failings appear. Praise be to God for this astonishing sign, this mighty matter, this comprehensive word on the scroll of existence. For thou dost observe that it has various stations, diverse stages of ascent and manifold degrees to which there is no end. It has the capacity to be the mirror for the manifestation of the realities of the realm of the Primal Will (láhútiyyah) and the place wherein the divine and perfect attributes are revealed and appear. It also capable of descending into existential darkness, where it is veiled with thick veils arising from [p. 87] its limitations and its specific qualities which prevent it from attaining to its origin and point of return and hide from it the signs of its Creator which have been deposited within it through the grace of its Maker."

If "spirit" is the realization of the soul's perfections, then we should be able to find that in Momen's translation of the text. I am not sure how he is translating Farsi terms for soul and spirit here, but let's look at one example where he translates the word spirit in this text:

"And when the soul hath unfolded the wings of the spirit, been attracted by the Joy of God, hath soared to the most exalted horizon, hath sought the most glorious Companion (rafíq al-abha), it doth ascend to the divine station of Jabarút (the realm of Command) and is assisted by an overwhelming and all-conquering power and by the intricate and ancient secret and by the noble and mighty mystery. It becomes aware of the secrets of hidden and invisible realities which consumes in envy the hearts of the mystic knowers. It is imprinted by the rays shining forth from the Sun of Truth and by its effects and comes to resemble its appearance and its light in every state and condition."

Come to think of it, we often encounter this idea of "wings of the spirit" or spirit in general to express this idea of transition from one station of the soul to a higher one in Baha'i texts.

In another text we again encounter the expression of the spirit in upward motion:

"Although sounds are but vibrations in the air which affect the ear’s auditory nerve, and these vibrations are but chance phenomena carried along through the air, even so, see how they move the heart. A wondrous melody is wings for the spirit, and maketh the soul to tremble for joy."

In Jean-Marc Lepain's book-length work, he tells us what he thinks Abdu'l-Baha means by spirit:

"We could cite many other texts which would enable us to enter into the arcanities of the School of Isfahan, but we will cite but one other example taken from a later author, Qadi Sa'id Qumi (1633-1691). In his “Commentary on the tradition of the cloud” (Shahr-i hadith-i al-ghamama), Sa'id Qumi distinguishes three ontological degrees (hadrat): first, the world of the invisible ('alam al-ghayb) which is the suprasensible world; second, the world of sensible perception ('alam al-shahada); and a third world born of the coalescence of these two worlds which he calls the world of the imaginative perceptions ('alam al-khayal) which is nothing other than the Imaginal World hypostasized and considered as an intermediate sphere between the sensible and the intelligible. The world of the imaginative perceptions is Malakut or the door of Malakut; for in fact, either there exist various kinds of Malakut, or Malakut represents an intermediate sphere where the existing realities are hierarchically organized. There is the Malakut of the vegetable world, then the Malakut of the animal world, then the Malakut of the human reality which recapitulates in itself the three preceding degrees, for in man there exists a Malakut of the vegetable life and of the animal life to which is added the Malakut of the soul endowed with reason which permits man to elevate himself towards the intellectual realities.This is not the ratiocinating reason that differentiates man from the animal, but the imaginative faculty with which his soul is endowed which permits him to penetrate the world of the intelligible realities. The word Malakut corresponds here to what ‘Abdu’l-Baha calls spirit."

Malakut is the world of the soul, a transcendent reality.

"If one reads the Baha’i writings carefully, one notices that the Kingdom of Abha is at the same time the world of the afterlife and a spiritual world distinct from other worlds. The Kingdom of Abha is before all else the world of the spirits or of the Spirit. Secondarily, it is the world of the deceased souls. Soul or spirit, according to the terminology that one has chosen to adopt, is the immortal essence found in man and which animates him. ‘Abdu’l-Baha explains that the soul is not found in the body, for the soul is sanctified from all notions of place and of space. As the soul communicates with our consciousness by the intermediary of the spirit (the intellect, pillar of our faculty of thought), and as it is strongly linked to our identity, we have become accustomed to thinking that the soul is identical with this consciousness which is manifested through the mediation of our physical body; but the soul being a spiritual being, never leaves the spiritual world, and this spiritual world is nothing other than Malakut."

In the above Jean-Marc Lepain views the spirit as an intermediary.

Sometimes the word spirit and soul in Abdu'l-Baha's writings and speeches are used interchangeably and in others they are not. Here's one public talk of Abdu'l-Baha about three aspects of human beings, but as a public talk, I don't think it carries any substantial weight like a written text would:

"When we ponder over the reality of the microcosm, we discover that in the microcosm there are three realities. Man is endowed with an outer or physical reality. It belongs to the material realm, the animal kingdom . . . The human body is like animals subject to nature's laws. But man is endowed with a second reality, the rational or intellectual reality; and the intellectual reality of man predominates over nature . . . Yet there is a third reality, the spiritual reality. Through its medium one discovers spiritual revelations, a celestial faculty which is infinite as regards the intellectual as well as physical realms. That power is conferred upon man through the breath of the Holy Spirit. It is an eternal reality, an indestructible reality, a reality belonging to the divine, a supernatural kingdom; a reality whereby the world is illumined . . . It is the ray of the Sun of Reality."

 

[Thomas]

5. How Baha'u'llah's "trichotomous" psychology solves the pitfalls of the Greek Church Fathers.

OK ... Clearly, I can't respond to this without referencing doctrine.

"The modality of the union of the soul and the body is a question that is found at the heart of all Christian Scholasticism, whereas Muslim Scholasticism seems to have been little concerned with this problem."[/B]
Just a note here – the doctrines regarding the union of body and soul are founded on Scripture. At the close of the Apostolic Age came the Age of the Fathers, and following them, in the Latin West, the Age of the Scholars. So if the text is going to 'solve the pitfalls' of the Greek Church Fathers, that's quite distinct from discussing the same issues in light of the later exegesis of the Scholars.

"During almost one thousand years, from Pseudo-Denis the Areopagite until Bonaventure, Neoplatonism was the philosophical language of the expression of Christianity, until Thomas Aquinas replaced it with Aristotelianism which in his eyes had the advantage of being able to explain trans-substantiation."
Three errors here:
1: Neoplatonism continued as an informative current in Christian theology;
2: Thomas did not replace Plato with Aristotle, he drew the best from both, correcting them in the light of Christian Revelation – as well as Aristotle, Thomas referenced Augustine and PseudoDionysius, both of whom were to a degree Neoplatonist, as was Thomas himself.
3: Thomas did not adopt Aristotle as a means of explaining trans-substantiation – that meaning had been in the Church from the very beginning. The Greeks use the term metousiosis (μετουσίωσις) which means change of ousia, change of 'essence' or 'substance', as long as both those terms are understood in their theological context.

"We have seen that the Fathers of the Church considered this union to be of two substances, the one material and the other spiritual."
Yes. See Genesis 2:7.

"This superposition of substances posed many problems ... "
Did it? The author seems to assume it a given – it's not, therefore we are with Burden of Proof again.

"which Thomas thought himself able to resolve by saying that the soul is the form of the body, with all the consequences which that imposes."
See above. Which consequences, precisely? Thomas took the phrase 'the soul is the form of the body' from Aristotle, but presented it in a way distinct from Aristotle and thus not subject to Aristotelian consequence.

That he doesn't actually address where or how Thomas thought himself able, and to what degree that was successful or otherwise, is a major flaw – one which runs throughout the book – inclines me to think he is unaware of Thomas in any detail. The least he should do is refer to Aquinas in Summa Theologiae, First Part, Treatise on Man (Q75-102), specifically Q75: The nature of the soul in itself and Q76: The union with the body – because I would suggest there he would find his 'problems' addressed.

"Christian Scholasticism always wanted the union of the soul and the body to be of substance, on the one hand because ... "
No. The union is principally because "... the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth (material substance): and breathed into his face the breath of life (spiritual substance), and man became a living soul (the fruit of that union)" – Genesis 2:7.

"... of the dogma of the bodily resurrection ... "
No, that's putting the cart before the horse.

"... and on the other hand because to set aside a union of substance "
would be to set aside the Bible.

"... led directly to the soul being considered an accident of the body; which became easy as soon as the soul was deprived of its autonomy and when it was made the seat of consciousness, of thought and of sensations."
No-one though that, not even Aristotle ... I don't know where this guy's getting his ideas from.

+++

"To now understand the fashion in which Baha’u’llah resolves the problem "
I think I've sufficiently demonstrated, as far as Christian and Neoplatonic doctrine goes, that the 'problems' are entirely the author'\s own lack of insight and understanding.

"Scholasticism speaks of “substance” where we are used to speaking of “essence” ... "
Who are 'we'? If he knew the metaphysics, he should know that both the Latin substantia and essentia were used to translate the Greek ousia.

"The word “substance” (ousia) comes from Aristotle"
What about Plato?

"The soul must be an essence, that is, a reality which transcends the body, not an immanent reality like the substantial form. So how are we to avoid having the human whole become a confusion of essences?"
By paying careful attention to what the Fathers and specifically Thomas is saying – he makes this exact point in his critique of Aristotle in the Summa ...

"which doubtless would have struck with terror, at an epoch in which men were burned at the stake for less than that, our Scholastic theologians shut up in their scriptorium. He reduces the body to a simple accident of the soul."
had the author actually read Aquinas, he would not have made such a monumentally silly and erroneous statement.

"We can speak in the Thomist sense ... "
Actually, I don't think he can.

"A spiritual reality cannot be linked in substance to a material reality, even through its essence."
Then how does a body have a soul? This denies Genesis 2:7 and John 1 ... it's nonsense.

"For Baha’u’llah, it is transparent."
That makes no sense whatsoever. Transparency is a quality of a material thing.

"The body is a mirror which must be illumined by the light of the soul. The soul is reflected in it but does not descend into it."
A mirror is reflective not transparent – there's an inherent contradiction here.
The soul is reflected by what in the body?
Where is the soul if not in the body?

This is so far removed from Biblical metaphysics ... in fact I'm not sure what it relates to ...

"But we must not forget that in this transparent theology it is the image which, in projecting itself, causes the mirror to appear."
Transparency or reflectivity ... make your mind up.

"... Thus the metaphysic of Baha’u’llah escapes the terrible antinomy of Platonism and Peripatetism which has weighted down Western philosophy like death."
Breathtaking![/QUOTE]

 

[Thomas]

""It can be shown that from the Greek Fathers up until Descartes there is a perfect line of continuity. Their incapacity to place sensation, in a satisfactory manner, in the soul would transport Western psychology to the slope of materialism, which would result in the negation of the spirituality of the spirit."
Evidence.

"The psychology of Baha’u’llah avoids this peril because it is trichotomous. We describe as trichotomous a psychology that distinguishes in the whole human not two entities (dichotomy) such as the soul and the body, but three entities, that is to say, the soul, the spirit and the body."
And yet we have 'trialism' that says humans have three separate essences – body, soul and spirit – based on a literal interpretation of 1 Thessalonians 5:23 "And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." The idea holds the soul as belonging to the union of the body and the spirit, somewhat compatible with philosophical trialism (and Hermetically defendable by the esoteric teaching of 'one-three-two').

However, Paul's "wholly" and again "whole spirit and soul and body" reflects his Jewish understanding of the human being as a single, corporate entity, an entity formed by the union of body and soul, rather than three separate entities.

"The psychology of the Bible as well as that of the Qur'an is clearly trichotomous and we seen traces thereof even in St. Paul."
Why 'even', I have no idea. And if clearly, the onus is on him to show it...

"It can thus seem astonishing that this doctrine was totally condemned by Western Christianity, and since the Council of Calcedonia."
Utter nonsense.

"One must without doubt see in this a tragic misunderstanding whereby the Hellenized (Western) Church mistook trichotomy as conforming to the categories of Greek thought while the Churches of the East remained faithful to the trichotomous Judaic teaching."
More of the same.

"... nefesh, neshamah and ruah. However, the same difficulties which exist in Arabic also exist in Hebrew for distinguishing these terms from each other. It does not seem that these distinctions are intrinsic to Semitic languages... "
Based on what?

"Ruah is like nefesh a breath, but it is a divine breath because it is the breath which God breathed into the nostrils of Adam in order to confer life upon him."
No, 'ruah' is not used in that verse. The term is 'neshamah'.

"Here we see the first difficulty, for pneuma is neither the equivalent of spiritus in Latin, nor of Ruah in Hebrew, and psyche is certainly not the equivalent of anima or of nefesh."
And yet the translators of the Septuagint, from Hebrew to Greek, were happy to use such terms?

"The sliding of meaning is thus inevitable."
No, you haven't demonstrated any such 'slide' or its consequence.

"In the Writings of the Greek Church Fathers, psyche was the word chosen to designate the soul of the deceased, as the eternal principle which survives this life."
No, it designates the soul as such, not 'the soul of the deceased' – that's a qualification which will lead the unwary into error.

"This gave rise to many exegetical and doctrinal contradictions, because this word was thought from the beginning to translate nefesh, which is a mortal principle."
And here the author falls into the hole he's dug for himself ...

"... the Greek Nous was introduced in a totally independent manner to designate a reality which is not actually found in the thought of either the Old and or the New Testament."
Oh, do tell ...

"This word, in the terminology of the Fathers of the Church, designated the Spirit in general"
No, it never did ...

"It was rendered into Latin sometimes as Sensus and sometimes as intellectus. The rare use of the word Nous in the Septuagint served as the basis for a neo-platonic interpretation of the Bible by affirming the equivalence of the Biblical Nous and the Plotinian Nous."
No, no equivalance. There is the human intellect, and the Transcendent Intellect, but the distinction is fundamental to Christianity and thus avoids wrongful attribution.

"... while it was evident to them (early Christian exegetes) that the thought of man was identical to his soul (psyche) as was his soul identical with the principle of life ... "
Nope.

"The Greek Fathers, and following them the Church of the West, would prove themselves incapable of thinking of the soul in any other way than in the category of substance."
I'm not sure the author is capable of thinking of substance in the fluid sense of the Fathers?

"But in making soul a substance, one runs the risk of making it corporeal. This is notably the case with Tertullian, who stated that the soul is a body. This opinion was rejected by most of the Fathers, but they nevertheless considered that the soul had a reach, and that this reach coincided with the human body."
A rejected theological idea can hardly stand as a critique of doctrine. Nor do I think the Fathers thought the way he says. They did believe the body is the form by which the soul is present in the world, as God clearly had the human in mind when he shaped him from the earth. But the soul is not corporeal, and that it's subject to corporeal limitation, is a mistake. On the other hand, If the soul is not 'in' the body, where is it?

Again, if the author had read the Summa, he'd know Thomas proves the soul is not corporeal.

"The Epistle to Diogenes affirms ... Irenaeus wrote ... "
Evidence of the somewhat literal reading of the author, who clrearly fails to grasp principles.

On that basis I won't bother going through the rest of this entry, as it's clear so far that the author's grasp of Patristic and Scholastic theology is tenuous to say the least.

He seems to have picked up stuff from somewhere (I have the sense he's copied most of this section from some unattributed work or works, because he's left in a footnote reference – see the comment about Pelagius on p196)

 

[Thomas]

A final note – the author's discussion of Christian theology and metaphysics seems to focus on a misunderstood Thomism and precious little else ... a couple of comments here and there, the usual about Augustine (a great Neoplatonist) a vague mention of the Cappadocian Fathers, No reference whatsoever to St Maximus the Confessor, who's radical treatment of Platonism brought it inline with Biblical revelation. No mention of Logos theology (other than to misinterpret it), nor of Maximus' anthropology of Logos in relation to the logoi.

And nothing ... not a word ... on PseudoDionysius who is so instrumental in shaping Christian Neoplatonism and angelology.

Nothing from the Christian Mystical Tradition – Eckhart relegates most of the author's thesis to the wastebin.

And lastly my hero Eriugena, whom I would not expect the author to know, but really Dionysius and Maximus at least should have been found if his research into Christianity was in any way other than superficial.

 

[Thomas]

It is definitely no more interpretation.

That's a shame.

We hold Christianity as a 'Living Tradition' – the Sacred Scriptures are an inexhaustible wellspring of spiritual nourishment, and at the heart of Christian life is the Liturgy and the Sacraments, and the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit. The God of Christianity is both utterly Transcendent and intimately Immanent.

This is why, perhaps, you see the need for 'progressive revelation' where as we do not, or rather the Christian vocation is always to 'unpack' as we call it, the unfathomable depths of Sacred Scripture – "Ask, and it shall be given you: seek, and you shall find: knock, and it shall be opened to you." (Matthew 7:7, Luke 11:9) and with reference to certain understandings of late, a quote from the Gospel of Thomas:

"Jesus said, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all. [And after they have reigned they will rest.]" (Logion 2).

The 'they will be disturbed' is a reference to the apocalyptic nature of Christianity.

 

[Thomas]

... it is just offered in the light of how interpretation can become an issue.

Oh, I agree it can, but that does not mean it must, or it necessarily will.

I would say that when we read, we interpret; when we hear, we interpret; anything that we received through our senses (carnal or spiritual) we interpret, we cannot do otherwise.

Jesus did warn us about adding to the words of the Book ...

Interpretation is not 'adding' to the sacred Scriptures. Jesus also gave the Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14–30).

You are aware that a teaching such as the Trinity is an example I would offer. It is an additional interpretation not given by Jesus or the disciples.

In your interpretation. Mine differs.

I do think you would agree that interpretations of those scriptures have become part of the process of current worship.

Yes, that's what a living tradition is.

 

[Ahanu]

In nature all creatures need to take the life of other creatures in order to sustain their own -- if even by drinking water and breathing? The physical form of any creature exists by defending itself against the outside; cells survive by killing whatever threatens their viability.

Compared to the Sermon on the Mount:
Blessed are the poor in spirit,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn,
For they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek,
For they shall inherit the earth.

Your description of nature aligns with survival of the fittest, but compare it with Abdu'l-Baha's cooperation for survival in his story about grasshoppers. The grasshopper story showcases cooperation, not just competition, in nature.

“All the nations are thinking of how to advance their own interests while working against the best interests of other nations. They desire their own personal advantage while seeking to undermine affairs in other countries. They call this the 'struggle for survival', and assert that it is innate to human nature. But this is a grievous error; nay, there is no error greater than this. Gracious God! Even in the animal kingdom cooperation and mutual assistance for survival are observed among some species, especially in the case of danger to the whole group. One day I was beside a small stream and noticed some young grasshoppers which had not yet developed wings seeking to cross to the other side in order to obtain food. To accomplish their goal, these wingless grasshoppers rushed forward into the water and vied with each other to form a bridge across the stream while the remaining grasshoppers crossed over on top of them. The grasshoppers were able to pass from one side of the stream to the other, but those insects which had formed the bridge in the water perished. Reflect how this incident illustrates cooperation for survival, not struggle for survival. Insofar as animals display such noble sentiments, how much more should man, who is the noblest of creatures; and how much more fitting it is in particular that, in view of the divine teachings and heavenly ordinances, man should be obliged to attain this excellence….”

This principle probably underlies why we are still here, whereas Neanderthals are not. Humanity's long process of self-domestication through selecting for traits like friendliness, empathy, and communication allowed for stronger social bonds and collaboration. This aligns with Christ's emphasis on virtues like meekness and compassion. In other words, taking a life is not the only way a species survives.

Anyway, I think one point of the Sermon on the Mount is that we should avoid taking life out of malice or greed.

 

[RJM]

Since Shoghi Effendi passed, there will be no more authority for interpretation. The Universal House of Justice provides responses based on scriptures that have already been interpreted. They also offer guidance by providing writings specific to questions asked.

But Baha'i may interpret the writings of other religions -- especially Christianity?

Or have these interpretations of various Bible passages already been provided by the UHJ?