wil
UNeyeR1
So locusts and famine just balance things out eh?
The Archeology of the Kingdom of God: Diving a Bit Deeper into a Baha'i Approach to Metaphysics
- Thread starter Ahanu
- Start date
Hi @Ahanu –
I keep working through your posts, checking your citations against the text, and then working though the text from there ... and at this juncture I'd say the author has missed a significant point, and by so doing renders his metaphysic somewhat – to me at least – incoherent.
His focus seems to be on a new metaphysic of values – but values is a mutable term as it defines a measure of worth or relation, and not a thing. A value is not a principle as such; values are derived from principles – and metaphysics is all about First Principles.
I would suggest the author missed a key point in Baha'u'llah's writing by his focus on 'value' at the expense of 'virtue', as it seems to me that virtues determine and define values.
As a starting point I'm offering definitions from the various writings of the Traditionalist, Frithjof Schuon:
Virtue is the conformity of the soul to the divine Model and to the spiritual work; conformity or participation. The essence of the virtues is emptiness before God, which permits the divine Qualities to enter the heart and radiate in the soul. Virtue is the exteriorisation of the pure heart. (Echoes of Perennial Wisdom)
Virtue cut off from God becomes pride, as beauty cut off from God becomes idol; and virtue attached to God becomes sanctity, as beauty attached to God becomes sacrament. (Echoes of Perennial Wisdom)
The Supernatural Virtues are Faith, Hope and (commonly) Charity (Gk: agape Lt: caritas En: love). The Cardinal (Natural) Virtues are Prudence, Justice, Temperance and Fortitude.
If we borrow from Islam we have the Asmaa al-Husna – a litany of the Most Beautiful Names: "The Compassionate, The Beneficent, The Merciful" to name but three, which also indicate that the virtues flow from the Divine.
I make this point because:
"Baha'u'llah writes that it is "by the grace of the “waves of mercy”, that is to say that by virtue of a particular grace, that the heart may become a fertile soil for the growth of divine knowledge and wisdom" (p150)
"This does not mean that Baha’u’llah repudiates all tradition. According to him, in religion there is a central core which is the foundation of all the Revelations and which never changes. Only the comprehension that men have of this core changes. He declares in the Hidden Words:
“This is that which hath descended from the realm of glory, uttered by the tongue of power and might, and revealed unto the Prophets of old. We have taken the inner essence thereof and clothed it in the garment of brevity, as a token of grace unto the righteous, that they may stand faithful unto the Covenant of God, may fulfill in their lives His trust, and in the realm of spirit obtain the gem of divine virtue.” (p171-2)
(I would only comment that I have a totally different understanding of the term 'brevity' and could not apply that the the Baha'i Doctrinal Texts.)
With regard 'tradition', the author says this in a footnote:
435 Here we utilize the word “tradition” in its philosophical sense. Tradition is that by which we realize the naturalization of man, which is to say his inscription into a particular society and culture and in history. By “spiritual tradition” we understand not revelation but the totality of the values by which a religion has sought to accomplish its process of historicization." (p171)
To which I would say he does not understand the metaphysical sense of tradition, which is that which is handed down by Divine Revelation. The Hebrew equivalent term is Kaballah.
Abdu'l-Baha said: "Man must now become imbued with new virtues and powers, new moral standards (values), new capacities." (p 174)
The author himself says: "In practicing the Christian virtues, the soul elevates itself in increasingly higher degrees of spirituality, bringing it closer and closer to the image of God which it holds within itself." (p192)
Baha'u'llah: "By the revelation of these Gems of divine virtue all the names and attributes of God, such as knowledge and power, sovereignty and dominion, mercy and wisdom, glory, bounty and grace, are made manifest.” (p239)
Again, the Names of God establish the spiritual virtues from which values derive.
I keep working through your posts, checking your citations against the text, and then working though the text from there ... and at this juncture I'd say the author has missed a significant point, and by so doing renders his metaphysic somewhat – to me at least – incoherent.
His focus seems to be on a new metaphysic of values – but values is a mutable term as it defines a measure of worth or relation, and not a thing. A value is not a principle as such; values are derived from principles – and metaphysics is all about First Principles.
I would suggest the author missed a key point in Baha'u'llah's writing by his focus on 'value' at the expense of 'virtue', as it seems to me that virtues determine and define values.
As a starting point I'm offering definitions from the various writings of the Traditionalist, Frithjof Schuon:
Virtue is the conformity of the soul to the divine Model and to the spiritual work; conformity or participation. The essence of the virtues is emptiness before God, which permits the divine Qualities to enter the heart and radiate in the soul. Virtue is the exteriorisation of the pure heart. (Echoes of Perennial Wisdom)
Virtue cut off from God becomes pride, as beauty cut off from God becomes idol; and virtue attached to God becomes sanctity, as beauty attached to God becomes sacrament. (Echoes of Perennial Wisdom)
The Supernatural Virtues are Faith, Hope and (commonly) Charity (Gk: agape Lt: caritas En: love). The Cardinal (Natural) Virtues are Prudence, Justice, Temperance and Fortitude.
If we borrow from Islam we have the Asmaa al-Husna – a litany of the Most Beautiful Names: "The Compassionate, The Beneficent, The Merciful" to name but three, which also indicate that the virtues flow from the Divine.
I make this point because:
"Baha'u'llah writes that it is "by the grace of the “waves of mercy”, that is to say that by virtue of a particular grace, that the heart may become a fertile soil for the growth of divine knowledge and wisdom" (p150)
"This does not mean that Baha’u’llah repudiates all tradition. According to him, in religion there is a central core which is the foundation of all the Revelations and which never changes. Only the comprehension that men have of this core changes. He declares in the Hidden Words:
“This is that which hath descended from the realm of glory, uttered by the tongue of power and might, and revealed unto the Prophets of old. We have taken the inner essence thereof and clothed it in the garment of brevity, as a token of grace unto the righteous, that they may stand faithful unto the Covenant of God, may fulfill in their lives His trust, and in the realm of spirit obtain the gem of divine virtue.” (p171-2)
(I would only comment that I have a totally different understanding of the term 'brevity' and could not apply that the the Baha'i Doctrinal Texts.)
With regard 'tradition', the author says this in a footnote:
435 Here we utilize the word “tradition” in its philosophical sense. Tradition is that by which we realize the naturalization of man, which is to say his inscription into a particular society and culture and in history. By “spiritual tradition” we understand not revelation but the totality of the values by which a religion has sought to accomplish its process of historicization." (p171)
To which I would say he does not understand the metaphysical sense of tradition, which is that which is handed down by Divine Revelation. The Hebrew equivalent term is Kaballah.
Abdu'l-Baha said: "Man must now become imbued with new virtues and powers, new moral standards (values), new capacities." (p 174)
The author himself says: "In practicing the Christian virtues, the soul elevates itself in increasingly higher degrees of spirituality, bringing it closer and closer to the image of God which it holds within itself." (p192)
Baha'u'llah: "By the revelation of these Gems of divine virtue all the names and attributes of God, such as knowledge and power, sovereignty and dominion, mercy and wisdom, glory, bounty and grace, are made manifest.” (p239)
Again, the Names of God establish the spiritual virtues from which values derive.
Tony Bristow-Stagg
One Planet One People Please
The interpretations that I use are found in the official Baha'i Writings of Baha’u’llah and as further explained by Abdul'baha and Shoghi Effendi.
Abdu'l-Baha explained some details of Daniel and Revelations and other various Biblical quotes.
The Universal House of Justice does not provide any interpretations of Scripture. They provide guidance by offering scriptures in their pure form, or by offering interpretations already given. The role of the Universal House of Justice is not of revelation. The constitution of the Universal House of Justice explains in detail the aim of that Authorised elected Body.
The Constitution of the Universal House of Justice
The website of the worldwide Bahá’í community
www.bahai.org
Every Baha'i is free to interpret all the Holy writings, this is a God given bounty to all humanity. The key is, the books are for the unity of humanity, not for division, so we must appreciate that our interpretations are for personal growth and we should be able to keep them at a personal level, if they are the cause of division.
Regards Tony
Tony Bristow-Stagg
One Planet One People Please
Right -- so I'm allowed to think my own thoughts, as long as I don't tell anybody?
Last edited:
Tony Bristow-Stagg
One Planet One People Please
I'll end with this:
1: In his misrepresentation of Classical systems of thought, I think the author has shown a distinct lack of insight and certainly no firm grasp of metaphysical principles – I'm not sure he even sees what Baha'u'llah is saying ...
2: In his efforts to present this Baha'i Metaphysic as 'new', 'unique' or 'revolutionary' he is somewhat negatively disposed towards those systems, and it's a shame there's not a Muslim so inclined to show his shortcomings in interpreting Ismaili Shi'i metaphysics.
3: Over and again he makes statements about things – backed up by Baha'i texts – as if these had never been stated before, whereas they have, and in consequence neither the revelation nor the metaphysic he presents is in any way a 'Revelation' nor indeed, insightful or an advanced understanding of pre-existing ststems, in fact, in his own case often the reverse.
4: While I find Baha'u'llah in many respects closer to the classical systems than the author supposes, I find nothing new, unique nor revelatory in the Baha'i writings.
5: He seems to regard such terms as 'ontological' and 'cosmological' in their most profane and mundane aspect, thus his ideas about Baha'i emanationism fall somewhat short of a more nuanced understanding of the terms in a metaphysical context.
I'm quite prepared to accept Baha'u'llah as within the Islamic Tradition and a product of it – whether his view of himself is orthodox, heterodox or heresiarch according to Islam is for others to say.
1: In his misrepresentation of Classical systems of thought, I think the author has shown a distinct lack of insight and certainly no firm grasp of metaphysical principles – I'm not sure he even sees what Baha'u'llah is saying ...
2: In his efforts to present this Baha'i Metaphysic as 'new', 'unique' or 'revolutionary' he is somewhat negatively disposed towards those systems, and it's a shame there's not a Muslim so inclined to show his shortcomings in interpreting Ismaili Shi'i metaphysics.
3: Over and again he makes statements about things – backed up by Baha'i texts – as if these had never been stated before, whereas they have, and in consequence neither the revelation nor the metaphysic he presents is in any way a 'Revelation' nor indeed, insightful or an advanced understanding of pre-existing ststems, in fact, in his own case often the reverse.
4: While I find Baha'u'llah in many respects closer to the classical systems than the author supposes, I find nothing new, unique nor revelatory in the Baha'i writings.
5: He seems to regard such terms as 'ontological' and 'cosmological' in their most profane and mundane aspect, thus his ideas about Baha'i emanationism fall somewhat short of a more nuanced understanding of the terms in a metaphysical context.
I'm quite prepared to accept Baha'u'llah as within the Islamic Tradition and a product of it – whether his view of himself is orthodox, heterodox or heresiarch according to Islam is for others to say.
Tony Bristow-Stagg
One Planet One People Please
Really?
That "Christ" meaning "Annointed One" or "Messiah", is not just one flesh body in one small moment of time called Jesus, that is not revelatory?
Regards Tony
No, not at all.
"Jesus Christ, yesterday, and to day; and the same for ever." Hebrews 3:8.
Ahanu
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,444
- Reaction score
- 641
- Points
- 108
"With regard to the soul of man. According to the Baha’i Teachings the human soul starts with the formation of the human embryo, and continues to develop and pass through endless stages of existence after its separation from the body. Its progress is thus infinite.”
-Shoghi Effendi
Some theoretical physicists have explored ideas like the multiverse, where countless universes might exist with different physical laws. It leaves open the possibility that "time and space" could exist in different forms beyond our current understanding.
Not sure about the "room within a house" analogy that emphasizes separation. It even suggests the spirit exists outside the physical entirely. I thought you guys believed in indwelling spirit?
What I seek is an analogy that emphasizes perception. That's why I prefer a radio analogy. These worlds aren't necessarily separate. Separation is only imposed because of human limitations. You can't see the different radio waves, but they exist and can be picked up by a receiver. Maybe the material and spiritual are like different frequencies on a larger spectrum of reality. We can only perceive the frequency we are tuned into.
The "indwelling spirit" concept suggests the spirit resides within the body, like a tenant in a house. The room analogy places the spirit in a separate realm altogether surrounding the physical world.
According to Jean-Marc Lepain, Baha'u'lllah explains in a tablet called the Lawh-i Haqqu’n-Nas "that all that exists in the world of Nasut, which He also calls the "world of limitations" ('alam-i-hudud), whatever may be its name (ism), form (rasm), appearance (surat) or characteristics (vasf), exists in the divine worlds in an appearance (shuhudi) and a manifestation (zuhuri) which is appropriate to each of these worlds. The things which exist in the spiritual worlds thus exist in these worlds with totally different characteristics from those of the world below, in such manner that no category of our understanding such as place, extent, form or time can apply to them.
What Baha'u'llah says here is very different from what Muslim philosophy used to teach, and in particular the Ishraqi or Shaykhi philosophy of his time. Ishraqi philosophy says that to everything existing in this world is attached an intelligible reality (haqa'iq) which exists in Malakut or in the World of Images or Imaginal World ['alam-i-mithal]. Thus, this world (Nasut) becomes the mirror of the other world, as in Plato's myth of the Cave. However, for Baha'u'llah it is not only the world of Malakut and the world of Nasut which are the image of each other, but a plurality of worlds which he calls divine (ilahi). In several places in this tablet he insists upon this plurality in speaking of innumerable worlds (Arabic la-tuhsa).
Death in this world is thus but the disappearance of forms and appearances. It never touches the "reality" (haqiqat) and the "essence" (dhat) of beings, for the spiritual reality (haqa'iq) of things exists in each world with a manifestation adapted to each of these worlds corresponding to degrees of different realities, which might be understood as different ontological levels."
Last edited:
I think so too, although who knows if this human incarnation in the dimension of nature is the first experience of the soul? Of course there could have been other previous experiences. And perhaps the soul can die?
The house surrounds and contains and permeates the room. If the walls of the room are taken down, the house is still there?
Us guys? I have my own beliefs. I'm lightly tethered, lol
(edited)
Last edited:
However the human limitation is very real? Coats of skin
To me it's just Baha'u'llah's way of seeing. It's all open to question. It's not all that revelatory to me. It's just metaphysical wandering. I doesn't need to come down as God's inerrant word to man for the millennium to come?
I know this is the Baha'i forum ...
(edited)
Last edited:
Yes, all part of the Christian Revelation —
"The Body of Christ is said to be of a triple kind: first, it is the Body incarnate of a Virgin, offered for us upon the altar of the Cross, raised to heaven after having conquered death, seated on the right hand of God (Corpus Natum); second, they call the Body of the Lord the promise given to the Church and which the sacerdotal power actualizes mysteriously from the bread and wine consecrated by the Holy Spirit (Corpus Eucharisticum). And thirdly the Body of Christ is the entire Church in which the elect are united like members of a single body (Corpus Mysticum). The third Body is connected to the first through the second, so much so that one does not affirm that there are three Bodies as such, but only one Body co-ordinated by the Holy Spirit, just as in the human being the soul provides life to all the parts of the body"
(Honorius of Autun (Honorius Augustodunensis) c.1080–c1151, Eucharistion, in Jean Borella, The Secret of The Christian Way, SUNY, NY, 2001, p157.)
Just to throw in my own twopence worth –
As the individual soul participates in Self, and self is common to all entities, then there is the possibility for that particular self engages in a hierarchically greater self which realises itself not only in succession, but also simultaneity, something which Henri Corbin was aware of, drawn from Ismaili Shi'i gnosiology, but I cannot say with regard to his sources.
In Zoroastrainism there is the eschatalogy of the departed soul meeting its angel – Daênâ ('the tutelary Angel') – at the entrance of the Chinvat Bridge. This Daênâ is more resplendent than any beauty ever seen in the material world. When the souls asks 'who are you', she answers: “I am your own Daênâ” – which means: I am, in person, the faith that you professed and that which inspired it in you, she for whom you have answered and she who guided you, she who comforted you and she who now judges you, for I am, in person, the Image (logoi) proposed to you from the birth of your being and the Image which finally you have yourself wished for." – in effect, the soul and its Daênâ are a single being.
"To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour"
(Auguries of Innocence, William Blake)
According to a Christian Metaphysics, the soul is created ex nihilo, according to its logoi, which, if you like, is the Divine Idea of that particular being. Thus all souls are created from nothing, but do not come as a 'surprise' to God, and the individual logoi is that which, by harmonic resonance, again if you like, the soul is drawn towards God.
As the individual soul participates in Self, and self is common to all entities, then there is the possibility for that particular self engages in a hierarchically greater self which realises itself not only in succession, but also simultaneity, something which Henri Corbin was aware of, drawn from Ismaili Shi'i gnosiology, but I cannot say with regard to his sources.
In Zoroastrainism there is the eschatalogy of the departed soul meeting its angel – Daênâ ('the tutelary Angel') – at the entrance of the Chinvat Bridge. This Daênâ is more resplendent than any beauty ever seen in the material world. When the souls asks 'who are you', she answers: “I am your own Daênâ” – which means: I am, in person, the faith that you professed and that which inspired it in you, she for whom you have answered and she who guided you, she who comforted you and she who now judges you, for I am, in person, the Image (logoi) proposed to you from the birth of your being and the Image which finally you have yourself wished for." – in effect, the soul and its Daênâ are a single being.
Well the Holy Spirit exists before creation and the creation of the spiritual domain is 'before' the physical (although not in a temporal sense). But yes, the spirit indwells, but in a union with the soul in such a way that the soul participates, at first hand, in the life of the Spirit.
I can go along with that. The practice of virtues 'tunes' the soul, as it were, and the spirit irradiates. The soul sees and knows as the spirit sees and knows, according to its limitations – In the Apocryphal Acts of Peter there is an extended discussion about what Peter sees when talking to the Lord (Chapter XX & XXI), and from there esoterists draw the phrase 'talem eum vidi qualem capere potui ('I saw Him as I could take Him' – according to his spiritual 'insight' or tuning – here we are talking about 'veils' or, as the Hindu traditions have it, maya – different people see different things.)
"To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour"
(Auguries of Innocence, William Blake)
Agreed. That's where the symbol comes into its own.
Last edited:
Tony Bristow-Stagg
One Planet One People Please
Yes but the Christ was sinless and forgave sin. He gave his life on the cross and rose from the tomb after the 'harrowing of hell' to take His place in possession of all things of the Father. He only needed to do it once:
"In Christian theology, the Harrowing of Hell is the period of time between the Crucifixion of Jesus and his resurrection. In triumphant descent, Christ brought salvation to the souls held captive there since the beginning of the world."
I may have Christ acting within me, it does not make me the Christ?
Last edited:
IMO physics is desperate to show that intelligent life on Earth arose by blind chance. The list of fine-tuning parameters that allow for intelligent life on Earth is so hugely stacked – one astronomical coincidence stacked upon another – that they had to come up with the anthropic principle:
And to prop-up the anthropic principle, the multiverse theory is required? Taken to its extreme the multiverse theory proposes virtually infinite (10^500+) other universes: which raises the possibility of not just one but infinite copies of myself?
Although the other universes, short of infinity, could all be different, like snowflakes, I suppose
However I totally do get your drift that this material time-space universe in which we exist, may not be the only possible state of being.
Last edited:
Ahanu
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,444
- Reaction score
- 641
- Points
- 108
Again, we come to the strong relational theology in the Baha'i Faith. Ex nihilo is a relative concept in the Baha'i Faith.
The relativity of existence and nonexistence is ontologically important because it denies any form of creatio ex nihilo, or creation out of absolute nothing, a key doctrinal point for almost all Christians and Muslims.[138] Indeed, on this precise issue, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá says that “absolute [non-existence] . . . has not the capacity of existence.[139] Consequently, we cannot take literally Bahá’u’lláh’s statement that we were “called into being”[140] by God “out of utter nothingness.”[141] Given ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s qualification, the latter phrase obviously intends the phrase “utter nothingness” relative or in comparison to God and does not introduce the concept of creatio ex nihilo into Bahá’í ontology. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá dismisses the concept of absolute nothingness as “inconceivable.”[142]
Ex Nihilo would mean from God?
God can't be nothing?
The Four Different Meanings of Nothing to a Scientist
Nothingness cannot be a state of a void. Nothing is not the opposite of something because nothing simply is not there. It's not a hole or emptiness. Nothing doesn't describe any condition; it has no properties?
The mind can't be seen or weighed or measured -- but thoughts are not nothing? Pink unicorns may not exist, but the thought of one does exist.
@Ahanu do you personally believe in life after death?
It's just a question
God can't be nothing?
The Four Different Meanings of Nothing to a Scientist
Nothingness cannot be a state of a void. Nothing is not the opposite of something because nothing simply is not there. It's not a hole or emptiness. Nothing doesn't describe any condition; it has no properties?
The mind can't be seen or weighed or measured -- but thoughts are not nothing? Pink unicorns may not exist, but the thought of one does exist.
@Ahanu do you personally believe in life after death?
It's just a question
Last edited: