One God, Many Paths

[Ahanu]

I would hope people read my post in the spirit it was intended.

It is a valid question.

 

[Ahanu]

@Thomas

Don't you think there is some ambiguity in "This R is right, according to its principles" in your post? Don't you think you need to clarify the nuances of your position? How do you reconcile the idea of universal truth with the diverse, contradictory, and sometimes problematic historical manifestations of religion?

 

[Ahanu]

So this scholl says – where R means a particular religious tradition – "This R is right, according to its principles" and "That R is right, according to its principles",

Surely you believe slavery is wrong.

So your school simply states that “This R is right, according to its principles” and “That R is right, according to its principles” for all historical Rs (some of which had principles accommodating or even governing slavery).

Then to hold the belief that slavery is wrong requires some sort of basis for rejecting those specific historical principles.

Holding the belief that slavery is wrong means you are applying a higher ethical standard that supersedes the principles found in some historical Rs. There is no doubt this is a form of discreet supercessionism, an ethical supersessionism - where a more developed ethical understanding takes precedence over a previous one, even within what is considered a right tradition - in such a belief.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Surely you believe slavery is wrong.

So your school simply states that “This R is right, according to its principles” and “That R is right, according to its principles” for all historical Rs (some of which had principles accommodating or even governing slavery).

"slavery" begins with 's', and not 'R'

Orthodox faith does not promote slavery .. it discourages it .. while not outright banning it,
as it could lead to disadvantage to those already in service.

The pious are well aware that the owning of people is highly questionable, and only acceptable
in exceptional circumstances. i.e. war

 

[EricPH]

There is only 'One God' the creator of all that is seen and unseen. The same God hears all our prayers despite our differences.

Christians know, there is only 'One Jesus Christ', yet we have created thousands of denominations, all worshiping the same Jesus. We want to do things our way. I believe God has been generous, and given us religions to choose from.

My thoughts are, God will not judge us solely on our beliefs, but rather what our beliefs lead us to do. All truth should lead to kindness, compassion, forgiveness and brotherly love. How we treat our neighbour who we know, is a reflection of how we treat God, who we don't know. Matthew 25 - 31, the sheep and the goats. When we feed the hungry, give shelter to the homeless, tend to the sick and the prisoners, we are treating these people as if they are God.
My 2c.

 

[Thomas]

It is a valid question.

So's my response.

Clearly I'm speaking in broad terms, not of specific examples with regard the Oneness Above All.

You're playing the 'Render unto Caesar' game (Matthew 22:21, Mark 12:17).

Is there any religion that is above such accusations? No – and that includes your own – so let's not get into this. 'People in glass houses', as the saying goes; 'pots and kettles', etc.

There is sufficient evidence in the New Testament against slavery. Paul's letter to Philemon, for example, instructing him to receive back the runaway slave Onesimus (having possibly stolen from Philemon), "no longer as a slave but more than a slave, a brother" (Philemon 6). Further he insisted "there is neither slave nor free ... you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28), arguing something above and better than the institutional orders of his day.

 

[Sen McGlinn]

@Sen McGlinn, would you like to address @Thomas' claims about the Baha'i Faith being supercessionist in nature?

Abdu'l-Baha said,
"
“…the breezes of Christ are still blowing; His light is still shining; His melody is still resounding; His standard is still waving; His armies are still fighting; His heavenly voice is still sweetly melodious; His clouds are still showering gems; His lightning is still flashing; His reflection is still clear and brilliant; His splendor is still radiating and luminous; and it is the same with those souls who are under His protection and are shining with His light."
(Abdu’l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, pp. 152-3)

and also:

" O ye beloved of God! How great is this Dispensation! How bright the effulgence of this Age, the Age of the All-Glorious Lord! All creation hath been set in motion, and the universe vibrateth with tidings of joy and ecstasy. The realities of all things are filled with blissful rapture, and every atom in existence is ecstatic with delight. Souls are attaining unto prosperity and advancement, and the friends are achieving success and progress. The light of Revelation is shining bright, and its signs are shedding light on all regions. The whole earth resoundeth with the praises of the greatness of the Ancient Beauty, and the Day-Star of His majesty shineth resplendent.
Every assemblage in the world is adorned with the mention of the Most Great Name, and every gathering of the kindreds and peoples of the earth is cognizant of the tidings of the advent of the Most Wondrous Luminary. The East is illumined by His light, and the West perfumed with His sweet savours. This dusty earth hath become a rose-garden through the outpourings of His bounteous favour, and the vast and lofty heavens are filled with delight through the splendours of His sun. The realities of all things have been quickened and revived, and the essences of all beings enraptured and enthralled. Goodly trees are growing and flourishing on every side, yielding sweet and luscious fruits. "

(in "Light 0f the world")
Categorize this how you will. I am grateful to be living in this age: what a boon it is! And, I cannot believe that God has pulled the plug on faiths founded in previous ages, because I see them still giving light in so many ways.
See :

One morning in Shiraz

Iran will find that the light of Muhammad is still shining, His melody still resounding, His standard still waving – not less but more vigorously, when the state rules and religion is faithfu…

senmcglinn.wordpress.com

 

[Ahanu]

Abdu'l-Baha said,
"
“…the breezes of Christ are still blowing; His light is still shining; His melody is still resounding; His standard is still waving; His armies are still fighting; His heavenly voice is still sweetly melodious; His clouds are still showering gems; His lightning is still flashing; His reflection is still clear and brilliant; His splendor is still radiating and luminous; and it is the same with those souls who are under His protection and are shining with His light."
(Abdu’l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, pp. 152-3)

and also:

" O ye beloved of God! How great is this Dispensation! How bright the effulgence of this Age, the Age of the All-Glorious Lord! All creation hath been set in motion, and the universe vibrateth with tidings of joy and ecstasy. The realities of all things are filled with blissful rapture, and every atom in existence is ecstatic with delight. Souls are attaining unto prosperity and advancement, and the friends are achieving success and progress. The light of Revelation is shining bright, and its signs are shedding light on all regions. The whole earth resoundeth with the praises of the greatness of the Ancient Beauty, and the Day-Star of His majesty shineth resplendent.
Every assemblage in the world is adorned with the mention of the Most Great Name, and every gathering of the kindreds and peoples of the earth is cognizant of the tidings of the advent of the Most Wondrous Luminary. The East is illumined by His light, and the West perfumed with His sweet savours. This dusty earth hath become a rose-garden through the outpourings of His bounteous favour, and the vast and lofty heavens are filled with delight through the splendours of His sun. The realities of all things have been quickened and revived, and the essences of all beings enraptured and enthralled. Goodly trees are growing and flourishing on every side, yielding sweet and luscious fruits. "

(in "Light 0f the world")
Categorize this how you will. I am grateful to be living in this age: what a boon it is! And, I cannot believe that God has pulled the plug on faiths founded in previous ages, because I see them still giving light in so many ways.
See :

One morning in Shiraz

Iran will find that the light of Muhammad is still shining, His melody still resounding, His standard still waving – not less but more vigorously, when the state rules and religion is faithfu…

senmcglinn.wordpress.com

Yes, thanks for going straight to the sources. There is much more nuance than @Thomas would have his readers believe.

So's my response.

Thanks for your response.

Clearly I'm speaking in broad terms, not of specific examples with regard the Oneness Above All.

Broad terms must be rigorously tested to truly understand them, don't you think?

You're playing the 'Render unto Caesar' game (Matthew 22:21, Mark 12:17).

I don't see it as a rhetorical game.

I believe taking a good look at how your school (Perennialism) accounts for ethical standards and the rejection of problematic historical norms like slavery is key to looking at this idea of oneness of religion.

You said "This R is right, according to its principles” and “That R is right, according to its principles” for all historical Rs. If so, how do we work with the fact that principles have changed over time and some historical principles are now considered unethical or wrong?

Is there any religion that is above such accusations? No – and that includes your own

Let's not engage in diversion.

The question is how you deal with problematic historical principles. The same question applies to the Baha'i Faith.

Quite simple.

There is sufficient evidence in the New Testament against slavery.

There is sufficient evidence in the New Testament for it.

Paul's letter to Philemon, for example, instructing him to receive back the runaway slave Onesimus (having possibly stolen from Philemon), "no longer as a slave but more than a slave, a brother" (Philemon 6). Further he insisted "there is neither slave nor free ... you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28), arguing something above and better than the institutional orders of his day.

But Paul does not explicitly demand the end of the institution of slavery itself.

Ephesians 6.5-6 talks about servants obeying their masters - which I am sure you are well aware of. This household code reflects and accommodates the existing institution of slavery.

Some scholars argue Paul believes that since the end is near, people should just stay where they are in life. Paul advises Christians that are slaves within the community to "stay in the life that they were assigned." He says: "Were you a slave when called? Don't be concerned about it" (1 Corinthians 7.20-24).

My point remains.

As stated earlier, to hold the belief that slavery is wrong today, when some historical religious principles accommodated or governed it, requires some sort of basis for rejecting those specific historical principles. This means you are applying a higher ethical standard that supersedes the principles found in some historical Rs.

Your belief that slavery is wrong entails ethical supersessionism.

 

[Ahanu]

"slavery" begins with 's', and not 'R'

Orthodox faith does not promote slavery .. it discourages it .. while not outright banning it,
as it could lead to disadvantage to those already in service.

The pious are well aware that the owning of people is highly questionable, and only acceptable
in exceptional circumstances. i.e. war

Considered as a whole, Paul's advice doesn't necessarily mean discouragement.

It is advice on how to live within the system of slavery.

Possibly due to an expectation of the imminent end times? (1 Corinthians 7.20-24)

 

[Thomas]

Yes, thanks for going straight to the sources. There is much more nuance than @Thomas would have his readers believe.

Quite possibly. I was going on what I have repeatedly been told.

I'm also aware of certain Baha'i teachings, such as the revision of the Doctrine of the Trinity, or the revision of the Doctrine of the Incarnation, or of the Resurrection, is effectively the dismissal of the beliefs of 98% of the Christian world, the fundamental tenets of Christianity, which is clearly 'supersessionism' which is, by definition, a 'replacement theology'.

For example, this extract from 'Abdu'l-Bahá on Christ and Christianity

"The link that 'Abdu'l-Bahá forges between Christianity and the Bahá'í Faith is established by the fact that Bahá'u'lláh renewed, reiterated and reinvigorated the moral teachings of Christ "in the most complete form and deposited them in the hearts of men". (emphasis mine) The statement "in the most complete form" encapsulates the second definition of supersessionism, which is 'fulfilment theology'.

"The doctrine of the trinity is presented as a specific instance of the nonessential part of Christianity, and towards the end of the interview, He states that the Reality of Christ has been forgotten and been substituted by emphasis on the names of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit."
Quite how 'Abdu'l-Bahá supposes such comment equates to ecumenical outreach from one equal to another, I have no idea.

Get rid of his perceived 'non-essential' parts of Christianity – Incarnation, Resurrection, and there's nothing left ...

You said "This R is right, according to its principles” and “That R is right, according to its principles” for all historical Rs. If so, how do we work with the fact that principles have changed over time and some historical principles are now considered unethical or wrong?

To quote 'Abdu'l-Bahá – "... religions have two parts. The first of these is essential and spiritual ... The second aspect of religion is non-essential and "belongs to practical life", and "deals with exterior forms and ceremonies".

I was talking of the first, the essential and spiritual.

Your belief that slavery is wrong entails ethical supersessionism.

Within the Tradition is fine, the displacement of a distinctly subordinationist theology, for example.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It is advice on how to live within the system of slavery..

Well, we have to live in any system that we find ourselves a part of.

I, for one, do not endorse slavery.
Nevertheless, I do not think my faith forbids taking prisoners in exceptional circumstances .. but they need to be fed properly, and kept in suitable shelter..

..and there are many in the world, who would prefer to be slave of a rich master/mistress .. rather
than be impoverished.
Poverty is not an issue that is easily solved .. not without the generosity of others .. which seems to
be lacking, in some parts of the world.

 

[Ahanu]

Quite possibly. I was going on what I have repeatedly been told.

I'm also aware of certain Baha'i teachings, such as the revision of the Doctrine of the Trinity, or the revision of the Doctrine of the Incarnation, or of the Resurrection, is effectively the dismissal of the beliefs of 98% of the Christian world,

Spoken after "imperial and ecclesial forces began to systematically extinguish subordinationist groups in the eastern and western empires," effectively dismissing and dismantling broad swaths of early Christianities. Many of these lost Christianities would later gravitate to Islam. Why do you dismiss them, Thomas?

Early Christianity was much more diverse theologically.

In Hans Kung's The Catholic Church: A Short History, he writes:

Important parts of the earliest community emigrated from Jerusalem to Transjordan (Pella) as early as 66, after the execution of James, the leader of their community--in other words, before the outbreak of the war between the Jews and Rome. After a further Jewish rebellion, with the complete destruction of Jersualem and the expulsion of all the Jews, the fateful year 135 also brought about the end of the Jewish-Christian community of Jerusalem and its dominant position in the early church. Soon Jewish Christianity and its christology with a Jewish stamp, along with its observance of the law, was perceived by the gentile Christian church as merely a sect surviving from an earlier stage. Very soon it was felt to be heretical. However, where these Jewish Christians preserved the oldest beliefs and patterns of life, they represented the legitimate heirs of early Christianity. Sadly, though, this tradition was later to get distorted and lost, in Manichaeism and probably also in Islam.

I disagree with Hans Kung on his last point on possibly being distorted and lost in Islam, but you get the gist. I believe Jewish Christian groups like the Ebionites and Nazarenes, who traced their traditions back to James the Just and continued to exist into the fourth century, exerted some influence in the origins of Islam. Studies show that the Qur'an reinterprets and incorporates themes from the Aramaic Gospel traditions.

From ismailignosis.com:

The historical records are only able to trace the descendants of Jesus’ family to the early second century. However, it is known that the Ebionites and the Nazarenes – two Jewish Christian groups – continued to exist even in the fourth century and traced their faith and traditions back to James the Just. It is widely speculated by scholars that Jewish Christian groups exerted some influence in the origins of Islam. The Qur’an and the Aramaic Gospel Tradition (2013) by Emran al-Badawi has shown that the Qur’an reinterprets, incorporates, and integrates a significant number of themes from the Aramaic Gospels. His study found that “11 percent of the Qur’an is in dialogue with the entirety of the Aramaic Gospel Traditions” and “12 percent of the Gospels are in dialogue with the whole Qur’an.” He concludes that “the Qur’an is in close dialogue with the text and context of the Gospels through their transmission in the Syriac and Christian Palestinian dialects of Aramaic” (p. 212). Below are just a few examples from El-Badawi’s study where the Qur’an has reinterpreted or re-articulated a theme or idea from the New Testament (pp. 220-226):


• Qur’an 3:59 is re-articulating Romans 5:14, 21 on Jesus as the Second Adam
• Qur’an 14:37, 2:126 is re-articulating Luke 3:8 and Matthew 21:43 on Abraham’s Progeny
• Qur’an 5:75, 25:7 is re-articulating Matthew 11:16, 19, 20:3, Mark 5:56 and Luke 7:32-34
• Qur’an 5:18, 9:30 is re-articulating Matthew 5:9 on God’s Servants vs. God’s Sons
• Qur’an 2:210, 6:158, 18:99 is re-articulating Matthew 24:30-31, Mark 13:26-27 on God or Son of Man coming down on the clouds
• Qur’an 24:35-36, 30:57, 61:6-8, 9:32, 25:61, 33:41-46 is re-articulating Matthew 5:14-16, 12:34, Mark 4:21, Luke 6:45, 8:16, 11:33, 13:35, John 8:1, 9:5, 5:35-3 on the Light of God, Light of the World, Lamp, and Houses of God
• Qur’an 1:1-7 is re-articulating Mathew 6:9-13 and Luke 11:2-4 on the al-Fatihah and Lord’s Prayer


According to various Ismaili sources, including the writings of Ja‘far b. Mansur al-Yaman (the Bab of the Imam al-Mu‘izz and second to the Imam in spiritual rank), the Trustee Imam from the successors of Jesus immediately before Prophet Muhammad was the Monk Bahira of Syria. This means that the Trustee Imamat of James was transmitted through the descendants of Jesus’ family until it reached Syrian Monk Bahira, known as Georges, the last Trustee Imam in the Cycle of Jesus and the remnant from Jesus’ family who carried on his true teachings.

From decipher:

It should also be noted that the Foundation or Pillar associated with the Tsaddiq is often alluded to in the ‘throne’ references. According to Epiphanius (Panarion 78.7.7), “[James] was the first to whom the Lord entrusted his throne upon earth.” The Syriac Apostolic Constitutions (8.35) likewise informs us that James was “appointed Bishop of Jerusalem by the Lord himself.”

But a more direct reference to James-the-Tsaddiq as vicegerent of God (khalīfah Allāh, compare the Shīʿī “Imam of the time”), principal ‘Pillar’ or ‘Pole’ (compare the Sufi Quṭb) and ‘Foundation’ or ‘Throne’ (compare the Islamic al-ʿArsh) can be found in the Gospel of Thomas (Logion 12):

In the place you [the disciples] are to go, go to James the Righteous, for whose sake Heaven and Earth came into being.

A real historical and spiritual lineage stemming from this early form of Jewish Christianity flows into Islam and influences Baha'i thought.

the fundamental tenets of Christianity,

Have you proved Trinitarianism in the earliest forms of Christianity? No.

which is clearly 'supersessionism' which is, by definition, a 'replacement theology'.

The "fundamental tenets" you refer to (such as the Trinity) were not present in the earliest form of Christianity represented by James.

 

[Thomas]

In an attempt to stay 'on point', , To get to the nub of the issue, 'One God, Many Paths' posits just that, it's what the Perennialists argued since the 15th century, according to their knowledge of Christianity, Judaism, Platonism and Hermeticism.

It's axiomatic to the Perennialists that each path is entire and complete in itself to attain its goal. With regard to its foundation, which is Revelation, each and every revelation points unerringly towards the Real and the True, and provides the means of discernment and the ptractice of detachment necessary to aspire to the Highest.

"Progressive revelation", an axiom of the Baha'i Faith, is refuted by the Perennialists as a metaphysical error, as is the idea that one Tradition corrects, or correctly interprets, the essential truths contained within another Tradition.

Is it possible that all the world’s great spiritual and religious traditions originated from the same source, even if we refer to or understand that Source in many different ways?

Yes.

I think this is the concept of Perennialism ...

Yes, it's a core principle from the European origins of Perennialism with the Italian Renaissance luminaries Marsilio Ficino and Pico della Mirandola in the 15th century.

Latterly summed up by Frithjof Schuon in his "Transcendent Unity of Religions" which asserts all religions derive from the one and the same ontological source. To understand this requires one to investigate their metaphysical foundations to see the universal commonality.

What is axiomatic for the Perennialist is that source is Formless, whereas the religion, as a means of transmission, is necessarily formal, and at the level of forms, religions can be seen to oppose, contradict, to refute each other, and so on.

Each religion possesses within itself, further derivative forms – yogas, spiritualities, and so forth – that might be said to be streams flowing from their one source, whilst that source flows from the one source common to them all.

Perennialists and the Baha'i disagree on a number of points, but the most significant in this regard and fundamental to Perennialism is that no religion revises, corrects, updates or completes any other, and at the level of forms, at the level of religions manifestation, no one religion speaks for them all, or acts as a kind of umbrella religion over all the others, so that all the others should conform themselves to its dogmas and doctrines.

Adjunct to this is the Perennialist dismisses the idea of 'progressive revelation' as a categorical error.

... and Omnism, too ...

Well Omnism is not actually a religion, rather an appreciation of religion as such.

If I remember correctly, there are things in the idea of mystics such as Meister Eckhart ... Rumi ...

And I could add others to the list ... but the point is they did their religion and attained that which it led them to – Eckhart never ceased to be a Christian in belief and practice; likewise Rumi never ceased to be a Muslim – and I would hazard that all those mystics touted as 'thinking outside their (confessional) box' never ceased to be fully founded in, and participatory in, their respective traditions.

 

[Sen McGlinn]

In an attempt to stay 'on point', , To get to the nub of the issue, 'One God, Many Paths' posits just that, it's what the Perennialists argued since the 15th century, according to their knowledge of Christianity, Judaism, Platonism and Hermeticism.

It's axiomatic to the Perennialists that each path is entire and complete in itself to attain its goal. With regard to its foundation, which is Revelation, each and every revelation points unerringly towards the Real and the True, and provides the means of discernment and the ptractice of detachment necessary to aspire to the Highest.

"Progressive revelation", an axiom of the Baha'i Faith, is refuted by the Perennialists as a metaphysical error, as is the idea that one Tradition corrects, or correctly interprets, the essential truths contained within another Tradition.

Yes.


Yes, it's a core principle from the European origins of Perennialism with the Italian Renaissance luminaries Marsilio Ficino and Pico della Mirandola in the 15th century.

Latterly summed up by Frithjof Schuon in his "Transcendent Unity of Religions" which asserts all religions derive from the one and the same ontological source. To understand this requires one to investigate their metaphysical foundations to see the universal commonality.

What is axiomatic for the Perennialist is that source is Formless, whereas the religion, as a means of transmission, is necessarily formal, and at the level of forms, religions can be seen to oppose, contradict, to refute each other, and so on.

Each religion possesses within itself, further derivative forms – yogas, spiritualities, and so forth – that might be said to be streams flowing from their one source, whilst that source flows from the one source common to them all.

Perennialists and the Baha'i disagree on a number of points, but the most significant in this regard and fundamental to Perennialism is that no religion revises, corrects, updates or completes any other, and at the level of forms, at the level of religions manifestation, no one religion speaks for them all, or acts as a kind of umbrella religion over all the others, so that all the others should conform themselves to its dogmas and doctrines.

Adjunct to this is the Perennialist dismisses the idea of 'progressive revelation' as a categorical error.


Well Omnism is not actually a religion, rather an appreciation of religion as such.


And I could add others to the list ... but the point is they did their religion and attained that which it led them to – Eckhart never ceased to be a Christian in belief and practice; likewise Rumi never ceased to be a Muslim – and I would hazard that all those mystics touted as 'thinking outside their (confessional) box' never ceased to be fully founded in, and participatory in, their respective traditions.

You said, ""Progressive revelation", an axiom of the Baha'i Faith, is refuted by the Perennialists as a metaphysical error..."
Could you clarify? Which Perennialist, and what was their argument?

 

[Sen McGlinn]

You said, ""Progressive revelation", an axiom of the Baha'i Faith, is refuted by the Perennialists as a metaphysical error..."
Could you clarify? Which Perennialist, and what was their argument?

This may help in explaining the "progressive revelation" doctrine. It's from Abdu'l-Baha, translated from Persian notes that he authenticated:

" The religion of God consists of two parts. One is the very foundation and belongs to the spiritual realm; that is, it pertains to spiritual virtues and divine qualities. This part suffers neither change nor alteration: it is the Holy of Holies, which constitutes the essence of the religion of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Christ, Muhammad, the Báb, and Bahá'u'lláh, and which will endure throughout all the prophetic Dispensations. It will never be abrogated, for it consists in spiritual rather than material truth. It is faith, knowledge, certitude, justice, piety, high-mindedness, trustworthiness, love of God, and charity. It is mercy to the poor, assistance to the oppressed, generosity to the needy, and upliftment of the fallen. It is purity, detachment, humility, forbearance, patience, and constancy. These are divine qualities. These commandments will never be abrogated, but will remain in force and effect for all eternity. ...

Those foundations of the religion of God ... which are spiritual and consist in human virtues, are never subject to abrogation but are eternal and everlasting, and are renewed in every prophetic Dispensation.

The second part of the religion of God, which pertains to the material world and which concerns such things as fasting, prayer, worship, marriage, divorce, manumission, legal rulings, transactions, penalties and punishments for murder, assault, theft and injury, is changed and altered in every prophetic Dispensation and may be abrogated for policies, transactions, punishments, and other laws are bound to change according to the exigencies of the time."
(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, 2014 Translation)

 

[Thomas]

You said, ""Progressive revelation", an axiom of the Baha'i Faith, is refuted by the Perennialists as a metaphysical error..."
Could you clarify? Which Perennialist, and what was their argument?

Schuon summed up the position from a meeting he had very early in his life when he met a Senegalese marabout – an Islamic leader or teacher – who was in Switzerland on some sort of cultural visit. Schuon engaged him in conversation, and at some point the man drew a circle with many radii and explained: "God is the center; all paths lead to Him."

The many radii are the revelations or dispensations of the many religions. No radii is better or worse than any other radii. This is fundamental. Like light from the sun – a universal motif well known to the Baha'i, the light originates at the centre, and shines out.

To speak of progressive revelation is like drawing a circle, where the radii start from the outside and never quite reach the center, as if each religion was a beam of light that starts at the periphery and reaches inward.

To speak of progressive revelation is to suggest that the sacra doctrina of the world would have a 'use-by' date, and become out-dated and out-moded with the passage of time, that those books would have nothing 'new' to say, or nothing to offer that is not offered better elsewhere.

The fact that the world's sacra doctrina, the great philosophical texts, works such as the Corpus Hermeticum, still have currency is precisely because they address the timeless questions in a timeless manner.

According to the Schuon:
"First, religion is essentially discernment. It is discernment between God and the world, between the Real and the unreal, or between the Everlasting and the ephemeral.
Secondly: religion is union. It is union with God, the Great Spirit. Everything in religion has its foundation in one of these two elements: in discernment or in union. Man is intelligence and will, and religion is discernment and concentration ..."
(Schuon, The Feathered Sun, 'A Message on Indian Religion')

Again, to suggest progressive revelation is to suggest a better discernment, a better union ...

 

[Thomas]

"The religion of God consists of two parts. One is ... never subject to abrogation but are eternal and everlasting, and are renewed in every prophetic Dispensation.

OK

The second part ... may be abrogated ... and ... are bound to change according to the exigencies of the time."
(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, 2014 Translation)

Which, in the Baha'i Faith, such changes will be adjudicated by the Universal House of Justice.

A case in point being the exclusion of women from the UHJ ... the secular world throws all manner of critique at his (as it does Catholicism for a male-only priesthood) and the Baha'i defends that position according to its own credo, dogmas and doctrines.

Schuon wrote:
"A religion is an integral whole comparable to a living organism that develops according to necessary and exact laws; one might therefore call it a spiritual organism, or a social one in its most outward aspect. In any case, it is an organism and not a construction of arbitrary conventions; one cannot therefore legitimately consider the constituent elements of a religion independently of their inward unity, as if one were concerned with a mere collection of facts."
(Schuon, The Transcendent Unity of Religions, 'Christianity and Islam')

While a religion can 'evolve' according to its own internal life and in relation to external conditions, it can change and alter, and so forth, it must and can only remain true to itself, its DNA, as a soma pneumatikos, and attempts by an outside agency to add to or take away from those constituent elements is, to a greater or lesser degree, to circumscribe its integrity as a spiritual entity.

Schuon asserts, religions are not disparate and disassociated assemblages of facts and fictions, myths and metaphors, dogmas and doctrines; their outward aspects, even to their social aspect, is all part of, and intrinsic to, its holistic, organic being. So determining elements of any religion as merely 'outward' and 'unnecessary' is a dubious undertaking and may well give rise to unfortunate, if not disastrous, unforeseen consequences.

+++

I offer the wisdom of Gamaliel, to the Council of the Sanhedrin:
"And now I say to you, stand back from these men and leave them; for if this movement or this work is from men it will be destroyed; but if it is from God you will not be able to destroy them; you might even turn out to be men who are battling against God.” (Acts 5:38-39)

 

[Ahanu]

In an attempt to stay 'on point', ,

Please do.

Perennialists and the Baha'i disagree on a number of points, but the most significant in this regard and fundamental to Perennialism is that no religion revises, corrects, updates or completes any other, and at the level of forms, at the level of religions manifestation, no one religion speaks for them all, or acts as a kind of umbrella religion over all the others, so that all the others should conform themselves to its dogmas and doctrines.

Adjunct to this is the Perennialist dismisses the idea of 'progressive revelation' as a categorical error.

Progressive revelation can be seen not as the Source changing, but as the divine guidance mediated through forms adapting to humanity's evolving capacity and circumstances, preparing it for new stages of collective life (global unity). The completion is what is called in the Baha'i Faith a cycle or dispensation tailored for a particular era, not of the eternal truth itself.

Also, I must correct you on your concept of completion, because in the context of progressive revelation, it doesn't necessarily mean the previous dispensation was false of leading souls to God in its time. It means it was complete for its specific historical cycle and the needs of humanity at that stage. A later revelation completes the cycle for an era by bringing the necessary teachings and social forms for the next stage of humanity's collective development.

I think your idea religious forms must be entirely static and non-correcting across history probably comes from certain metaphysical assumptions about how the transcendent God relates to creation - that is, the idea of God's self-limitation to interact with creation or send forth an embodiment of its essence into the created realm. The religious form - such as the Trinity - directly arising from that self-limiting act is then believed to be uniquely complete and unsurpassable. Any new revelation or completion by another form would appear to deny the finality of that initial act of self-limitation.

However, we maintain God's absolute transcendence - His essence is utterly distinct from creation. Interaction is mediated not by the divine essence limiting itself, but through God's Primal Will, which is the first thing created by God and acts as the cause of all other creation. The Qur'an states, "It begets not, nor is it begotten" (Q 112.3), and the Báb clarifies that God's essence is "utterly sanctified from any attribute of causation," acting instead through this created Will.

The strict boundary lines you draw between the revealed traditions as they manifest in history do not exist. A spiritual lineage is claimed by some traditions (like Ismailism) flowing from earlier figures - such as James the Just and Bahira - into later dispensations. The diversity of early Christianity further erodes your claim. Your boundary lines are manmade.

Baha'i teachings like progressive revelation can be perceived as supersessionist or a form of correction, but only from the perspective of someone attached to the literal interpretation of specific traditional doctrines given in final forms (such as the Trinity or the concept of the spirit "breathing into" the physical frame).

 

[Ahanu]

The assumption that the property of the divine essence being unchanging must directly dictate the property of the forms of guidance being static and non-correcting in their historical manifestation is the categorical error of Perennialism. They conflate the category of God's unchanging essence with the category of God's dynamic action within the created realm.

They might as well be saying the following from the top of their lungs: "Because the sun is unchanging, its light must always fall on a single spot!" All the while they ignore that the earth (creation) is rotating.

 

[Ahanu]

Schuon summed up the position from a meeting he had very early in his life when he met a Senegalese marabout – an Islamic leader or teacher – who was in Switzerland on some sort of cultural visit. Schuon engaged him in conversation, and at some point the man drew a circle with many radii and explained: "God is the center; all paths lead to Him."

The many radii are the revelations or dispensations of the many religions. No radii is better or worse than any other radii. This is fundamental.

The analogy of static, parallel paths existing simultaneously fails. Why? Well, it doesn't account at all for the dynamic nature of creation. It breaks down when applied to the historical reality of divine guidance interacting with a developing humanity in time - from tribal units to city-states, nations, and a global society.

Again, we're back to Perennialists shouting into the wind: "Because the sun is unchanging, its light must always fall on a single spot!"

Schuon should have thought of concentric circles or spirals, but those analogies might have alluded him . . .

Baha'is don't believe earlier revelations were less true; they believe the teachings and laws was appropriate for humanity's collective maturity at that time. The idea progressive revelation means "radii start from the outside and never quite reach the center" is either deliberate misrepresentation or misunderstanding.

Ultimately the problem lies with Perennialism's metaphysical error about the nature of God's interaction with the created world. Since some believe God's self-limitation occurred in one big final historical embodiment within creation, the religious form arising from that act is viewed as the final radius from the center. The idea of progressive revelation with new completions then appear as something originating from a point other than.