Bahá’í World/Volume 5/The Nature of the Divine Manifestations

←Previous

The Bahá’í World Volume 5

Next→

Proofread once

[Page 625]

THE NATURE OF THE DIVINE MANIFESTATIONS

BY GLENN A. SHOOK

THE EVOLVING WORLD

IN SPEAKING of prayer ‘Abdu’l-Bahá once said, “Effort should be made to make attachment to God.” When asked how this attachment is to be made, he replied, “Knowledge is love. Study, listen to exhortations, think, try to understand the wisdom and greatness of God.”

From the earliest times—the knowledge of which we obtain only by inference—down to the present, man has been profoundly affected by thinking about God.

The concept of God, like any other fundamental concept, was undoubtedly a matter of slow development. In the last analysis the only way in which man can know God is by experience. The individual knows by his own experience or that of some other person or that of the race. This knowledge cannot be like the knowledge of familiar objects around us, or the knowledge we gain by observation, experiment and inference. Naturally we put more stress upon what men have thought about God in the past than we do upon some means by which we may gain a knowledge of God. This puts a very heavy burden upon traditional belief and the latter is not always equal to it.

The mere fact that men have believed in God in the past is not sufficient grounds for a vital faith today. For several hundred years men believed that the earth was the center of the universe but that belief was discounted when the Copernican theory was established. Again what men have thought of God in the past is of importance to us today because it is only by such study that we can know how man has developed religiously. The only way we can discover certain phases of the Divine Plan for this race, or the only way in which we can read any meaning into life, is to study man’s development.

Before the modern historic method was applied to the history of religion it was customary to paint an ideal picture of our religious development, especially the development of our own religion, with the result that most of us are not prepared for any kind of critical study. Until quite recently it was practically impossible for a scholar to write an unbiased treatise upon comparative religion. White’s history of the struggle between Theology and Science¹ is the story of a long conflict between scientific facts on the one hand and unwarranted tradition on the other. There is no doubt that many sincere religionists of that period honestly felt that the position of God in the universe would be impaired by the advance of science.

In all this we see the struggle of the race for truth but we must never suppose that we are out of the struggle. It is a very hopeful sign that today men from all walks of life are making a defense for God. The warfare today is against unscholarly and superficial thinking, the kind of thinking that overlooks the most obvious facts of man’s development, namely his mental and spiritual experience.

This idea of an evolving, progressive concept of God has not received sufficient attention in the past. While we realize that early man’s notion of God cannot compare with the exalted ideas of today nevertheless we do not like to feel that the world was entirely deprived of the great spiritual bounties. This is not error but only natural, however we must expand our ideas of the universe. Just as we permit a child’s primitive ideas of God, realizing that there are mature people with more exalted concepts, so we must think of the earth as a part of the universe.

————————

¹“History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom,” by Andrew D. White.

[Page 626] Man has always existed so, when this planet was in comparative darkness and ignorance, other worlds may have been enlightened.

On the other hand there is a kind of progressive belief, a product of the desire for truth, that does, in a real sense, create the object of the belief. Some men believed in the Ptolemaic theory after it was refuted. This kind of belief creates nothing, but there were others that believed in the Copernican theory long before it was fully demonstrated and their belief led to the truth. It is this kind of belief that has advanced the knowledge of God. A static dogmatic belief is never real although it may become an integral part of our religious life while a progressive dynamic belief is always real and consequently contributes something to the sum total of our knowledge.

In dealing with man’s spiritual development we cannot confine ourselves to the historic method.

We fail to realize that there are laws in the universe, governing man’s mental and spiritual growth, laws that we discover by drawing near to God and not by making God in our own image. Some of our modern philosophers amid the comforts of life may find difficulty in reconciling the omnipotence of God with His mercy but the great saints of all time have never been in such a dilemma. It is a singular fact that the truly great souls suffer the most and complain the least, but it is something more than this—it is a fact that must have its say in any religious discussion. The fact that we are in any sort of dilemma would indicate that we too are in the process of becoming.

In this connection the theory of evolution, which by the way is the only means we have for extending our knowledge in time, is of great assistance to us for it helps us to see the Divine Plan as it really is. We realize more and more that ideas, as well as things, have been, are and ever shall be in a state of change. As long as we hold to the notion of spontaneous creation in any field of thought we are unable to make any real progress in that field. This has been confirmed by experience. To be sure when an evolving biological world first made its appearance it led directly to a mechanistic concept of life but we must remember that at the time of its inception the leading minds of the day were decidedly materialistic.

While we cannot adjust discoverable facts to fit a static philosophy we can adjust our philosophy to fit the facts. We have discovered, after a good many years of anxiety, that we can conceive of a God of an evolving world quite as readily as we can a God of a world of spontaneous creation. The only difficulty is that many traditional and philosophical ideas started with a static world, so that the moment we begin to push back into history to search out an idea like creation, we fear for the eminence of God. But if we fear to look backward we are also afraid to look forward, which is worse. In a sense this merely indicates that we have no real knowledge of God, for if we have ever been conscious of His presence no theory regarding His non-existence will disturb us; and if the heart has never known Him then no theory regarding Him may be of much assistance, but it may prepare the way.

The great Prophets realize this, so when they appear upon earth they first appeal to the heart. Thousands of people, inside and outside of Christendom, think of God as a loving Father because of the life and words of Christ. Hundreds of pilgrims entered the presence of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá with perplexing questions, only to find that they were relatively unimportant. They came away with something that no philosopher has ever been able to bestow, namely the love of God, dynamic and enduring.

Nevertheless Christ came into the world to reflect to us the attributes of God and we cannot think of Christ and His mission without this background of ideas concerning God. For thousands of years the world was being prepared for the Gospel of Christ and Christ prepared the world for the coming of Bahá’u’lláh.

It is this everchanging flux of ideas concerning God and the place of the Manifestations in the scheme of things that concern us here. In the long run progress always results. We would like to see things move along without breaks and setbacks but that is not so much an indication of our fine sense of orderliness as a confession of our ignorance of the laws of nature, of our own limitations, and the Divine Plan.

[Page 627] Every loyal adherent of an ancient religious system firmly believes that his religion and his religion alone has the power of expansion and that finally the other religions will come to realize this. Yet the difficulties of such a position are perfectly clear, for the atheist and agnostic are equally sure of their position. This shows how very difficult it is for man to see the world in its entirety.

SPIRITS AND GODS

If, even in our own day it is difficult for men to grasp the concept of the world as a whole, it is surely not surprising that among earlier mankind such an effort was not made. As man in early times found it impossible to explain every phenomenon in terms of his own physical activity, he was led to create a galaxy of more or less independent spirits to account for what he saw and experienced. Then, as his time and opportunity for thinking and clarifying and co-ordinating ideas increased, he simplified this system by introducing deities for some universal cause. For example, at first a multitude of spirits healed various diseases, or perhaps the same disease upon different days and occasions, but as man came to think of healing in a general sense, a deity was assigned to this concept of healing. The deity can now preside over all healing, and what is more important, as Hocking points out,¹ the deity has a continuous character and may support a definite relationship. The god is no longer attached to particular physical objects but he is still associated with the tangible.

With a deity ruling over recurring events real progress begins, for now experience enters in and it is even possible to maintain a record of the god’s deeds. Such records form a large part of the tradition of every religious people. Greek history is replete with the deeds of their gods, as Hebrew history is filled with the deeds of its God. The continuous character of a deity may even be studied, so to speak. The local prophet often reviews the tradition of his people, stressing points that have been overlooked or neglected,

————————

¹Hocking—“The Meaning of God in Human Experience."

and adding to their knowledge of God or their gods as the case may be. When St. Paul was in Athens he made good use of the Greek propensity for gods in his famous speech on Mars Hill. In a few paragraphs he gives them an exalted picture of the one true God.

While some of the early ideas of their deities seem crude and materialistic to us, we should not overlook the fact that the most highly developed mystics of our day sometimes think and speak of the Divine Presence as a light, a vibration or an outpouring, although realizing at the same time that the Absolute can have none of these attributes. Perhaps even primitive man often thought and felt beyond the imagery of his religious institution.

Again, if we are in a state of development we cannot think of the growth of the concept of God as a progress from error to truth. Our scientific experience of the last three hundred years has demonstrated that, as far as scientific knowledge goes, we have not passed from error to truth, but rather from one stage to a higher stage. The crude ideas of primitive man were true to him, but new experience down through the ages has extended and modified his concepts. There is a god of healing and a god of plant life, but we believe it is the same god. On the other hand we still believe in tribal gods until we unite all religions, and in a few hundred years, at most, the entire world will look upon this present plurality of religions as an error. In short, a plurality of gods is no more error than a plurality of religions, however complaisantly we may regard the latter.

We are not concerned, however, wholly with what primitive man thought about God. We may pause to ask what was God’s relation to man? Did the deity to whom primitive man prayed answer his prayers? Did he receive help and comfort in the time of his troubles? Undoubtedly God answered prayers then as He does today, namely according to our capacity. God cannot confer bounties upon people if they are not ready for them. An ignorant, undeveloped man has no cultural wants or desires. He does not ask for faith and knowledge of God, and he, therefore, cannot be endowed with those [Page 628] qualities. Primitive man probably asked for such things as rain, sons, and victory in battle, and these he undoubtedly received according to the wisdom of God. Some of the principles of the Bahá’í Cause like the oneness of the world of humanity, independent investigation of truth, equality of men and women, would have been almost meaningless to the early Christian church even at its zenith.

But humanity as a whole did not evolve gradually, step by step. It is highly probable that every advance was made by some spiritual genius. Every real advance that has been made in art or music, for example, can be attributed to some individual rather than to the masses. Even the so-called folk songs are believed to be the creation of some musical genius and not that of a group of people of average musical ability. What we label good music today is that which has been created by masters and not the sum total of all the creations of mediocrity. Thus it is not unlikely that in prehistoric times some exceptional individual with greater insight than the average served to raise the general level of religious thought. This does not mean, however, that only the best was transmitted, or that the best was very near to what we might be pleased to call the truth. Hocking was undoubtedly right when he said¹: "It is a curious paradox that this most original and constant knowledge should be the most difficult and slowest subject to change, the most ancient subject of human experimentation, the most encumbered with rubbish and error. We understand in part the reason for these errors. We understand that it is not natural for man to reflect, becoming fully aware of that with which he is thinking. We understand that we have little or no native power of recognizing either self or God apart from mediators: so that in the conceptions we make of God there must always be an overburden and overinfluence of the medium, physical or personal, wherein God is thought.”

From remote times, then, man has struggled with two ideas, God as pure spirit and God incarnate, or the One and the Absolute, on the one hand, and the moral and personal

————————

¹Hocking—“The Meaning of God in Human Experience."

on the other. In speaking in this connection Hocking says:² "After all, there is no other essential error in thinking of God than this: that God becomes an object among other objects, natural or psychical. And this is not all error. For not only do these over-materialized conceptions hold fast the genuine objectivity of God (which all-important character is usually weakened by attempts to think of God as pure spirit); but further, there is indispensable truth in the tendency to incarnate God in his works, and to think of him as there where his activity is and where his objects are. I would rather have a worshipper of a thousand idols than a worshipper of a subjective deity or an abstraction.”

When we come to recorded history the ideas are more refined, but still in the process of development. We need not dwell upon this period as everyone is familiar with Old Testament history and it is replete with examples of the changing viewpoint. As a passing example, contrast the God of Genesis, who cannot find Adam when he hides from Him, with the God of the Psalms, or again the God of the Proverbs with the God of the New Testament.

When the Universal Manifestation comes He floods the earth with light, and questions that perplexed the sages of all times are elucidated in a few words, that is, to the people of capacity. Thus with the coming of Christ the world was confronted with new questions. Christ gave a new interpretation of God and He also raised questions regarding Himself. Those nearest Him could not comprehend His station and they were not a little bothered by this fact. In one instance He raises the question Himself: “Whom do men say that I, the Son of man, am?” They answered that some said that he was John the Baptist, Elias, Jeremiah or one of the prophets. When He asked the disciples what they themselves thought, Peter answered, “Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.” The Jews as a whole put the burden of proof upon Him as is clearly shown by their question: “How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.” But He could not tell them plainly,

————————

²Hocking—“The Meaning of God in Human Experience."

[Page 629] for they were not seeking the truth. Eventually, however, a few did realize His station and they revolutionized the religions of Europe. Although His own people did not accept Him, nevertheless they were better prepared than most of the nations to promote His teachings. Merely as an historical character the progress He made in divine knowledge was so great that He must be classed as a spiritual genius. He is now recognized as peerless and unique.

What happened? Manifestly the world was ready for a great message and God sent this great light. To many devout followers of Christ this is the consummation of all religious history, and yet there is nothing in the words of Christ nor the prophets that would lead necessarily to this conclusion, and our experiences would indicate that a great spiritual leader is as necessary today as at any time in the past. Christ did not indicate that divine revelation had come to an end. Everything was not accomplished at this time. The world must go through greater agony and confusion in order to appreciate the value of prophetic religion. We are still worshippers of idols in the form of gold and philosophical abstractions.

Nevertheless this is the Divine Plan as we comprehend it. The race, as the individual, learns of its weakness through blunders. It grows and develops by striving and overcoming. Through the dark ages the station of Christ was an enigma. Was He human or divine? The church apparently solved this fundamental problem by combining the cultural mysticism of the Hellenistic mystery-religions with prophetic or revealed religion resulting in the so-called “Christian God-mysticism.” The morals and ethics of the church were derived from revealed religion, i. e., from the Old and New Testament, but their ideas of God and Christ were considerably modified, to say the least, by medieval mysticism.

The disastrous results of this experiment are obvious to any student of religious history. Heiler, in speaking of this period says,¹ “The static God with whom the mystic in his ecstasy becomes wholly one is outside time and space, without any vital relation to the world and history.” And again: “Mysticism

————————

¹Heiler “Prayer.”

and religion of revelation are the two opposite tendencies of the higher piety which in history ever repel, yet ever attract each other.”

The Religion of Bahá’u’lláh, however, is inclusive and needs no interpreter other than ‘Abdu’l-Bahá who was appointed by the Divine Manifestation, Bahá’u’lláh.

THE TESTIMONY OF THE PROPHET

When the Prophet comes into the world He always differentiates, in no uncertain terms, between the scaffolding and the solid structure of religion and it is sometimes a surprise to religious doctors that the majority of their ideas are useless. But just as fitful spirits paved the way for deities of continuous character so our metaphysical notions may have been a necessary preliminary to the truth that has been given to us by the Manifestations for this day. Therefore many of our traditional ideas in religion and philosophy must give way to advanced ideas, ideas compatible with the maturity of this age. This is particularly true with the current concepts of the nature of the Divine Manifestations. Even the great mystics, who have preserved the reality of religion for us, have often gone astray upon such concepts as the Divine Essence. To quote Heiler ²: "The incomprehensible paradox that the small human ‘I’ has become an infinite ‘I’ the mystic can understand only as meaning that he himself has become God. As Plotinus says, the ecstatic ‘has become God, nay, rather he is God.’ Catherine of Genoa declares joyfully: ‘My “I” is God, and I know no other “I” but this my God.’ And Madam Guyon expresses herself in a similar fashion.”

In the very nature of the case the Prophet alone can assist us in tearing down the scaffolding which has helped construct the edifice but which is now not only useless but unsightly. We must there turn to the Prophet and let Him report what He has seen and experienced.

At the outset, the idea of a Manifestation of God coming to our planet in this day is so unique that the world at large cannot grasp it. To the majority of mankind religions are, in the last analysis, institutions

————————

²Heiler, Frederich, “Prayer,” p. 141.

[Page 630] of the past, and to this majority progress can only be made by walking reluctantly backwards. The popular belief today concerning Christ amounts to nothing more than this: He was and is an example of a perfect life and can therefore serve, regardless of theological controversy, as a model for our lives. But this vacuous belief is inadequate for our present needs. It is popular because it satisfies a flickering desire for something religious without interfering with our every-day pursuits.

It often happens that the more we study an ancient religion the more irrelevant does that religion become to our modern life unless we possess some spiritual quality. This is confirmed by experience both past and present. If we are spiritual, however, then our study will assist us in making a correct estimate of any religion. Hocking¹ gets at the root of the matter when he says, “The deeds of the mystics constitute the hard parts of history; the rest has its day and passes.”

We are concerned here, however, with a world which is not primarily spiritual. Hence at the outset, we cannot expect the unspiritual philosophers to make many contributions to our knowledge of the nature of the Prophets; rather we must be prepared to reject many of their conclusions.

In dealing with every-day affairs we constantly fall back upon generalizations derived from experience. The good executive uses standardized decisions wherever he can to simplify his work and to avoid mental strain. When we discover a new principle, however, our generalizations may be of very little value to us; we must rely upon logic. It is no less true in the field of religion. When the great Prophet comes into the world He brings truths that we cannot grasp if we hold to the superstitions of our ancestors. Bahá’u’lláh not only warns us of the futility of falling back upon tradition but sets it forth as a principle. The “independent investigation of truth” and "the abandonment of all prejudices” are as necessary for the preservation of society today as the “Thou shalt nots” of the Pentateuch.

————————

¹Hocking—“The Meaning of God in Human Experience."

TRADITIONAL CONCEPTS OF GOD

Let us see then, in the light of the writings of Bahá’u’lláh and ‘Abdu’l-Bahá how far our knowledge of God and the Manifestations of God agrees with the truth.

When we say that God is just, we are not describing God for we cannot think of justice unless we think of some person. Therefore the word "justice” gives us no concept of His form or being. On the other hand we cannot think of God as unjust, therefore in the words of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá,‘ "We affirm these names and attributes, not to prove the perfections of God but to deny that He is capable of imperfections.” The difficulty here is not that God is just and something more which is beyond us, but rather that we do not know what the justice of God is, for if we did we would probably understand the essence of God. As ‘Abdu’l-Bahá says,¹ “It is not that we comprehend His knowledge, His sight, His power and life, for it is beyond our comprehension; for the essential names and attributes of God are identical with His Essence, and His Essence is above all comprehension.” If we could understand the reality of God we would then look beyond for what, I suppose, we might call the essence of essences, and, should we attain that, we would still look beyond; which is just a complicated way of saying we never can understand the essence. We speak the truth when we say that God is just, He always has been just, and always will be just, but the statement does not imply that we comprehend God’s justice.

Nevertheless, we are forced to admit that such a statement must convey something to the mind for we all feel that when we think of God’s justice we have something very definite in mind but ‘Abdu’l-Bahá makes it clear that the qualities attributed to God can have meaning only when applied to the Manifestations of God, otherwise we are thinking of God as a creature like ourselves which is pure imagination. He says,² “Accordingly all these attributes, names, praises, and eulogies apply to the places of Manifestation; and all that we imagine and suppose

————————

¹“Some Answered Questions,” p. 170.

²"Some Answered Questions," p. 176.

[Page 631] besides them is mere imagination, for we have no means of comprehending that which is invisible and inaccessible.”

This is a very illuminating statement for it shows clearly that all philosophical speculations as to the nature of God are futile. In this instance then, we are not justified in making any inference regarding the justice of God. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá says,¹ “Therefore reflect that different peoples of the world are revolving around imaginations, and are worshippers of idols of thoughts and conjectures. They are not aware of this; they consider their imaginations to be the Reality which is withdrawn from all comprehension, and purified from all descriptions. They regard themselves as the people of unity and the others as the worshippers of idols; but idols at least have a mineral existence, while the idols of thoughts and imaginations of man are but fancies; they have not even mineral existence.” Again He says,¹ “However far mind may progress, though it may reach to the final degree of comprehension, the limit of understanding, it beholds the divine sign and attributes in the world of creation, and not in the world of God.”

The scientific development of recent years may be of assistance to us here. Up to the end of the nineteenth century scientists were confident that we could reduce the physical world to mechanical models and that when a model could be built to represent a given phenomenon, the phenomenon was completely explained. In that period they sought for no reality beyond the mechanical explanation. To them, matter could be reduced to small particles like billiard balls, and light was a wave disturbance in an ether, like a wave in an elastic solid, say, a rope. Today, however, we realize that the reality must lie beyond the models, beyond the mathematical equations. If we cannot comprehend the reality or essence of the physical world which is visible, it seems highly improbable that we will be able to throw much light upon the world of God.

It is interesting to recall, in this connection, a statement by Eddington² just a few years ago. He says: “Penetrating as deeply

————————

¹“Some Answered Questions,” p. 167.

²Eddington, A. S., "Science and the Unseen World.”

as we can by the methods of physical investigation into the nature of a human being we reach only symbolic description. Far from attempting to dogmatize as to the nature of the reality thus symbolized, physics most strongly insists that its methods do not penetrate behind the symbolism.”

When we turn back to early man, therefore, we see that his God must have been, in the very nature of the case, decidedly anthropomorphic. Even idols have their place in primitive religion and may be regarded with as much respect as philosophical abstractions.

What applies to justice applies to any other attribute like mercy or power. When we say that God is merciful we simply affirm that He cannot be unmerciful and be God, but that does not mean that we, His creation, understand His mercy. We may understand the mercy of man, a creature like ourselves, but the mercy of God may be something quite different from the mercy of man. We are merciful to our children and deprive them of that which is harmful but they may in some instances regard our mercy as punishment.

When the world is dark and deprived of the Divine Spirit, man sometimes raises this question, "If God is merciful how can He permit suffering?” This question has always bothered sincere people who are loving and kind. They would relieve the suffering of the world; how can a merciful God permit it? Is He not as kind as they to His creatures? The question implies that we understand the mercy of God, or what amounts to the same thing, that the mercy of God is identical with our mercy. This may seem a little difficult at first, but it is because we have never realized our limitations when it comes to speculations concerning the nature of Divinity. Again, as we pointed out earlier, all extant religions were born in a static world but we actually are living in an evolving world and it is certain that we will get more and more light as the world advances. It is also interesting to note, in this connection, that the great saints have always suffered and yet they never feel that suffering is incompatible with Divine mercy.

Let us consider another attribute. We may say that God is infinite or omnipotent, but [Page 632] here again the statement does not carry with it the assumption that we comprehend the infinite or omnipotent character of God. To begin with we cannot form a definite picture of infinity in the physical world. If something increases without limit it exceeds all bounds. No matter how the mind strives to conceive of a great physical magnitude, infinity always lies beyond. This limitation certainly holds in the spiritual world.

‘Abdu’l-Bahá¹ makes this clear when He says, "It is evident that the human understanding is a quality of the existence of man, and that man is a sign of God. How can the quality of the sign surround the creator of the sign? That is to say, how can the understanding, which is a quality of the existence of man, comprehend God. Therefore the Reality of the Divinity is hidden from all comprehension and concealed from the minds of all men.”

We are now in a position to consider a modern philosophical dilemma. "How can God be merciful and omnipotent? He might permit suffering because His power is limited or He might have the power to eliminate suffering but not be merciful. How can He be both merciful and all powerful?” The question seems plausible, at first sight, but in the light of the great spiritual truths revealed to us in this day the statement is meaningless. If we cannot comprehend the omnipotence of God we cannot make any inference regarding it.

To affirm certain attributes of God is not therefore, identical with understanding these attributes when applied to God.

The attributes apply to the Manifestations or Prophets of God. To quote ‘Abdu’l-Bahá again, “Therefore all that the human reality knows, discovers and understands of the names, attributes and perfections of God, refer to these Holy Manifestations. There is no access to anything else: ‘the way is closed and seeking is forbidden.’”²

Many great philosophers have realized that the Creator of all things must be unknowable. Spencer makes this clear in his First Principles. He says: “By continually seeking to know and being continually thrown back

————————

¹"Some Answered Questions," p. 168.

²“Some Answered Questions," p. 169.

with a deepened conviction of the impossibility of knowing, we keep alive the consciousness that it is alike our highest wisdom and our highest duty to regard that through which all things exist as the Unknowable.”

Unfortunately, however, such men sometimes fail to realize that a knowledge of the attributes of God may be obtained through His Manifestations. In other words, we are not entirely devoid of any knowledge of God, or of the Unknowable, except as this knowledge refers to His Reality.

The approach to God then, is only through His Messengers. All our knowledge of God must come through the Manifestations. “The source of all learning is the knowledge of God, exalted be His glory, and this cannot be attained save through the knowledge of His divine Manifestation.”³

GOD’S RELATION TO MAN IN PROPHETIC RELIGION

For the first time in recorded history we have authentic information on the nature of a Divine Manifestation or Prophet. That is, the Prophet for this day has given us some light about His own station.

Humanity has always struggled with two ideas about God. He is the One, the Absolute, and the Infinite and again He is a moral and personal God. The first concept finds expression in medieval mysticism which is cold and nonpersonal compared with prophetic religion which is always warm, dynamic and progressive. To the mystic, God is not a revelation in history; God reveals himself to every man in mystical inspirations and visions. Of course mysticism does not always appear in its pure form. The Christian God-mysticism and the Sufist-mysticism of Islám have always shown fervor and personal warmth.

In general, mysticism has been independent of ecclesiastical authority and consequently it has been able to emerge from religious dogma and materialism in the past and we see popular forms of it even today.

Some of the mystics of the past and some modern cults teach that there is a part of the Divine Essence in each individual or that we are potential gods. Now this is only

————————

³Bahá’u’lláh, “Words of Wisdom."

[Page 633] natural and indicates a real striving toward God, for we may ask, “How can we comprehend the Divine unless there is a little of the Divine within us?”

‘Abdu’l-Bahá tells us that our relation to God is like the connection between the ray and the sun. The rays emanate from the sun but are not part of the sun. Again we are the creation and not a part of the Creator. To illustrate, the author writes a book which

Baghdád from the west bank of the Tigris.

may produce a profound effect upon society but the book does not contain a part of the writer. The author might be likened to the essence of the writing as he always transcends the medium which expresses his thought. Again the musician sends forth sound vibrations into the air which may produce visible effects upon his audience but the music is not a part of the composer but rather an emanation, as it were, from the composer.

In speaking of the relation between man, the created, and God, the Creator, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá says that this “proceeding”, “coming forth” or “dependence” is like the ray which emanates from the sun or the discourse which comes forth or emanates from the speaker. There is however another kind of coming forth or proceeding through “manifestation”, like the coming forth of the flower from the seed. In this case the reality or essence of the seed passes into the flower. Man’s proceeding or dependence is not like this, for ‘Abdu’l-Bahá says, "But the appearance through manifestation is the manifestation of the branches, leaves, blossoms and fruit from the seed; for the seed in its own essence becomes branches and fruits, and its reality enters into branches, the leaves and fruits.

"This appearance through manifestation would be for God the most High, simple imperfection, and this is quite impossible; for the implication would be that the absolute Pre-existent is qualified with phenomenal attributes; but if this were so, pure independence would become pure poverty and true existence would become nonexistence and this is not possible.”

Hence we, His creatures, emanate from Him like the light which emanates from the sun, and are therefore not a part of the reality or essence.

In some respects the great Prophets or Manifestations are like other men. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá [Page 634] says, "We said that the Manifestations have three planes. First the physical reality, which depends upon the body; secondly, the individual reality, that is to say, the rational soul; thirdly, the divine appearance, which is the divine perfections, the cause of the life of existence, of the education of souls, of the guidance of people, and of the enlightment of the contingent world.”

On the other hand ‘Abdu’l-Bahá makes it clear that the Holy Manifestations have a station that is unique. He says that no matter how far the disciples of Christ advance they will never reach the station of Christ. In this sense Christ was not a man like other men.

Although the Manifestations have a station that is beyond our comprehension, even they are not a part of the Divine. They manifest the attributes and perfections of God in the sense that the perfect mirror reflects the rays of the sun to us. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá says, "But the proceeding through manifestation (if by this is meant the Divine appearance, and not division into parts), we have said, is the proceeding and appearance of the Holy Spirit and the Word which is from God.” He emphasizes the point more strongly in another place; “And know that the proceeding of the Word and the Holy Spirit from God, which is the proceeding and appearance of manifestation, must not be understood to mean that the Reality of Divinity has been divided, into parts, or multiplied, or that it has descended from the exaltation of holiness and purity. God forbid!”

Was Christ God incarnate? If we mean by this that Christ was the perfect Manifestation of God; that He was the perfect reflection of God and that when men looked upon Him it was as if they looked upon the face of God, then the answer is, yes, for this is the testimony of Himself. To quote from John 14; “. . . he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; . . . I am in the Father and the Father in me.” That is, the Divine attributes of God are reflected in Christ.

God can dwell in us only in the sense that the sun dwells in the mirror.

While we cannot understand the essence of God we are commanded to try and understand the “wisdom and greatness of God.”

To recapitulate: man emanates from God like the ray from the sun and is not therefore a part of the essence or reality of God, and in consequence he is not a potential god. If God were love, mercy, justice, etc., we might manifest Him for we have these attributes, but we have shown that the essence lies back of the attributes, so to speak, and is unknowable.

Even the great Prophets like Christ and Bahá’u’lláh do not contain a part of the Divine in the sense that the Divine is divided into parts. They manifest to us the Divine Perfections. The proceeding or coming forth, in this case, is not like the ray from the sun, nor the music from the musician for it is not a creation emanating from a creator. Hence the term “emanation” is not used in this connection. The Manifestations are mediums through which the Divine Perfections are transmitted to us and we may think of their station as analogous to the fine, polished mirror which reflects perfectly the rays of the sun.

Our knowledge of God comes through His Manifestations and they inform us only of His attributes and not His Reality. Moreover this knowledge is limited by our capacity.¹ “Knowing God, therefore means the comprehension and the knowledge of His attributes and not His Reality. This knowledge of His attributes is also proportioned to the capacity and power of man; and is not absolute.”

———————-

¹"Some Answered Questions," p. 256.