The Mission of Bahá’u’lláh/‘Abdu’l-Bahá: A study of a Christlike Character

[Page 46]‘ABDU’L-BAHA A STUDY OF A CHRISTLIKE CHARACTER

“No one, so far as my observation reaches, has lived the perfect life like ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’.”1'

of Nazareth led and bade His followers lead; to love God

wholeheartedly, and for God’s sake to love all mankind,

even one’s slanderers and enemies; to give consistently good for evil, blessings for curses, kindness for cruelty and, through a career darkened along its entire length by tragic misrepresentation and persecution, to preserve one’s courage, one’s sweetness and calm faith in God—to do all this and yet to play the man in a world of men, sharing at home and in business the common life of humanity, administering when occasion arose affairs large and small and handling complex situations with foresight and firmness—to live in such a manner throughout a long and arduous life, and when, in the fullness of time, death came, to leave to multitudes of mourners a sense of desolation and to be remembered and loved by them all as the servant of God—to how many men is such an achievement given as it has been given in this age of ours to ‘Abdu’l-Bahá?

To the historian, the psychologist, the student of comparative religion, the narrative in all its aspects has much to offer of interest and value. But to the would-be Christian of the twentieth century the personal life and character of Sir Abbas Effendi (more widely known as ‘Abdu’l-Bahá) make a direct and peculiar appeal.

An ordinary man who has set himself really to follow the precepts of Christ finds himself in special difficulties to-day. The very understanding and knowledge of the Will of Christ, as well

TT. K. Cheyne, D. Litt., D.D. The Reconciliation of Races and Religious.

P‘Jro ms TO-DAY in deed and truth; the kind of life that Jesus

[Page 47]‘ABDU’L-BAHA 47

as the performance of it, seem now less easy to attain than they were for our forefathers. The accuracy of the Gospel record not only in phrase and detail, but in larger matters likewise is, however unjustifiably, questioned by a number of scholars. The record in any case is brief and fragmentary; and the utterances attributed to the Christ are not only very few but so terse and epigrammatic that their bearing is often uncertain and they admit of diverse interpretations. The problems of the contemporary world, too, are so much more complex than those of the period in which Christ lived that His words which suited so well the conditions of the past are difficult to apply to the present. Those who profess themselves the teachers of Christendom speak, as a whole, with such different voices and offer such contradictory advice that there is much bewilderment.

Guidance from both the ancient book and from living example seems, therefore, to the man in the street less easy to gain than it was once. And the natural weakness of our nature which finds so arduous the moral life demanded by Christ is no longer supported by custom and general opinion, but is, on the contrary, unhappily enervated by the influence of a self—willed and flippant age.

In the story of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá the Christian comes upon something which he ardently desires and which he finds it difficult to obtain elsewhere. There awaits him here reassurance that the moral precepts of Christ are to be accepted exactly and in their entirety, that they can be lived out as fully under modern conditions as under any other, and that the highest spirituality is quite compatible with sound commonsense and practical wisdom. Many of the incidents in ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s life form a practical commentary on the teachings of Christ and dramatise the meaning of the ancient words. Being a philosopher as well as a saint, He was able to give to many a Christian enquirer explanations of the Gospel-ideal which had the simple authority both of His consistent life and of their own reasonableness.

Christ taught that the supreme human achievement is not any particular deed nor even any particular condition of mind; but a relation to God. To be completely filled—heart, mind, soulWith love for God, such is the great ideal, the Great Command [Page 48]48 THE MISSION OF Bahá’u’lláh

ment. In ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s character the dominant element was spirituality. Whatever was good in His life He attributed not to any separate source of virtue in Himself but to the power and beneficence of God. His single aim was servitude to God. He rejoiced in being denuded of all earthly possessions and in being rich only in His love for God. He surrendered His freedom that He might become the bond-servant of God; and was able, at the close of His days, to declare that He had spent all His strength upon the Cause of God.

To Him God was the centre of all existence here on earth and heretofore and hereafter. All things were in their degree mirrors of the bounty of God and outpourings of His power. Truth was the word of God. Art was the worship of God. Life was nearness to God; death remoteness from Him. The knowledge of God was the purpose of human existence and the summit of human attainment. No learning nor education that did not lead towards this knowledge was worth pursuit. Beyond it there was no further glory, and short of it there was nothing that could be called success.

In ‘Abdu’l-Bahá this love for God was the ground and cause of an equanimity which no circumstance could shake and of an inner happiness which no adversity affected and which (it is said) in His presence brought to the sad, the lonely or the doubting the most precious companionship and healing. He had many griefs but they were born of His sympathy and His devotion. He knew many sorrows, but they were all those of a lover. Warmly emotional as He was He felt keenly the troubles of others, even of persons whom He had not actually met or seen, and to His tender and responsive nature the loss of friends and the bereavements of which He had to face more than a few brought acute anguish. His heart was burdened always with the sense of humanity’s orphanhood, and He would be so much distressed by any unkindness or discord among believers that His physical health would be affected. Yet He bore His own sufferings, however numerous and great, with unbroken strength. For forty years He endured in a Turkish prison rigours which would have killed most men in a twelvemonth. Through all this time He was, He said, supremely happy, being close to God and in constant

[Page 49]‘ABDU’L-BAHA 49

communion with Him. He made light of all His afflictions. Once, when He was paraded through the streets in chains, the soldiers, who had become His friends, wished to cover up His fetters with the folds of His garments that the populace might not see and deride, but ‘Abdu’l-Bahá shook off the covering and jangled aloud the bonds which He bore in the service of His Lord. When friends from foreign lands visited Him in prison, and seeing the cruelties to which He was subjected, commiserated with Him, He disclaimed their sympathy, demanded their felicitations and bade them become so firm in their love for God that they, too, could endure calamity with a radiant acquiescence. He was not really, He said, in prison: for “there is no prison but the prison of self,” and since God’s love filled His heart He was all the time in heaven.

From this engrossing love for God came the austere simplicity which marked ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s character. Christ’s manner of life had been simple in the extreme. A poor man, poorly clad, often in His wanderings He had no drink but the running stream, no bed but the earth, no lamp but the stars. His teaching was given in homely phrases and familiar images, and the religion He revealed, however difficult to follow, was as plain and open as His life. His very simplicity helped to mislead His contemporaries. They could recognise the badges of greatness but not greamess itself, and they could not see light though they knew its name. He was neither Rabbi nor Shaykh, though He was the Messiah. He had neither throne nor sword, though all things in heaven and in earth were committed into His charge.

The life of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, too, was simple and severe. Familiar during much of His life with cold, hunger and all privation,He chose for Himself in His own home the most frugal fare. The room in which He slept (sometimes denying Himself even the comfort of a bed!) served Him as a workroom too. His clothing was often of the cheapest kind; and He taught His family so to dress that their apparel might be “an example to the rich and an encouragement to the poor.” The household prayers which He held morning and evening were quite informal.

Partly from a natural modesty but also from a resolve to do

[Page 50]50 THE MISSION OF Bahá’u’lláh

nothing that might encourage in others a tendency to formalism, He objected to any parade or unnecessary ceremonial, particularly if He were to be concerned in it.

Even if some degree of circumstance and formality were called for, He would reduce them to the smallest possible proportions. When, on April 17th, 1921, He was to receive from Lord Allenby in the grounds of the Governor’s residence at Haifa the honour of knighthood for services rendered to the people of Palestine during the Turkish occupation, He evaded the equestrian procession and military reception prepared for Him, by slipping unobserved from His house and making His way to the rendezvous by some unaccustomed route. When all were in perplexity and many thought that He was lost He appeared quietly at the right place and at the right time and proceeded in the prescribed manner with the essential part of the ceremony.

Of all material things, as of food, clothing, shelter, He sought and desired for Himself the barest sufficiency. But ascetism was not part of His creed nor of His teaching. “Others may sleep on soft pillows; mine must be a hard one,” He said once in declining a kind friend’s offer of some little comfort for His room. Men were to take what God had given them, and to enjoy the good things of nature; but with renunciation. Fasting was a symbol, and as such had high value, but in itself was no virtue: “God has given you an appetite,” He said; “eat.” Riches He thought no blessing; if they had been, Christ would have been rich. The poverty, however, which He inculcated was not impecuniousness but the heart’s poverty of him who is so rich in love for God that he is destitute of all desire for aught else.

He was the most unassuming of men. He counted himself personally as less than others, put Himself below them and servedl them in every way He could find with unafi‘ected humility. He used to entertain at His table visitors from far and near; but if the occasion were one of special importance He would rise and wait on His guests with His own hands—a practice He recommended to other hosts.

When His Father was alive and dwelt outside ‘Akká among the mountains, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá used frequently to visit Him, and

[Page 51]‘ABDU’L-BAHA 51

though the way was long He habitually went on foot. His friends asked Him why He did not spare Himself so much time and effort and go on horseback. “Over these mountains jesus walked on foot,” He said, “and who am I that I should ride where the Lord Christ walked P”

But this humility did not come from any weakness. It was a proof of His strength and a cause of His spiritual power. Once when a child asked Him why all the rivers of the earth flowed into the ocean He said: “Because it sets itself lower than them all and so draws them to itself.” Pride repels; humility attracts. When commenting on Christ’s direction to be as little children, He emphasised the fact that the virtues of children are due to weakness, and adults must learn to have these virtues through strength. A palsied arm cannot strike an angry blow; but the virtue of forbearance belongs to one who can, but will not. His humility was not due to any diflidence or other failing. Nor did it imply any self—abasement or self-depreciation. ' What it meant was the obliteration of the personal self. His separate ego had no existence at all save only as an instrument of expression for the higher self that was one with God

Somebody who knew Him in the West remarked that He was always master of the situation, and amid the novel and alien surroundings of such cities as London, Chicago and New York He preserved His self—possession and His power. On one occasion in America, when He arrived at a house where He was to be a guest at luncheon, a coloured man called on Him just before the meal hour. Being known to the hostess the caller was admitted, but ‘Abdu’l-Bahá observed that, according to the prevailing social custom, there was no intention of admitting him to sit at the table with the regular guests. Now race-prejudice is what ‘Abdu’l-Bahá could not tolerate: at His own table members of all races and religions met on an equality as brothers. He was not going to countenance it among His friends in America if He could help it. What was the surprise of the hostess and of everyone else present when He was observed clearing a place beside Him and calling for knives and forks for the new arrival. Before any seemly way of countering his initiative was found, before

[Page 52]52 THE MISSION OF Bahá’u’lláh

anyone had quite realised how it had happened, the lady found herself doing what neither she nor any other hostess in her position would have dreamed of doing, and entertaining at her table with her white friends a negro. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá had become the spiritual host. He spread before those who sat with Him the sense of the common Fatherhood of God. Such was His radiant power that the unconventional challenging meal passed off without unpleasantness or embarrassment to any who partook of it. When He was travelling in the West it was His custom to take out with Him a bag of silver pieces to give to the poor whom He met; and being brought down one evening to the Bowery Mission in New York He delivered there one of the most compassionate and moving of His addresses. It reads in part as follows: “To-night I am very happy for I have come here to meet my friends. I consider you my relatives, my companions, and I am your comrade. You must be thankful to God that you are poor, for His Holiness jesus Christ has said: ‘Blessed are the poor.’ He never said ‘Blessed are the rich.’ He said, too, that the Kingdom is for the poor. Therefore you must be thankful to God that though in this world you are indigent yet the treasures of God are within your reach; and although in the material realm you are poor, yet in the Kingdom of God you are precious. His Holiness jesus Himself was poor. He did not belong to the rich. He passed His time in the desert travelling among the poor, and lived upon the herbs Of the field. He had no place to lay His head, no home; yet He chose this rather than riches. It was the poor who accepted Him first, not the rich. Therefore you are the disciples of fesus; you are His comrades, your lives are similar to His life, your attitude is like unto Hi:, you resemble Him more than the rich. Therefore we will thank God that we have been so blest with real riches and, in conclusion, I ask you to accept ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’ as your servant.” At the end of the meeting ‘Abdu’l-Bahá stood at the Bowery entrance to the Mission Hall shaking hands with from four to five hundred men and placing within each palm a piece of silver. With no less tenderness He answered the need of those whose poverty was spiritual. His guards and iailers, servants of a cruel and despotic master, were won by His kindness and became His

[Page 53]‘ABDU’L-BAHA 53

friends. “What is there about him,” people would say, “that He makes His enemies His friends P”

Towards those who displayed to Him personal ill-will and malice He showed forbearance and generosity. Missionary work, He said, is not promoted by being overbearing and harsh; bad people are not to be won to God by criticisms and rebukes, nor by returning to them evil for evil. On the contrary, the Cause of God advances through courtesy and kindness, and the bad are conquered by intercession on their behalf and by sincere, unflagging love. “When you meet a thought of hate overcome it with a stronger thought of love.”

Christ’s command to love one’s enemies was not obeyed by assuming love nor by acting as though one loved them; for this would be hypocrisy. It was only obeyed when genuine love .was felt. When asked how it was possible to love those who were hostile or personally repugnant, He said that love could be true yet indirect. One may love a flower not only for itself but for the sake of someone who sent it. One may love a house because of one who dwells in it. A letter coming from a friend may be precious though the envelope which held it was torn and soiled. So one may love sinners for the sake of the universal Father, and may show kindness to them as to children who need training, to sick persons who need medicine, to wanderers who need guidance. “Treat the sinners, the tyrants, the bloodthirsty enemies as faithful friends and confidants,” He would say. “Consider not their deeds; consider only God.” His kindness was persistent and unflagging; He forgave until seventy times seven. A neighbour of His in Haifa, a self—righteous Muslim from Afghanistan, Who regarded ‘Abdu’l-Bahá as an outcast, pursued Him for years with hate and scorn. When he met ‘Abdu’l-Bahá on the street he would draw aside his robes that he might not be contaminated by touching a renegade. He received kindnesses with obdurate ill—will. Help in misfortune, food When he was hungry, medicine in sickness, the services of a physician, personal visits—all made no impression on his hardened heart. But ‘Abdu’l-Bahá did not relax nor despair. For five and twenty years He returned continuously good for evil; and then suddenly the man’s long hate broke down, his

[Page 54]54 THE MISSION OF Bahá’u’lláh

heart warmed, his spirit awoke, and with tears of disillusion and remorse he bowed in homage before the goodness that had mastered him.

Even with enemies much more dangerous and cruel than this poor Afghan, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá showed the same forbearance and goodwill. He would suffer or invite any personal loss or humiliation rather than miss an opportunity of doing a kindness to an enemy; He would suffer calamity in order to avoid doing something which might be to the spiritual detriment of an ill—wisher. When ‘Abdu’l-Bahá had been liberated, the misrepresentations of a secret enemy resulted in His re—imprisonment. He might probably have secured His release by a special appeal; but He declined to take this action. He went back to the prison and was held there for years, one reason for this non-resistanee to evil being that the success of His appeal would but deepen the envy and degradation of His enemy: “He must know that I will be the first to forgive him.” In this submissiveness He acted in the same spirit as His Father in parallel circumstances. For during the period when a certain jealous member of their entourage was by various means covertly seeking His life, Bahá’u’lláh and all the members of His family, including His eldest son, remained (so Professor Cheyne records) on cordial relations with him, admitting him as before to their company, even though they thus afforded him further opportunities of pursuing his deadly designs.

So confident were all who knew ‘Abdu’l-Bahá that they could count on his largeness of mind that even the Shah of Persia, When in extremity and threatened with revolution, stooped to ask the advice of the man he had kept in prison for a lifetime, and received an assurance that if he would end despotism and establish a constitution he might count on a happy reign, but that if he . persisted in his present path he would be dethroned. The Shah neglected the counsel and brought down upon himself the fate from which his generous prisoner would have shielded him.

From his foot one may reconstruct Hercules, and from a few words and incidents one may reconstruct a character. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá was no churchman; yet His qualities clarify the Christian

[Page 55]‘ABDU’L-BAHA 55

ideal of manhood and help to prove for those who need such proof, how that ideal applies to modern as truly as to ancient conditions of life and is no less within the reach of active men to-day than it was in simpler times gone by.

[Page 56]QUEEN MARIE OF RUMANIA AND THE BAHA’I FAITH

Archives at Haifa there lies an exquisite and precious

brooch, preserved as a memorial of the first of the queens

of the world who recognised and acknowledged the Revelation of Bahá’u’lláh.

Queen Marie of Rumania did not hesitate about this recognition nor was she diflident about giving it expression. She was at the time in bitter need, in profound, overwhelming sorrow. The sweetness, the tenderness, the depth of sympathy and helpfulness which she found at once in boundless measure in the Divine Message made an instantaneous appeal and opened her heart to seek and welcome the knowledge of its manifold beauty and truth. She felt the precious, warm loving-kindness of the Heavenly Teachers, the perfection of their understanding. Her soul was satisfied. Here at last was that for which she had hungered. Here was peace, the reality of peace: a breath upon a fevered world from that guarded inner shrine where peace has its inviolate home.

She was in bitter need. Those who were near and dear to her surrounded her with love and sympathy and consolations; for they too knew grief and pain and felt with one who suffered so acutely as she. But anguish of spirit had awakened in her a desire for something other than the sincerest human condolence. She faced the mystery of death and love. No word, no touch, however gentle, that came only from a knowledge of this fleeting human life could suffice her now. Loneliness had broken the hold of earth on her. She longed, as she had never longed before, for God.

And God came.

Jesus Christ divided those to whom the Divine Message is communicated into four classes: those who are too self—absorbed to receive any impression, those who are able to receive only a shallow impression, and those who are deeply impressed by the truth but are also impressed by things not true, and finally those of MONG THE BAHA’I’ treasures in the International Bahá’í