Wed 28 Mar 2007
I am going to pretty much continue on from what I said yesterday, investigating the philosophy of the Baha’i faith. This time I will focus on some philosophical and theological concerns that have arisen during my short but intensive study.
Firstly, Baha’u'llah describes God as being indescribable.
To every discerning and illuminated heart it is evident that God, the unknowable Essence, the Divine Being, is immensely exalted beyond every human attribute, such as corporeal existence, ascent and descent, egress and regress. Far be it from His glory that human tongue should adequately recount His praise, or that human heart comprehend His fathomless mystery. He is, and hath ever been, veiled in the ancient eternity of His Essence, and will remain in His Reality everlastingly hidden from the sight of men.
Labeling your central deity as something outside of human understanding seems like a tricky methodology to maintain. If we think that God is wholly beyond us, how can we know that we can ever reach Him? How can we know that He wants us to worship Him, and that He loves us and is a part of us?
The Baha’i have a simple answer to this- that the prophets of each religion are a kind of halfway point between God and us. They are the only ones who are able to understand what God is, and so they do their best to describe what they have seen to the rest of us. Thus, as I remarked in my last post, each religious leader, and therefore each religion, has captured different aspects of this One True Being. Even though God is not immediately accessible, he speaks to us from the mouths of the Prophets.
However, this system requires an awful lot of trust on our part. We are subject to the Prophets who claim to know God, and so far we seem not to have any criterion from judging a true Prophet from someone muttering to himself behind a dumpster. In fact, as Baha’u'llah observes, we have historically resisted new Prophets to the point of ridiculing their new doctrines. Even though Baha’u'llah warns us against this, and reminds us constantly about how we must value each approach to religion, this seems to ensure that the next iteration of God’s messengers will bring a message so counter-intuitive that we shall surely rally against it.
If we have always resisted the beliefs of the new Prophets, the next step in the Revelation of our God, and we have been told to make sure we are accepting of each religion to make sure this does not happen, to make sure we can be more tolerant and peaceful- this seems to all but ensure that the next step in our collective, historical, spiritual journey will be very, very hard to accept. And since we cannot know anything God directly, we have nothing to check this message against when and if it does come. No matter how outrageous the new religion may seem, it seems that we will have no choice but to accept it.
Sure, we may not follow someone promoting complete atheism, or something that runs against everything that has been established in our religious history so far. But if we were to refuse this kind of message, it would be in the face of everything that Baha’i as taught us.
The Baha’i’s see their religion has an independent faith, but not as something over and above other faiths. It does not mean to invalidate other beliefs or practices.
Bahá’ís regard the Bahá’í Faith as an independent religion, alongside the other world religions, such as Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism. Conversion to the Bahá’í Faith is not, however, similar to conversion to some other religions. When one converts from Christianity to Buddhism, for example, one rejects entirely the view-point that one is leaving behind and adopts a new viewpoint. Since the doctrines of the two religions appear to be contradictory, it is a question of adopting either one or the other. The same does not occur with conversion to the Bahá’í Faith, however. To become a Bahá’í does not entail an automatic rejection of one’s previous religion.
But there does seem to be some kind of primacy inherent in their message. If we want to accept that each religion is valid from their own point of view, then we must first accept the premise provided by the Baha’i faith. Baha’i may claim to not want to reject or replace the long history of faiths, but their own doctrines seem to say otherwise.
Again, if we believe that each new religion is a reflection of the time, with each step getting us closer to the peace and harmony we each seek, then it seems that each religion is closer to that ideal than the last. Baha’i seems to prove this point, as it is based almost entirely on tolerance and peace between ideologies. But we only get to this intuitive and very friendly conclusion if we first accept Baha’u'llah and the Baha’i faith as a primary truth, and as the best religion available.
The Baha’i faith is trying to be humble, but the faith must be true above all the others if we are to accept the arguments for toleration and different aspects of the same truth. The faith seems to be claiming that every religion is true, but only if the Baha’i’s conception of religious and spiritual truths, especially about God, is true. All religions are right, but only because their philosophy is right, and more correct than every other faith (except for the ones to come).
I don’t want this post to sound overly negative, or to be seen as attacking the religion. I’m sure these are minor issues with simple solutions, and I am still a big fan of the themes and principles of the Baha’i faith. I find myself agreeing with the religion, to a point, and so if I can get past these concerns, all the better.
As always, if you have any comments or thoughtful disagreements… you know what to do.
March 28th, 2007 at 12:56 am
I’m so glad you’re doing this. All this summarizing and explaining, all this consideration and reflection, all the time you’re putting in to experiencing and critically evaluating the philosophy behind all these faiths — it’s easy for me, since all I’ve got to do is read your posts. You’ve done the work! And amazing work, at that.
If you can, try to write more, because this experience will stick with you for the rest of your life, and I know you’ll want it as documented as possible. Imagine looking back on this in 20 years?
March 28th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
I appreciate your endeavors in the path of search, and the spirit with which you are pursuing the search.
Concerning the “primacy” of the Baha’i Faith, the analogy of humanity to a school and the Manifestations of God as our teachers is imperfect and incomplete, but it can serve us here. When you pass the first year of university French and then head into the second year, it is to the new instructor to whom you must turn for instruction. Her tests and lessons are what you must master, and your mastery of those from last year won’t get you far. the instructors in this case are presumably equally qualified, and both could have most likely overwhelmed you with much more French instruction than they did, but they gave you the instruction you needed and could handle.
One sense where this analogy fails us is that Baha’u'llah explains that the Manifestations of God have a twofold station. In the Book of Certitude, He spends much more time on the first of the stations described in the quotation below than on the second one:
[The] Manifestations of God have each a twofold station. One is
the station of pure abstraction and essential unity. In this respect,
if thou callest them all by one name, and dost ascribe to them the same
attributes, thou hast not erred from the truth….
The other station is the station of distinction, and pertaineth to
the world of creation, and to the limitations thereof. In this respect,
each Manifestation of God hath a distinct individuality, a definitely
prescribed mission, a predestined revelation, and specially designated
limitations. Each one of them is known by a different name, is
characterized by a special attribute, fulfills a definite mission…
Viewed in the light of their second station … they manifest
absolute servitude, utter destitution, and complete self-effacement.
Even as He saith: “I am the servant of God. I am but a man like
you.”…
Were any of the all-embracing Manifestations of God to declare:
“I am God,” He, verily, speaketh the truth, and no doubt attacheth
thereto. For … through their Revelation, their attributes and names,
the Revelation of God, His names and His attributes, are made manifest
in the world…. And were any of them to voice the utterance, “I am
the Messenger of God,” He, also, speaketh the truth, the indubitable
truth…. Viewed in this light, they are all but Messengers of that
ideal King, that unchangeable Essence…. And were they to say, “We
are the Servants of God,” this also is a manifest and indisputable fact.
For they have been made manifest in the uttermost state of servitude,
a servitude the like of which no man can possibly attain….45
Thus it is that whatsoever be their utterance, whether it pertain to the
realm of Divinity, Lordship, Prophethood, Messengership, Guardianship,
Apostleship, or Servitude, all is true, beyond the shadow of a doubt.
Therefore these sayings … must be attentively considered, that the
divergent utterances of the Manifestations of the Unseen and Day Springs
of Holiness may cease to agitate the soul and perplex the mind.
I hope this has been helpful.
April 10th, 2007 at 12:46 am
Michael,
I think that it is an understatement to suggest that “an awful lot of trust on our part” is required of us to believe that we can know who is a messenger of God while maintaining that God is fundamentally unknowable independent of those messengers. From my perspective, this is just a flat out contradiction. It’s like suggesting that one can know something about who is an authority on zogs (or an ‘x’) without even knowing what a zog (or an ‘x’) is. It’s an epistemic paradox that there is simply no working around.
I have written about this here: http://mavaddat.livejournal.com/16216.html
April 10th, 2007 at 12:58 am
A very good point, Mavaddat. And I completely agree. The only route out of that problem would be to assert the Baha’i principle that the messengers are in a way part of God (if I remember correctly) and thus would have some way of better persuading us, or a better claim to legitimacy. Though that doesn’t sound like much of a defense.
You seem like quite the philosopher, I hope you continue to follow along with the rest of the year.