Is the Tablet of Beirut a Forgery?

All research or scholarship questions
Guest

Is the Tablet of Beirut a Forgery?

Postby Guest » Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:08 am

Dear Posters,

As a sincere seeker who wishes to independently investigate the truth as commanded by Baha'ullah, can someone please explain why The Tablet of Beiruit was said to be a forgery by the life-long secretary of Baha'ullah in the following passage:

(1) The so-called Tablet of Beirut, which confirmed the claim of Abbas, and was said to be transcribed by Khadim Ullah. The latter declared it to be a forgery by Abbas Effendi. (2) Abbas omitted the middIe part of the "Tablet of command" to make it certify his claims. A complete copy in Baha's own handwriting showed the subterfuge. (3) He combined parts of two different Tablets, called it the "Treasure Tablet," and claimed that it certified his succession. The two Tablets were produced and proved the falsity of the claim.


Since this is the only Tablet that makes reference to Abdul-Baha as being the Most Mighty Branch that is mentioned in the Book of the Covenant, it appears to be of critical academic interest in the Baha'i community to produce credible evidence refuting Khadim Ullah's forgery claim.

Specifically, Khadim Ullah claims that the "middle" part of the Tablet was omitted, and in its place were put "combined parts of two different Tablets."

Here is an excerpt from the middle portion of the Tablet:

All the atoms of the earth have announced unto all created things that from behind the gate of the Prison-city there hath appeared and above its horizon there hath shone forth the Orb of the beauty of the great, the Most Mighty Branch of God--His ancient and immutable Mystery--proceeding on its way to another land.


If one closely examines the context of this sentence, it changes after "from behind the gate of the Prison-city there hath appeared...." This is an odd place for a change in context since it appears that the rest of the description of Baha'u'llah as the Manifestion of God that hath appeared behind the gate of the Prison-City is peculiarly missing, and then the sentence is separated by the subordinate clause describing what is to be found above the horizon of the Prison-city, which is a secondary thought to the appearance of the Manifestation. This incomplete description of the Manifestation in a sentence which then moves on to a secondary thought is most perplexing since it is not typically found in the Writings of Baha'ullah and would be consistent with the claims of Khadim Ullah that the middle portion was omitted from the Tablet and replaced with text from somewhere else.

Can anyone here who is familiar with the linguistic style of Baha'u'llah comment on this most unusual incomplete description of the Manifestation and whether you believe this supports Khadim Ullah's claim of forgery.

Jonah
Site Admin
Posts: 412
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 1:25 pm
Location: St Catharines, Ontario (near Niagara Falls)
Contact:

Postby Jonah » Tue Sep 27, 2005 4:02 pm

Since this is the only Tablet that makes reference to Abdul-Baha as being the Most Mighty Branch

Let me offer a quick correction to just this part. As can be seen from the earlier thread, <a href="http://bahai-library.com/forum2/viewtopic.php?t=411">How did Abdul-Baha become "The Most Mighty Branch?</a>, there are <i>numerous</i> places in the Writings of Baha'u'llah that Abdu'l-Baha is clearly and explicitly identified as the Ghusn, the "Branch." See for example <a href="http://bahai-library.com/writings/bahaullah/tb/13.html">Kitab-i-`Ahdi, "The Book of My Covenant,"</a> or the <a href="http://bahai-library.com/?file=bahaullah_surih_ghusn">Suriy-i-Ghusn, "Tablet of the Branch"</a>. The only question was whether or not there were writings translated into English which called Him the "Most Mighty Branch," and the answer was yes, in the authoritatively-translated <a href="http://www.bahai-library.com/writings/bahaullah/tb/14.html">"Tablet of the Land of Ba".</a>

Let me also point you to a couple more links on the Tablet of the Branch. Besides the Tablet itself, at http://bahai-library.com/?file=bahaullah_surih_ghusn , see also http://bahai-library.com/?file=wilmette ... sn_outline and http://bahai-library.com/?file=shodjai_tablet_branch .

And since this is a brand-new thread, let me offer a word of explanation to our non-Baha'i audience up front. I allow, and certainly even encourage, discussion of the nature of the Covenant of Baha'u'llah and its chain of authority. However, Baha'is will be very sensitive to any discussion which gives the appearance of challenging or undermining this Covenant. So, questions about the Covenant and its nature are most worthy of discussion, but questions (or answers from Baha'is) which might be seen as <i>challenging</i> that Covenant will not be allowed in this discussion board, and I will have to close the thread if such occurs.

Thanks for your understanding, -Jonah

Guest

Postby Guest » Wed Sep 28, 2005 10:18 pm

Jonah,

You wrote:

>>there are <i>numerous</i> places in the Writings of Baha'u'llah that Abdu'l-Baha is clearly and explicitly identified as the Ghusn, the "Branch." <<

In addition to the language in the Tablet of Beirut (Tablet of the Land of Ba) that is at issue in this topic, you offer the Book of the Covenant and the Tablet of the Branch as additional examples.

In the Book of the Covenant, Baha'ullah says we are to turn to "the Most Mighty Branch" "when the ocean of His presence has ebbed". You say this clearly refers to Abdul-Baha, but the Word "ebb" implies a gradual decline in the presence of Baha'ullah like the ebbing of the ocean when the tide goes out and the ocean recedes. Since all scholars agree that the ocean of the presence of Baha'u'llah has "not" ebbed and is actually "growing" in influence (i.e. the tide in the ocean of Baha'ullah is still coming in), how could this verse in the Book of the Covenant possibly refer to Abdul-Baha?

The other source you indicated where Baha'ullah clearly refers to Abdul-Baha as the Most Mighty Branch is the Tablet of the Branch, which reads as follows:

Say: Verily, the ocean of pre-existence hath branched forth from this most great Ocean. Blessed, therefore, is he who abides upon Its shores, and is of those who are established thereon. Verily, this most sacred temple of Abha ---the Branch of Holiness--- hath branched forth from the Sadratu'l-Muntaha. Blessed is whosoever sought shelter beneath it and is of those who rest therein.


It is rather obvious that any reference to "the Most Mighty Branch" is conspicuously absent. Also, the branch from the Sadratu'l-Muntaha referenced here is the Dispensation of Baha'u'llah, as we all know from the Kitab-I-Iqan (P. 27-28):

Had they sought with a humble mind from the Manifestations of God in every Dispensation the true meaning of these words revealed in the sacred books -- words the misapprehension of which hath caused men to be deprived of the recognition of the Sadratu'l-Muntaha, the ultimate Purpose -- they surely would have been guided to the light of the Sun of Truth, and would have discovered the mysteries of divine knowledge and wisdom.


and Gleanings (P. 198):

Advance, O people, with snow-white faces and radiant hearts, unto the blest and crimson Spot, wherein the Sadrat'ul-Muntahá is calling: "Verily, there is none other God beside Me, the Omnipotent Protector, the Self-Subsisting!"


that Baha'u'llah is referring to the Sadratul'l-Mantaha, the Sacred Lote Tree of the Quran (53:14 and 17:1) and the Bible (Revelations 22:2) from which "branches" of Manifestations come from.

This would seem to thoroughly eliminate Abdul-Baha as the branch mentioned here since we all know from the mouth of Abdul-Baha that he is not a Manifestion of God, but just a man like you and me (Abdul-Baha in London, P.125) and no Manifestation of God is to appear for at least 1000 years from the Dispensation of Baha'u'llah (Aqdas 37).

So the Writings you claim "clearly" show Abdul-Baha as the Most Mighty Branch do not seem clear at all upon closer examination.

Are there any other Writings other than these three works that you mentioned in your last post that you can direct me to that "clearly" show Baha'u'llah is referring to Abdul-Baha as the Most Mighty Branch that we should turn to?

I ask this not to "challenge or undermine the Covenant", but to fully understand it as a sincere seeker. I'm sure you would be the first to acknowledge that any sincere seeker who wishes to understand the Covenant and embrace the meaning you suggest is bound to read it carefully and ask questions about how its meaning was derived.

Jonah
Site Admin
Posts: 412
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 1:25 pm
Location: St Catharines, Ontario (near Niagara Falls)
Contact:

Postby Jonah » Wed Sep 28, 2005 11:11 pm

Are there any other Writings other than these three works that you mentioned in your last post that you can direct me to that "clearly" show Baha'u'llah is referring to Abdul-Baha as the Most Mighty Branch

I'm afraid I don't know, it's not something I've studied in a while or done an internet search for. Anyone?

read it carefully and ask questions about how its meaning was derived.

Yes, certainly! I hope others with a better knowledge of the Writings than I have will offer more of an answer. :-)

-Jonah

Keyvan
Posts: 245
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 2:58 am
Location: Los Angeles

Postby Keyvan » Thu Sep 29, 2005 12:35 am

90% of the writings are left untranslated, so if its not right out there, dont think it doesnt exist


btw, when Abdu'l Baha appointed Shoghi Effendi to Guardianship, how do you know He was speaking of the one we think of?
how do we know for sure that its the same guy?
hmmmmmmm?

Baha'i Warrior
Posts: 753
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:07 am
Location: U.S.A.

Postby Baha'i Warrior » Thu Sep 29, 2005 11:51 am

Anonymous wrote:In the Book of the Covenant, Baha'ullah says we are to turn to "the Most Mighty Branch" "when the ocean of His presence has ebbed". You say this clearly refers to Abdul-Baha, but the Word "ebb" implies a gradual decline in the presence of Baha'ullah like the ebbing of the ocean when the tide goes out and the ocean recedes. Since all scholars agree that the ocean of the presence of Baha'u'llah has "not" ebbed and is actually "growing" in influence (i.e. the tide in the ocean of Baha'ullah is still coming in), how could this verse in the Book of the Covenant possibly refer to Abdul-Baha?

First of all, not "all scholars," as you said, agree that "the Word "ebb" implies a gradual decline in the presence of Baha'ullah like the ebbing of the ocean when the tide goes out and the ocean recedes." Certainly scholars who are enemies of the Faith hold that view, as well as Covenant breakers, but certainly not all scholars hold this view. There are obviously many Baha'i scholars that don't have that view. You might want to be a little more careful before making absolute statements like that if you don't want to loose your credibility. I know scholars in my own community, for instance, that don't hold this "view."

You make it clear that your view is that by "ebb" is meant the "influence" of Baha'u'llah's revelation, rather than His passing. Let me tell you, if that is how you choose interpret it, fine. There is nothing we can do.

It is clear to many Baha'is and myself that "when the ocean of His presence has ebbed" refers to Baha'u'llah's passing. Now, find me a direct quote in the Writings that supports your claim. Which of course you will not be able to do. 'Abdu'l-Baha, who is the Greatest Branch, has interpreted it to mean Baha'u'llah's passing, and since Baha'u'llah appointed the Master to be the interpreter for the Faith, we listen to Him, and to the Guardian, the UHJ, not others. Sure, others and you can think whatever they want, as each Baha'i must decide for himself.

Anonymous wrote:It is rather obvious that any reference to "the Most Mighty Branch" is conspicuously absent.

I'm not going to go in circles. We already discussed this, so refer to my previous posts.

Anonymous wrote:This would seem to thoroughly eliminate Abdul-Baha as the branch mentioned here since we all know from the mouth of Abdul-Baha that he is not a Manifestion of God

And, therefore, you are saying Baha'u'llah contradicts Himself. That He cannot do, because He is a Manifestation of God. We have already established that 'Abdu'l-Baha is the Most Great Branch.

Anonymous wrote:...but just a man like you and me

God forbid that the Master is like us!

Anonymous wrote:So the Writings you claim "clearly" show Abdul-Baha as the Most Mighty Branch do not seem clear at all upon closer examination.

It appears that you are just recycling the feeble attacks that these scholars you admire use over and over (they don't have many "attacks," but when think they have one, boy do they hold onto it). As we have proved to you, that statement you made is erroneous.

Anonymous wrote:I'm sure you would be the first to acknowledge that any sincere seeker who wishes to understand the Covenant and embrace the meaning you suggest is bound to read it carefully and ask questions about how its meaning was derived.

If you believe that "when the ocean of His presence has ebbed" is not referring to Baha'u'llah's passing, again, then there is nothing you will believe, because that statement (to most) is very clear.

Guest

Postby Guest » Thu Sep 29, 2005 5:13 pm

Dearest Baha'i Warrior,

You wrote:
It is clear to many Baha'is and myself that "when the ocean of His presence has ebbed" refers to Baha'u'llah's passing. Now, find me a direct quote in the Writings that supports your claim. Which of course you will not be able to do. 'Abdu'l-Baha, who is the Greatest Branch, has interpreted it to mean Baha'u'llah's passing

I assumed as a Baha'i, you do your obligatory prayers daily and therefore understand that the "ocean of Thy presence" of Baha'u'llah has not ebbed.

The first verse of the Long Obligatory Prayer reads:
O Thou who are the Lord of all names and the Maker of the heavens. I beseech Thee by them who are the daysprings of Thine invisible Essence, the Most Exalted , the all glorious, to make of my prayer a fire that will burn away the veils which have shut me out from Thy beauty, and a light that will lead me unto the ocean of Thy Presence

So I have found you the best quote from the Writings that support the claim that the ocean of the presence of Baha'u'llah has not ebbed, so why do you wish to turn to what you think is the Most Mighty Branch rather than staying with the ocean of Thy presence of Baha'u'llah?

With loving Baha'i regards

Baha'i Warrior
Posts: 753
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:07 am
Location: U.S.A.

Postby Baha'i Warrior » Thu Sep 29, 2005 6:56 pm

(This is my own original argument, so please bear with me.)


Let us take a look at this quote again:

"When the Ocean of My Presence hath ebbed and the Book of My Revelation hath been completed, turn your faces towards Him whom God hath purposed, who hath branched from this Ancient Root!"

I would like to focus on the word "ebbed." Now, as you know, the tide of an ocean is being used metaphorically here. Specifically, it is creating the illusion of a "cyclic rise and fall of seawater."

When Baha'u'llah says: "When the Ocean of My Presence hath ebbed," He is specifically referring to His life on this earth, not His spiritual (everlasting) life. If you look at the Long Obligatory Prayer (that you referred to), you will notice that you are praying to God, and the "light that will lead me unto the ocean of Thy Presence" is referring to God's presence, His everlasting presence, not Baha'u'llah's. Baha'u'llah, as you probably know, uses the metaphor of an ocean in the Writings countless times. However, in His Testament, it is quite obvious that He was Referring to His own person, that is, His physical self, not His spiritual self.

So how can we be sure the Blessed Beauty was not referring to the next Manifestation of God (rather than 'Abdu'l-Baha), and not referring to His own spiritual (eternal) presence? Well, find me a reference in the Writings—any—that might indicate that the "Most Great Branch" refers to the next coming Manifestation. You won't be able to. As you know, Baha'u'llah named his sons (and others in His family) Branches, for example, His youngest Son was "the Purest Branch" and He called 'Abdu'l-Baha by "The Most Great Branch" and other titles that contained "Branch," and Baha'u'llah was of course the "Ancient Root." And it is not surprising that 'Abdu'l-Baha would receive the Title "The Most Great Branch," with how much affection Baha'u'llah had for His Son (not that He did not have affection for His other sons).

But even if you dispute the fact that 'Abdu'l-Baha was this "Most Great Branch" Baha'u'llah was referring to, again, show me a passage—any—that might give some indication that Baha'u'llah means a future Manifestation by the word "Branch," and not 'Abdu'l-Baha. As far as I know, He referred to His family members as Branches and not the coming of the next Manifestation of God.

There :wink:

Baha'i Warrior
Posts: 753
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:07 am
Location: U.S.A.

Postby Baha'i Warrior » Thu Sep 29, 2005 7:14 pm

I know you're going to try to find another attack again, but think for a minute.

You seem to profess a belief in Baha'u'llah, but not 'Abdu'l-Baha.

Answer these questions:

1) Was Baha'u'llah a Manifestation of God?

2) Does not Baha'u'llah in the Writings say that the Cause of God can never be extinguished, it can only be set back (by people who attack the Faith)? That is, can malevolent Covenant Breakers ever gain a substantial following and dissolve the Administrative order? If you answered yes to the first part, and no to the second part, you are right.

3) Do you really think Baha'u'llah, with all His power, and God, with all His power, would even let such a "mistake" happen? Do you really think that Covenant Breakers are going to "save" the Baha'i Faith? Think again.

Keyvan
Posts: 245
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 2:58 am
Location: Los Angeles

Postby Keyvan » Thu Sep 29, 2005 7:33 pm

see, this is another reason why i say islam must be studied by western bahais first

hey Guest, you do realize that the stuff you are saying is the same thing the caliphs said about Imam Ali, right?

Baha'i Warrior
Posts: 753
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:07 am
Location: U.S.A.

Postby Baha'i Warrior » Thu Sep 29, 2005 7:41 pm

he probably does.

just wanted the opinion of the friends regarding this quote

"We must in truth have utmost affection for all the kindred of earth, but in no wise is it permissible to associate and fraternize with the Covenant-Breakers because its harm will injure the Cause of God and will enable them to penetrate the community and to completely uproot the Faith from within. Association with Covenant Breakers is the same as with a person nurturing a snake in his shirt or giving a home to a scorpion in his sleeve."

does anyone know where i can find guidance? because if this guy is a covenant breaker i wouldn't know. so is it ok to keep this going or not? any ideas?

Jonah
Site Admin
Posts: 412
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 1:25 pm
Location: St Catharines, Ontario (near Niagara Falls)
Contact:

Postby Jonah » Thu Sep 29, 2005 7:48 pm

Thank for your concern, Baha'i Warrior. I've been following this thread closely, and I haven't seen anything to warrant closing the thread -- other than the occasional intemperate remarks from most of the parties participating in the discussion which I've been using "moderator's discretion" on and editing out.

Thanks, -Jonah

Guest

Postby Guest » Thu Sep 29, 2005 9:40 pm

Dearest Baha'i Warrior,


You wrote:

show me a passage—any—that might give some indication that Baha'u'llah means a future Manifestation by the word "Branch,"


Starting with the Bible, we have Isaiah, 11:1-12:

And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots: And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord. ... righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins. The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard ... with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. ... They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea


And Zechariah, 6:12-15:

"Here is the man whose name is the Branch, and he will branch out from his place and build the temple of the Lord. It is he who will build the temple of the Lord, and he will be clothed with majesty and he will sit and rule on his throne. And he will be a priest on his throne. And there will be harmony between the two........ Those who are far away will come to help to build the temple of the Lord, and you will know that the Lord Almighty has sent me to you. "


And then we have the Sacred Lote Tree of the Quran from which "branches" of Manifestations of God come from:

Then came he (Gabriel) nearer and approached,
And was at the distance of two bows, or even closer,
And he revealed to his servant what he revealed.
His heart falsified not what he saw.
What will ye then dispute with him as to what he saw?
He had seen also another time,
Near the Sidra-tree, which marks the boundary.
Near which is the garden of repose.
When the Sidra-tree was covered with what covered it,
His eyes turned not aside, nor did it wander,
For he saw the greatest of the signs of his Lord." 53:14


And Baha'ullah, who uses the analogy of the mirror to a Manifestation of God that merely reflects the pure light of God claims in His Epistle to the Son of the Wolf that any branch that is not a Manifestation capable of pure reflection of the Light of God should be "cut off":

Ponder now upon the complaint of the Primal Point against the Mirrors, that haply men may be awakened, and may turn from the left hand of idle fancies and imaginings unto the right hand of faith and certitude, and may be made cognizant of that wherefrom they are veiled. It is indeed for the purpose of recognizing this Most Great Cause that they have come out of the world of non-existence into the world of being. And likewise He saith: "Consecrate Thou, O my God, the whole of this Tree unto Him, that from it may be revealed all the fruits created by God within it for Him through Whom God hath willed to reveal all that He pleaseth. By Thy glory! I have not wished that this Tree should ever bear any branch, leaf, or fruit that would fail to bow down before Him, on the day of His Revelation, or refuse to laud Thee through Him, as beseemeth the glory of His all-glorious Revelation, and the sublimity of His most sublime Concealment. And shouldst Thou behold, O my God, any branch, leaf, or fruit upon Me that hath failed to bow down before Him, on the day of His Revelation, cut it off, O My God, from that Tree, for it is not of Me, nor shall it return unto Me." (p. 162)



This Epistle also helps answer your second question concerning the reference in the Long Obligatory Prayer to "the ocean of Thy Presence", which you think is different than "the ocean of My presence" in the Book of the Covenant. The reason why the Bab in the quote from the Epistle above complained against the mirrors is because some mirrors, due to their idle fancy (ego), failed to achieve Manifestation status (e.g. a dead branch). Those that did achieve Manifestation status are regarded as "perfectly polished" mirrors, and in their "pure abstraction and essential unity" part of their two-fold station (see Gleanings XXII) have an "identity" with God and no trace of human ego, in that if they declared "I am God", verily they speak the truth.

The XXII section of Gleanings makes it clear that most of the misconception of the Writings of Manifestations of God come from the misunderstanding of this two-fold station and how God and Manifestation can be one in the same on one hand and then distinct and separate on the other. So "the ocean of My presence" in the Book of the Covenant is identical to "the ocean of Thy presence" in the Long Obligatory Prayer when you in consider the two-fold station of the Manifestation.

Besides, don't you feel the presence of Baha'u'llah when you say this prayer?

With loving Baha'i regards,

Guest

Postby Guest » Thu Sep 29, 2005 9:51 pm

Dearest Baha'i Warrior,

You wrote:

does anyone know where i can find guidance? because if this guy is a covenant breaker i wouldn't know


I can assure you that I am not a Covenant Breaker.

My only interest is that of a sincere seeker who hesitates to embrace the Baha'i organization only because of what I see as the turning away from the Writings of Baha'u'llah. His Writings and pryaers are very inspiring to me and have helped me a great deal in my own spiritual growth, so I am obviously very leary of any organization (including those of declared Covenant Breakers) that would want me to turn away from these Writings and follow men who are only men.

With loving Baha'i regards

Baha'i Warrior
Posts: 753
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:07 am
Location: U.S.A.

Postby Baha'i Warrior » Fri Sep 30, 2005 1:08 pm

yes, all those quotes you found are nice. good job on the research. you have proven to me that Manifestations of God are branches. but you have failed to take one big, very big thing into account. Let us take a look at this quote again:

"When the Ocean of My Presence hath ebbed and the Book of My Revelation hath been completed, turn your faces towards Him whom God hath purposed, who hath branched from this Ancient Root!"

you will notice that Baha'u'llah refers to Himself as "this Ancient Root," not a Branch!

and thus it would be wrong to say that Baha'u'llah (in this instance) is a Branch (or any other future Manifestation of God, in this metaphor), because Baha'u'llah and the Master were not on the same level, and a future Manifestation of God will certainly not be any less than Baha'u'llah!

therefore, the word Branch has to be taken into context. true, many Holy Writings refer to Manifestations of God as Branches, but here Baha'u'llah explicitly calls Himself an Ancient Root, not an "Ancient Branch"!

so how do we take care of this discrepancy? well, it actually isn't a discrepancy. this is a metaphor in which Baha'u'llah is referring to His family tree, where He is the Root, because a branch (someone from His family) can break, that is, become a Covenant Breaker and turn away from the Cause (or just be inactive), but that branch certainly cannot uproot the Tree. And even if many of the branches broke, that would not make the Root any weaker. However, it is obvious from this passage that the strongest, biggest, and most pronounced branch in this tree is the Master, a fact that cannot be disputed (though some might try).

Anonymous wrote:so I am obviously very leary of any organization (including those of declared Covenant Breakers) that would want me to turn away from these Writings and follow men who are only men.


the members of the UHJ individually are all men, you are correct about that. however, when they assemble together, the power of the Covenant is bestowed upon them, and in all matters of the Faith they are infallible. This was also true of the Master and the beloved Guardian.

personally, though, i have to say that individually they are more than men. when i went on pilgrimage, my family and i had the honor of having dinner with a UHJ member (he invited us) and i can tell you sure he was a man, but a spiritual man, in fact, according to 'Abdu'l-Baha, these men could be considered 'saints':

"Every good habit, every noble quality belongs to man's spiritual nature, whereas all his imperfections and sinful actions are born of his material nature. If a man's Divine nature dominates his human nature, we have a saint."

would we not be able to say that these men have conquered their human natures? how do you think they got to be House of Justice members? that might be a little far fetched i admit, but these men certainly cannot be compared to people who are weak in their faith and attack the Covenant and who "rejects the things of God and allows his evil passions to conquer him" so that "he is no better than a mere animal."

and sure, 'Abdu'l-Baha was a Man, but he was the most perfect Man. that is funny that you would compare the Master to the likes of yourself...apart from everything else, He foretold many things (like the race riots in american, the World Wars, the Titanic sinking, etc.) and no ordinary man before Him was more perfect and more virtuous. He even abandoned His own wedding to give to the needy! that, my friend, is a real Man.

—Warrior

Guest

Postby Guest » Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:55 pm

Dearest Baha'i Warrior,

You wrote:

you will notice that Baha'u'llah refers to Himself as "this Ancient Root," not a Branch!...therefore, the word Branch has to be taken into context. true, many Holy Writings refer to Manifestations of God as Branches, but here Baha'u'llah explicitly calls Himself an Ancient Root, not an "Ancient Branch"!


My, we forget quickly!

In my last post where Baha'u'llah Revealed in section XXII of Gleanings that often a Manifestation of God speaks "as God" because of the oneness of identity with God in the "pure abstraction and essential unity" station of the two-fold station of a Manifestation of God.

So "Ancient Root" in the Book of the Covenant "is" God, as it the root of the Sadrat’ul-Muntahá, the Sacred Lote Tree, that remains "hidden" from our sight and the wondrous branches of Manifestations that we see as the Tree of Life are merely that which hath branched from this Ancient Root. This is consistent with our understanding that we can only know the essence of God (the Root) through His Manifestations.

What we need to be mindful of, warrior, is that the purpose of "every" Dispensation is to announce the coming of the "next" Manifestation to follow, and considered from this light The Book of the Covenant and the Tablet of the Branch is all we have from Baha'u'llah that is explicit in this regard.

Consider the Words of the Bab:

The purpose underlying this revelation, as well as those that preceded it, has, in like manner, been to announce the advent of the Faith of Him Whom God will make manifest. And this Faith--the Faith of him Whom God will make manifest--in its turn, together with all the revelations gone before it, have as their objective the Manifestation to succeed it. And the latter, no less than all the Revelations preceding it, prepare the way for the Revelation which is yet to follow. The process of the rise and setting [ebbing] the Sun of Truth will thus indefinitely continue--a process that hath had no beginning and will have no end. Persian Bayan, Vahid IV, 12


The only way that which the Bab has Revealed to us in this verse can be true is if "the Most Mighty Branch" in the Book of the Covenant is a reference to the "next" Manifestation of God, who, like in Dispensations of the past, we are to "turn to" when the Sun of Truth has ebbed.

Otherwise, you are saying the Bab, a Manifestation of God, is not telling us
the truth, that Baha'u'llah thought is was unimportant to mention the Revealer who is to follow Him and why it is necessary to turn to Him when He appears.

Do you really believe the Bab did not tell us the truth?

Your personal anecdote about meeting the House member was touching, and I really do hope that he is as good as you think he is. Only God knows the inner-promptings of one's heart, and only God is the judge.

Likewise, I am sure Abdul-Baha was great in many areas, and I have certainly found the majority of his writings to be consistent with those of Baha'u'llah. But if Abdul-Baha tells us that he is “only” a man like you and me (Abdul-Baha in London, P.125), who am I to doubt him?

With loving Baha'i regards

Baha'i Warrior
Posts: 753
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:07 am
Location: U.S.A.

Postby Baha'i Warrior » Fri Sep 30, 2005 7:02 pm

Anonymous wrote:who am I to doubt him?

isn't that interesting! you do not doubt 'Abdu'l-Baha when it serves your purposes, but you do doubt Him when it does not (i.e. when He says He is the Greatest Branch)! i see we are very logical here :roll:

i will focus on this because your whole argument revolved around this one idea:

Anonymous wrote:So "Ancient Root" in the Book of the Covenant "is" God

i would have to respectfully disagree with the conclusion you draw. first of all, what you stated is most obvious: God speaks through Baha'u'llah. so by that logic, wherever in the Writings that Baha'u'llah is speaking of Himself, He is speaking of God, which does makes sense. When Baha'u'llah is talking about the sadness imprisonment has caused Him, that is God's sadness, by that logic again.

But by the context of the quote it is most clear that Baha'u'llah is referring to Himself as the Ancient Root. Anyone who has studied the english language to a certain extent will automatically recognize that. scholars recognize that (see below).

So your argument would have been valid had Baha'u'llah meant a Prophet of God by the word "Branch," but He didnt, and you still havent proven that. the tree refers to the Covenant. so Baha'u'llah (or God—which ever you like) is the Roots, the tree is the Covenant, and the branches are those who are under the protection of the Covenant (the Guardian, 'Abdu'l-Baha, UHJ). the context of the sentence makes it most clear. and also, this concept can be seen in other words religions such as in Hinduism, a "cosmic tree," where the prophet founder is the foundation of that tree.

granted Tree can refer to progressive revelation, as it obviously does in the Tablet of Ahmad, but its meaning (the meaning of tree) is not restricted to that: "Lo, the Nightingale of Paradise singeth upon the twigs of the Tree of Eternity." but notice the wording: Baha'u'llah is referring to the Tree of Eternity, that is, a specific tree. There is no indication that Baha'u'llah is referring to this same Tree of Eternity in His Testament. So there are many kind of metaphorical Trees that the Writings refer to. Observe:

"Ye are the fruits of one tree and the leaves of one branch."

keep that quote in mind and read this. Baha'u'llah refers to Hindiusm and the station of Avatars in His Writings. Look at this quote from the Gita:

"There is an eternal [holy] tree (Asvattha), with roots above in the highest and branches here below. Its leaves are sacred verses. He who knows it knows the Vedas."

The leaves that this quote refers to are sacred verses, not us (you and me). So this is obviously a different tree than the one Baha'u'llah is referring to (above): how can we be the leaves of one tree if the leaves are supposed to be sacred verses? Are we sacred verses? no. again, the metaphor of a Tree is used symbolically to teach us about different concepts (progressive revelation is only one example), and these above quotes disprove the idea that a Tree can only refer to a tree in which the Manifestations of God are branches, that is, its meaning isnt fixed.

Read this:
-----
"As we have seen previously (p. 00), Baha'u'llah has referred to the station of the Avatars and of himself in particular as the Tree of Life or the Tree beyond which there is no passing. In Hinduism there is also the concept of a cosmic tree. In the Bhagavad Gita it is written:

There is an eternal [holy] tree (Asvattha), with roots above in the highest and branches here below. Its leaves are sacred verses. He who knows it knows the Vedas. (6)

In his Most Holy Book and his Book of the Covenant, Baha'u'llah refers to himself as the Ancient (Pre-existent) Root of the Divine Tree; while `Abdu'l-Baha is the Most Mighty Branch, to whom all must turn after the passing of Baha'u'llah:

`When the ocean of My presence hath ebbed and the Book of My Revelation is ended, turn your faces toward Him Whom God hath purposed, Who hath branched from this Ancient Root.' The object of this sacred Verse is none other except the Most Mighty Branch [`Abdu'l-Baha]. (7)

Thus in the Baha'i writings, as in the Hindu, there is the concept of a cosmic holy tree (beyond which there is no passing); its root (Baha'u'llah) is in heaven; its branches (`Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi, see below) stretch down towards earth; from this tree come sacred verses. The passage from the Bhagavad Gita quoted above indicates the importance of knowledge of this tree (the Covenant). It is the foundation of all religious knowledge.

Source: http://bahai-library.com/books/hinduism/ch8.htm
-----

Who wrote that, you may ask?

Moojan Momen, a respected Baha'i scholar, that is right. But according to you in a previous post, no such scholars hold this view. so it seems like it is you and your weak argument vs. respected scholars and their strong arguments.

back to metaphors of trees. Observe, Baha'u'llah yet again makes reference to a tree, roots and all, and does not have the meaning you attach to it:

"Ye are even as a spring. If it be changed, so will the streams that branch out from it be changed. Fear God, and be numbered with the godly. In like manner, if the heart of man be corrupted, his limbs will also be corrupted. And similarly, if the root of a tree be corrupted, its branches, and its offshoots, and its leaves, and its fruits, will be corrupted."

while this verse isnt referring to a tree with a capital "T," it shows you once again that the Writings use the symbol of a tree in many different ways

Anonymous wrote:Your personal anecdote about meeting the House member was touching, and I really do hope that he is as good as you think he is. Only God knows the inner-promptings of one's heart, and only God is the judge.

thank you! i am happy you were touched. i thought i needed some pathos. remember, the rhetorical triangle makes for a good argument!

—Warrior

Guest

Postby Guest » Fri Sep 30, 2005 8:20 pm

Dearest Baha'i Warroir,

You wrote:

"Ye are the fruits of one tree and the leaves of one branch."


When we look at this entire quote "in context" from the Tablet to Mánikchí Sáhib, it is obvious that this is not some "private family tree" but the same Sacred Lote Tree of old, the Tree of Eternity:

The tabernacle of unity hath been raised; regard ye not one another as strangers. Ye are the fruits of one tree, and the leaves of one branch. [26] Truly I say: Whatsoever abates ignorance and augments knowledge has been and shall be pleasing to the Creator. Say, O people! Walk under the shadow of Justice and Righteousness and take shelter under the pavilion of Unity. Say, O thou possessor of sight! The past is the mirror of the future; see and be apprised thereof that perchance you may recognize the Friend and not be the cause of His displeasure. In this day, the best fruit from the Tree of Knowledge is that which benefits mankind and improves his condition.


So what Baha'u'llah is saying to Mánikchí Sáhib, here, and the translators agree, that his mission to India should not viewed as antagonistic in considering the plight of the Zorastrians there in the predominately Muslim part of India and converting them to this Cause, because Zorastrians, Muslims, Babis, and Baha'is are "fruits of one tree, and the leaves of one branch". So this Tablet actually supports the "Tree of Manifestation" understanding of the Sadrat’ul-Muntahá, the Sacred Lote Tree in Heaven beyond which there is no passing.

As for you comment about the Asvattha in the Bhagavad Gita:

There is an eternal [holy] tree (Asvattha), with roots above in the highest and branches here below. Its leaves are sacred verses. He who knows it knows the Vedas.


You say because this tree is inverted that this must be the tree that Baha'u'llah is referring to in the tablet of the Branch and in His Book of the Covenant because you are able to interpret the downward branches as coming back into Earth, thus permitting these branches to be "less than" Manifestations of God.

Although I do not think this is the meaning of this verse in the Gita, the meaning you ascribe does not necessarily render the branches "less than" Manifestations of God, as these branches are still Manifestations of their Ancient Root. Whether this Ancient Root is pointing upward or downward does not change the nature of That which is Manifested from this Ancient Root.

Again, the purpose of this elucidation is not to "attack" the Covenant, it is merely to "fully" understand it as it was intended by Baha'u'llah.

You still have not answered whether you think the Bab was not telling the truth when He says that even Baha'u'llah must pay tribute to Him who will be the Revealer after the Dispensation of Baha'u'llah?

Do you really think you can read the branch and tree in the Tablet of the Branch and the Book of the Covenant to mean a "private family tree" without rendering the entire Revelation of Baha'u'llah as completely void of this required tribute to the next Manifestation of God?

With loving Baha'i regards

Guest

Postby Guest » Sat Oct 01, 2005 8:32 am

Dearest Baha'i Warrior,

In considering whether the Bab was telling us the truth concerning the necessity of Baha'ullah to pay tribute in His Revelation to Him who will be made Manifest after Him, I encourage you to look at a different verse than the one you cited from the Bhagavad Gita:

"Whenever there is a decline in righteousness, O Bharat, and the rise of irreligion, it is then that I Manifest Myself.

For the salvation of the good, the destruction of the evil-doers, and for firmly establishing righteousness, I Manifest Myself from age to age" - Bhagavad Gita, 4:7-8


So when we re-read the verse from the Book of the Covenant with this in mind, we come up with this:

Whenever "the Ocean of My Presence hath ebbed" (there is a decline in righteousness, O Bharat, and the rise of irreligion), "turn to He who God hath purposed who hath branched from this Ancient Root" (it is then that I Manifest Myself).

For the salvation of the good, the destruction of the evil-doers, and for firmly establishing righteousness, I Manifest Myself from age to age" - Bhagavad Gita, 4:7-8


With loving Baha'i regards

Keyvan
Posts: 245
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 2:58 am
Location: Los Angeles

Postby Keyvan » Sat Oct 01, 2005 11:19 am

FIRST OF ALL, you cant look to Hindu, Zoroastrian(yet), or Buddhist "writings" with anything near the same view. Their scriptures have been corrupted. The Bab, Baha'u'llah, and Baha'u'llah have NEVER quoted these; only The Quran and the True Verses of The Bible

a Manifestation is only turned to AS SUCH, we all worship GOD, not a Manifestation.
for that, the focus is and always has been to Baha'u'llah. He is the primary and central Mouthpiece of God. Abdu'l Baha is the Mystery of God; somewhere between Prophet and Man.

but lets just say that that corrupted scripture which has been interperetively translated from a dead languages is true in that verse. and your own interperetation is true. well the only real leap of faith which we were asked is to recognize this Manifestation; AFTER THE FACT if that Manifestation then says turn to This One, well that that exists as a SUBSIDARY to that faith, inseparable. so whats your complaint?

Guest

Postby Guest » Sat Oct 01, 2005 10:18 pm

Dearest Keyvan,

You wrote:

so whats your complaint?


No complaints; just observations.

The fact that the eternal Covenant of God from the Hindu Gospel fits so well into the Book of Covenant of Baha'u'llah is no surprise to me, as this confirms that this is probably an "uncorrupted" part of the Hindu Scriptures.

With loving Baha'i regards

Baha'i Warrior
Posts: 753
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:07 am
Location: U.S.A.

Postby Baha'i Warrior » Sun Oct 02, 2005 5:34 pm

Anonymous wrote:You still have not answered whether you think the Bab was not telling the truth when He says that even Baha'u'llah must pay tribute to Him who will be the Revealer after the Dispensation of Baha'u'llah?

and i see no contradictions in what the Bab said, also i don't see the point you are trying to make though i know whatever it is, it's an attack on the Covenant.

it comes down to this: you can say whatever you like, show me a bunch of different quotes from the Bab and Baha'u'llah, but the fact remains that Baha'u'llah never contradicts Himself. if you take the side of covenant breakers with absurd claims (i.e. "this tablet is a forgery," etc.) then that's fine. but the truth is, even if it was a forgery (which it isn't), there are other places where Baha'u'llah clearly identifies the Master as being the Most Great Branch. this is what the whole argument was about in the first place, isn't it? if the tablet was indeed a forgery it would have become obvious. but if you are not happy with this specific tablet, and your intentions are pure, why don't you just go learn farsi and arabic and look up the original tablets?

Baha'i Warrior
Posts: 753
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:07 am
Location: U.S.A.

Postby Baha'i Warrior » Sun Oct 02, 2005 7:54 pm

i also wanted to make another comment, Guest. you have assured us that you are not a covenant breaker, but are you a baha'i? and how can you be a baha'i if you do not believe in the covenant? my guess is that you are not one, and it would clear things up a bit if you told us so. because if you are independently investigating the truth of the baha'i faith as a baha'i, dont you think you rushed into things? b/c belief in the covenant is central to being a baha'i. so if i had to make a guess i'd say you used to be a baha'i and disenrolled or something else happened...usually (actually, almost always) non-baha'is don't "ask" the kind of "questions" you are "asking"...


Return to “Discussion”