Bahá'í Library Online
. . . .
.



Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 
How did Adam enter our world? Was He born or not? 
Author Message

Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2009 6:37 pm
Posts: 15
'Abdu'l-Baha said:

"If being without a father is a virtue, Adam is greater and more excellent than all the Prophets and Messengers, for He had neither father nor mother." (Some Answered Questions, p. 89)

"O handmaid of God! It is with the Lord Christ even as with Adam. Did the first human being who came into existence on this earth have a father or mother? It is certain that he had neither. But Christ lacked only a father." (Selections from the Writings of 'Abdu'l-Baha 139:6)

Then:

a) Adam was made from clay 6,000 years ago.
b) Adam just "appeared" on Earth, was never born?
c) your opinion.


Wed Jan 13, 2010 6:30 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 1:17 am
Posts: 221
In The Name of God
The Source of Joy

to all mankind

"That which beseemeth Me none shall understand, nor can anyone recount."


Thu Jan 14, 2010 12:10 am
Profile

Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 7:14 pm
Posts: 100
Location: near Niagara Falls, Canada
My opinion:

I know that there has always been a creation, and that it depends on God for its life. On the plane of time and space, there can be beginnings, such as the first intelligent life on a given planet, but on the timeless plane the principles underlying all things exist eternally and are active. On that plane, the human principle has always been and always will be. The individual is a reflection and outcome of that active principle.

My thought is that there must be many Adams in the universe -many examples of when the first expression of the rational spirit emerged under ideal circumstances. But life-forms, of any kind, do not suddenly appear in their fullness. Their genesis is very slow and methodical. They evolve.

From what do life-forms evolve?

It is from the basic elements of a planet such as soil, water, air, as well as from the other type of causes. Hence, Adam, and all other creatures, are derived from clay etc... through a series of stages from simple to more complex.

Could Abdu'l-Baha be speaking from the perspective of His listener who is asking the questions? Perhaps His statement about Adam having had no parents is not meant literally. Elsewhere, He provides other perspectives on the same basic question. It is conversation rather that a Tablet of revealed scripture, I think.

So, the figure of Adam needn't represent the first human type life-form, which had to have emerged LONG before 6,000 years ago. Adam could have been first in the sense of having lived during one of the bottlenecks in the expansion and struggle of mankind on earth. He had predecessors, an idea also mentioned in Baha'i writings. Or, He could have represented the firstness which applies to all Manifestations of God -the Inaugurator of a new stage of development.

What do others think?

-Peter Gardner (from Niagara Falls, Canada)


Sun Mar 14, 2010 9:46 am
Profile YIM WWW

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 12:12 pm
Posts: 1295
Hello Peter,

Quote:
I know that there has always been a creation, and that it depends on God for its life. On the plane of time and space, there can be beginnings, such as the first intelligent life on a given planet, but on the timeless plane the principles underlying all things exist eternally and are active. On that plane, the human principle has always been and always will be. The individual is a reflection and outcome of that active principle.

My thought is that there must be many Adams in the universe -many examples of when the first expression of the rational spirit emerged under ideal circumstances. But life-forms, of any kind, do not suddenly appear in their fullness. Their genesis is very slow and methodical. They evolve.

From what do life-forms evolve?

It is from the basic elements of a planet such as soil, water, air, as well as from the other type of causes. Hence, Adam, and all other creatures, are derived from clay etc... through a series of stages from simple to more complex.


Very well stated, I think.

Quote:
Could Abdu'l-Baha be speaking from the perspective of His listener who is asking the questions? Perhaps His statement about Adam having had no parents is not meant literally. Elsewhere, He provides other perspectives on the same basic question. It is conversation rather that a Tablet of revealed scripture, I think.


While Some Answered Question was indeed part of a conversation, it was reviewed by 'Abdu'l-Baha, so it is considered authoritative. And the other quotation provided was from a Tablet.

And, Baha'i belief does assert that Christ was born from a virgin birth (e.g., see quotes beginning at http://bahai9.com/wiki/Christ#Christ.2C_Virgin_Birth_of ), so I don't think it would be a stretch from this to believe that Adam (as a Manifestation of God) was perhaps born without father and mother.

Adam seems to be seen in the Writings both as a historical Manifestation of God (who did apparently live about 6000 years ago - see http://bahai9.com/wiki/Adamic_Cycle ) as well as being used to refer in abstract terms to a common physical ancestor of humanity from much earlier (the creation story is seen allegorically, also in terms of time-- see http://bahai9.com/wiki/Age_of_universe ).

Quote:
So, the figure of Adam needn't represent the first human type life-form, which had to have emerged LONG before 6,000 years ago.


Yes, this is true. But as pointed out in the quotations referenced above, the Manifestation of God, Adam, apparently was from about 6,000 years ago. (See also http://bahai9.com/wiki/Adam for further confirmation of how legends surround Him and for a very beautiful explanation of how Adam and Eve symbolize the Manifestation of God and the first believer.)

That all being said, I also wouldn't discount Adam being used in this context as referring to the more general historic "Adam"--as the first life created out of the constituents of the earth (Adam is represented, as you say, by the firstness which applies to all Manifestations of God", as Baha'u'llah argues in the Kitab-i-Iqan, but I'm not sure that makes sense in this particular context, except again if it is equating the "first" Manifestation of God with the "first" man, with both in more abstract terms).

Quote:
Adam could have been first in the sense of having lived during one of the bottlenecks in the expansion and struggle of mankind on earth.


That's an interesting concept, or at least perhaps a struggle for survival among the earliest believers as may be confirmed by this:

Quote:
"During the cycle of Adam it was lawful and expedient for a man to marry his own sister, even as Abel, Cain and Seth, the sons of Adam, married their sisters. But in the law of the Pentateuch revealed by Moses these marriages were forbidden and their custom and sanction abrogated."

(The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 365)


best wishes,
Brett


Mon Mar 15, 2010 8:57 am
Profile WWW

Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 7:14 pm
Posts: 100
Location: near Niagara Falls, Canada
Thank you, Brett; What a fascinating subject. I don't think Adam, as representing the first man on earth, and Adam, as the first Manifestation in the Adamic cycle, are the same person. The latter lived a short time ago (roughly 6,000 years), relative to the span of time in which life evolved on earth. The former must have emerged a few million years ago, at least in physical form if not in the capacity for abstract thought. The first to manifest abstract thought must have lived sometime between 100,000 years and perhaps a million years ago.

Consider, as a factor in man's emergence, the influence of other creatures. Without a doubt, we depend on bacteria, viruses, algae, other plants, animals and of course the world of rocks, water, air etc... We depend on them not only on a day-to-day basis but also in that they are a part of our evolution.

I used to think that man evolved in parallel to other animal forms with no actual lineage going back to the animals. Now, I believe that our physical forms have always been related to the earth, its microscopic life, and its ever-unfolding abilities, such as those imprinted in the genes of all living things. This does not mean that evolution fully explains our origins. We are, I believe, an expression of a timeless principle from which the light of reason, imagination, abstraction, curiousity, vision, thought and comprehension shines forth.

We represent the 'general reality'*, which I think of as a mirror able to reflect the full spectrum. Other living things are each able to reflect a fraction of that same spectrum. So, it is not in the substances, molecules and genes that man is distinct but rather in his God-given capacity to mirror forth all of the colours of that bright light called 'the general reality'*. in this sense, we are a distinct kind (species, but not in the taxonomical sense of that word in this context).

-Peter Gardner

"The world, indeed each existing being, proclaims to us one of the names of God, but the reality of man is the collective reality, the general reality, and is the center where the glory of all the perfections of God shine forth—that is to say, for each name, each attribute, each perfection which we affirm of God there exists a sign in man."
-'Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions p 195

"If man did not exist, the universe would be without result, for the object of existence is the appearance of the perfections of God.
Therefore, it cannot be said there was a time when man was not."
-'Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions p 196 http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/SAQ/saq-50.html


Mon Mar 15, 2010 10:00 am
Profile YIM WWW

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 12:12 pm
Posts: 1295
Quote:
Thank you, Brett; What a fascinating subject. I don't think Adam, as representing the first man on earth, and Adam, as the first Manifestation in the Adamic cycle, are the same person.


Yes, and I believe the quotations support this. My only point was that it could still be possible from a Baha'i point of view (and maybe even likely given that 'Abdu'l-Baha does compare Christ and Adam in this regard, and we do accept Christ's lack of a physical father), that Adam, the Manifestation of God 6000 years ago, was not created by father and mother. This wouldn't mean He was literally the first man on earth, as quotations like this fly strongly in the face of that:

Quote:
This stupendous laboratory and workshop has not been limited in its production to six thousand revolutions of the earth about the sun. With the slightest reflection man can be assured that this calculation and announcement is childish, especially in view of the fact that it is scientifically proved the terrestrial globe has been the habitation of man long prior to such a limited estimate.

(Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 219)


Notice the above does not only say the world has been around more than 6,000 years, it also says it has been man's habitation longer than that period--i.e., man was around before 6,000 years.

Quote:
The latter lived a short time ago (roughly 6,000 years), relative to the span of time in which life evolved on earth. The former must have emerged a few million years ago, at least in physical form if not in the capacity for abstract thought. The first to manifest abstract thought must have lived sometime between 100,000 years and perhaps a million years ago.


Yes. The date seems to keep getting pushed back with new discoveries, but yes.

Quote:
I used to think that man evolved in parallel to other animal forms with no actual lineage going back to the animals. Now, I believe that our physical forms have always been related to the earth, its microscopic life, and its ever-unfolding abilities, such as those imprinted in the genes of all living things.

This does not mean that evolution fully explains our origins. We are, I believe, an expression of a timeless principle from which the light of reason, imagination, abstraction, curiousity, vision, thought and comprehension shines forth.

We represent the 'general reality'*, which I think of as a mirror able to reflect the full spectrum. Other living things are each able to reflect a fraction of that same spectrum. So, it is not in the substances, molecules and genes that man is distinct but rather in his God-given capacity to mirror forth all of the colours of that bright light called 'the general reality'*. in this sense, we are a distinct kind (species, but not in the taxonomical sense of that word in this context).

-Peter Gardner

"The world, indeed each existing being, proclaims to us one of the names of God, but the reality of man is the collective reality, the general reality, and is the center where the glory of all the perfections of God shine forth—that is to say, for each name, each attribute, each perfection which we affirm of God there exists a sign in man."
-'Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions p 195

"If man did not exist, the universe would be without result, for the object of existence is the appearance of the perfections of God.
Therefore, it cannot be said there was a time when man was not."
-'Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions p 196 http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/SAQ/saq-50.html


Yes, again, well said, I think.

Here's another quote, which when examined carefully, I think actually contradicts the idea of parallel evolution.

Quote:
We cannot prove man was always man for this is a fundamental doctrine, but it is based on the assertion that nothing can exceed its own potentialities, that everything, a stone, a tree, an animal and a human being existed in plan, potentially, from the very "beginning" of creation. We don't believe man has always had the form of man, but rather that from the outset he was going to evolve into the human form and species and not be a haphazard branch of the ape family.

(On behalf of Shoghi Effendi, Messages to the Antipodes, June 7, 1946)


Note it says that we believe man would "evolve into the human...species"--i.e., that he was not always part of the human species, even though he was destined to become so.

Note also the apparent support from this line, "it is based on the assertion that nothing can exceed its own potentialities, that everything, a stone, a tree, an animal and a human being existed in plan, potentially, from the very "beginning" of creation". By saying man "existed in plan, potentially", it rather implies that he didn't always exist in actuality.

'Abdu'l-Baha, too, in Promulgation of Universal Peace, is to have said, "In the world of existence man has traversed successive degrees until he has attained the human kingdom....Throughout this journey of progression he has ever and always been potentially man." Again, note the key word "potentially" and the phrase "until he has attained the human kingdom". Seems to me to be clear He is saying it was not always that way.

So, despite all of the above, there is one passage I'm having some trouble with, as I mentioned in an earlier post at viewtopic.php?p=14404 , I am still looking for a way to resolve this issue:

"Between man and the ape, however, there is one link missing, and to the present time scientists have not been able to discover it....The lost link of Darwinian theory is itself a proof that man is not an animal. How is it possible to have all the links present and that important link absent? Its absence is an indication that man has never been an animal. It will never be found." (Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 358, 359 passim)

Assuming this is an accurate statement of 'Abdu'l-Baha (since Promulgation of Universal Peace is not necessarily accurate--e.g., see http://bahai-library.com/file.php?file= ... uardian#s4 which indicates that one mention about the Pentateuch supposedly prescribing the cutting off of the hand is not even in the Persian original), even if this allows for a common ancestor, it still seems to me to contradict what "Darwinian theory" taught (which did not, as far as I have read, make any such assumptions that there would be a direct connection to apes).

One might argue that He is arguing with the ideas mistakenly associated with Darwinian theory, and is simplifying the prevalent idea of the time (if it was prevalent) by calling it "Darwinian theory"--that is the best I can come up with on this one now, though I'm really tempted to ask the House if this is even accurate at all (or find a Persian willing to check "Khitábát, Talks of 'Abdu'l-Bahá" which seems it may contain the originals, as it was used in this footnote: http://bahai-library.com/file.php?file= ... ardian#fn2 ).

Off topic somewhat, I recall thinking a while back that the Writings seemed to present some support for the idea of pan spermia, as is also getting more support nowadays, though I can't remember which quotations made me take that interpretation.

best wishes,
Brett


Mon Mar 15, 2010 1:06 pm
Profile WWW

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 12:12 pm
Posts: 1295
To add a little to my last post just now, I also found a few others out there particularly concerned about this passage:

* http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@li ... 00884.html (interestingly questions whether Bijou Straun, who made the notes for both one of the talks about the Pentateuch prescribing the cutting off of the hand, as well as the talk on evolution, might have been less than reliable)
* http://bahai-library.com/unpubl.article ... ution.html (mentions this as a test, though it concludes in idea of parallel evolution)

I think I've passed my unfortunate (personal) quota of letters to the House for a while, but this would be a good one to know the answer to... :)

best wishes,
Brett


Mon Mar 15, 2010 1:24 pm
Profile WWW

Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 7:14 pm
Posts: 100
Location: near Niagara Falls, Canada
I was told that there is a new translation of 'Some Answered Questions' being made. If so, that will help with questions of terminology.

One thought that I have is based on the idea that the timeless human principle is a causative factor in the unfoldment of the physical universe. Now, I don't think of this human principle as a potential but rather as a living expression of the nature of First Will. In this case, the human principle is whole and complete, even prior to its outward manifestation in the form of physical beings.

My thought is that First Will is all-knowing, all-loving, all-wise and perfect. First Will is also the Educator of all things, by the command of God. It follows, therefor, that there must be an educable being with the capacity to be taught by First Will. When I say that the human principle is whole and complete, I mean in the sense of being supremely educable right from the outset. All grades of existence, then, have as their 'final cause' this quality of the human spirit which is, itself, an outcome of the nature of First Will.

Although it is commonly understood that all of these grades of existence appear gradually as the universe and its stars and planets expand and evolve, yet, in another sense these grades are timeless. Spiritually, they are without beginning or ending. To me, this seems to be in keeping with the concept of God as changeless and eternal. The effects which proceed from Him, I would infer, are also, in some sense, changeless and eternal in principle though progressive in their unfoldment on the plane of time and space.

Does that make any sense to you and to any other readers on this forum?

-Peter Gardner


Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:06 pm
Profile YIM WWW

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 12:12 pm
Posts: 1295
coatofmanycolours wrote:
I was told that there is a new translation of 'Some Answered Questions' being made. If so, that will help with questions of terminology.


Interesting...Just came across this again last night:

Quote:
Among the utterances of 'Abdu'l-Bahá, foremost is the compilation of His immortal talks entitled "Some Answered Questions". The original of this important compilation is preserved in the Holy Land; its text was read in full and corrected by 'Abdu'l-Bahá Himself. The translation, although not perfect, was considered by the Guardian to be adequate for the time being; in due course it will be thoroughly checked and improved, of course.

(Extract from a letter dated 9 March 1977 written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer at http://bahai-library.com/file.php?file= ... uardian#s4 )


and the pilgrim's note at http://bahai-library.com/pilgrims/orbison.html stating, "When asked about the balue [value?] of "Baha'u'llah and the New Era", and "Some Answered Questions", he said that they are recommened [recommended?], but have errors."

coatofmanycolours wrote:
One thought that I have is based on the idea that the timeless human principle is a causative factor in the unfoldment of the physical universe.


I think that is consistent with Chapter 50 of Some Answered Questions.

coatofmanycolours wrote:
Now, I don't think of this human principle as a potential but rather as a living expression of the nature of First Will. In this case, the human principle is whole and complete, even prior to its outward manifestation in the form of physical beings.


Yes, I think such as the quotations I cited support that. And ones like this:

Quote:
Now, if we imagine a time when man belonged to the animal world, or when he was merely an animal, we shall find that existence would have been imperfect--that is to say, there would have been no man, and this chief member, which in the body of the world is like the brain and mind in man, would have been missing. The world would then have been quite imperfect. It is thus proved that if there had been a time when man was in the animal kingdom, the perfection of existence would have been destroyed; for man is the greatest member of this world, and if the body was without this chief member, surely it would be imperfect.

(Some Answered Questions, Chapter 46)


But as the quotations earlier I believe support, that doesn't mean man always was literally part of the human species. As He was to have said:

Quote:
In the world of existence man has traversed successive degrees until he has attained the human kingdom. In each degree of his progression he has developed capacity for advancement to the next station and condition. While in the kingdom of the mineral he was attaining the capacity for promotion into the degree of the vegetable. In the kingdom of the vegetable he underwent preparation for the world of the animal, and from thence he has come onward to the human degree, or kingdom. Throughout this journey of progression he has ever and always been potentially man.

(Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. p. 225)


And in other contexts, like the "spiritual proof" (as opposed to rational proof) you supplied from 'Abdu'l-Baha, "If man did not exist, the universe would be without result", it doesn't exclude the possibility that "man" may include life on other planets similarly empowered to know Him, as the context following that sentence apparently implies:

Quote:
If man did not exist, the universe would be without result, for the object of existence is the appearance of the perfections of God.
Therefore, it cannot be said there was a time when man was not. All that we can say is that this terrestrial globe at one time did not exist, and at its beginning man did not appear upon it. But from the beginning which has no beginning, to the end which has no end, a Perfect Manifestation always exists. This Man of Whom we speak is not every man; we mean the Perfect Man.

(Some Answered Questions, Chapter 50)


To provide a little contrast with the line, "at its beginning man did not appear upon [the globe]", 'Abdu'l-Baha does mention that man was potentially there from the beginning (and doesn't exclude foreign seeding either, I'd say), but this doesn't mean it had a unique parallel line of evolution:

Quote:
Similarly, the terrestrial globe from the beginning was created with all its elements, substances, minerals, atoms and organisms; but these only appeared by degrees: first the mineral, then the plant, afterward the animal, and finally man. But from the first these kinds and species existed, but were undeveloped in the terrestrial globe, and then appeared only gradually.

(Some Answered Questions, Chapter 51, p. 199)



coatofmanycolours wrote:
My thought is that First Will is all-knowing, all-loving, all-wise and perfect. First Will is also the Educator of all things, by the command of God.

It follows, therefor, that there must be an educable being with the capacity to be taught by First Will. When I say that the human principle is whole and complete, I mean in the sense of being supremely educable right from the outset. All grades of existence, then, have as their 'final cause' this quality of the human spirit which is, itself, an outcome of the nature of First Will.


At first, I wasn't sure one could justify considering the "First Will" as having its own intelligence, etc. For example, 'Abdu'l-Baha says:

Quote:
Though the "First Mind" is without beginning, it does not become a sharer in the preexistence of God, for the existence of the universal reality in relation to the existence of God is nothingness, and it has not the power to become an associate of God and like unto Him in preexistence.

(Some Answered Questions, p. 203)


I earlier simply understood it as the animating force of the universe, as a kind of intermediary between God and man (though reflected in the Manifestations).

However, it is also translated as the "First Will" (SAQ 203), the "Primal Will" (SAQ 203), "universal reality" (SAQ 203), "the world of the Kingdom" (SAQ 295), "universal mind" (SAQ 218), "First Remembrance" (SWB 126) and "the world of Command" per http://bahai-library.com/compilations/b ... html#no914 , "Command of God", and "God's all-pervasive grace, from which all grace doth emanate", and "Word of God" (per TB pp. 140-141, with "Word of God" also associated with the preexistence of the Manifestation, e.g,. in SAQ 116-117). These also seem to me to be akin to reference in the Writings to the "Holy Spirit".

A provisional translation at http://bahai-library.com/articles/primal.will.html refers to "They have desired with petty, divided minds to understand stages and stations that are concealed even from the Universal Mind." (I also highly recommend the information-rich yet brief article at in which this translation appears...) I guess the "First Mind" indeed has its own intelligence (maybe like how "Who's Writing the Future?" points to (the Spirit animating) Baha'u'llah).

coatofmanycolours wrote:
Although it is commonly understood that all of these grades of existence appear gradually as the universe and its stars and planets expand and evolve, yet, in another sense these grades are timeless. Spiritually, they are without beginning or ending. To me, this seems to be in keeping with the concept of God as changeless and eternal. The effects which proceed from Him, I would infer, are also, in some sense, changeless and eternal in principle though progressive in their unfoldment on the plane of time and space.


Sounds reasonable to me...

By the way, I also think sometimes Baha'is may interpret the passage you cited earlier (about all things reflecting a single name of God) a little too literally. For example, on p. 255 or p. 268 of Promulgation of Universal Peace, 'Abdu'l-Baha demonstrates how love (as cohesion, etc.) is reflected to a degree in all kingdoms. If so, then there wouldn't be room for things representing other virtues. :)

best wishes,
Brett


Mon Mar 15, 2010 9:48 pm
Profile WWW

Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 7:14 pm
Posts: 100
Location: near Niagara Falls, Canada
Brett; What an exploration! I certainly agree that intelligent, inquiring, inventive, human-type beings must have arisen in billions of places in the universe, and will continue to emerge forever. It is a mathematical certainty, in my opinion.

About panspermia: if it occurs it still leaves open the many cosmological questions, such as how does life get started from nothing but minerals, gasses, metals etc... Ultimately, those are the substances from which all things are made.

To respond to this quote: "In the world of existence man has traversed successive degrees until he has attained the human kingdom..." from a talk by 'Abdu'l-Baha:

I think of it in terms of what He said about 'the general reality', which is fully manifested in the human being. Baha'u'llah mentions the discover, by Socrates, of this theme:

"Socrates who was indeed wise, accomplished and righteous... We testify that he is one of the heroes in this field and an outstanding champion dedicated unto it...

He it is who perceived a unique, a tempered, and a pervasive nature in things, bearing the closest likeness to the human spirit, and he discovered this nature to be distinct from the substance of things in their refined form...

Wert thou to ask from the worldly wise of this generation about this exposition, thou wouldst witness their incapacity to grasp it. Verily, thy Lord speaketh the truth but most people comprehend not."

-Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah Revealed After the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, Lawh-i-Hikmat (Tablet of Wisdom) p 146

Reading what Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha reveal about this 'general reality' sheds light on the causative nature of this dynamic, pervasive, living principle. It is the whole spectrum, the human spirit which precedes living forms which are but particular manifestations of its potentialities. It is not a principle which comes from the human being. Rather, it is the human being who comes from this principle. Indeed, all creatures come from this general reality and represent fractions of its spectrum. One kind of life represents, in its capacity, the entire spectrum and this type of life, no doubt, pervades the galaxies and is as eyes for the universe -its very soul.

About First Will, you said "At first, I wasn't sure one could justify considering the "First Will" as having its own intelligence..." and then observed some marvelous quotes. Here is a favorite of mine by the Bab, with which I will conclude this post and await responses. -Peter Gardner

If, however, thou art sailing upon the sea of creation, know thou that the First Remembrance, which is the Primal Will of God, may be likened unto the sun. God hath created Him through the potency of His might, and He hath, from the beginning that hath no beginning, caused Him to be manifested in every Dispensation through the compelling power of His behest, and God will, to the end that knoweth no end, continue to manifest Him according to the good-pleasure of His invincible Purpose.

And know thou that He indeed resembleth the sun. Were the risings of the sun to continue till the end that hath no end, yet there hath not been nor ever will be more than one sun; and were its settings to endure for evermore, still there hath not been nor ever will be more than one sun. It is this Primal Will which appeareth resplendent in every Prophet and speaketh forth in every revealed Book. It knoweth no beginning, inasmuch as the First deriveth its firstness from It; and knoweth no end, for the Last oweth its lastness unto It.

In the time of the First Manifestation the Primal Will appeared in Adam; in the day of Noah It became known in Noah; in the day of Abraham in Him; and so in the day of Moses; the day of Jesus; the day of Muḥammad, the Apostle of God; the day of the ‘Point of the Bayán’; the day of Him Whom God shall make manifest; and the day of the One Who will appear after Him Whom God shall make manifest. Hence the inner meaning of the words uttered by the Apostle of God, ‘I am all the Prophets’, inasmuch as what shineth resplendent in each one of Them hath been and will ever remain the one and the same sun.

-the Bab, Selections From the Writings of the Bab p 125


Tue Mar 16, 2010 8:33 am
Profile YIM WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 10 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Home Site Map Forum Links About Contact
 
.
. .
.