Talk:Manifestation of God

Discussion imported from: User_talk:David

You said: Present the information, let the reader make the conclusions

Hi David,

Hi Reed... Brett chiming in here...Nice to see your contributions, and good to see your interest in assuring that assertions are supported with facts. FYI, in user talk, it is convention to add your sig to your contribs so people can follow who is saying what. You can just add 3 or 4 tildes (the 4th tilde gives the timestamp): ~~~~. My individual replies interspersed below... Brettz9 (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2016 (PST)

Hi, Brett. I will parse your comments inline. Thanks. Reed (talk) 04:24, 26 February 2016 (PST)

I am new to the editing. What I have seen is that conclusions are presented, usually without supporting facts.

Now, if we present facts, e.g., textual proofs, it is often best to show the logical thread, is it not?

 premise: the Baha'i Writings deny the possibility of an indigenous Manifestation of God in the Americas 
    given: all Manifestations of God are from the Orient 
    given: the Americas are not part of the Orient
    ergo: no Manifestations of God could have been born in the Americas. 

As far as these particular logical statements, we might also consider whether 'Abdu'l-Baha is not using the "method of exaggerated emphasis" that Shoghi Effendi indicated 'Abdu'l-Baha might use (search for the text within http://bahai-library.com/fazel_understanding_exclusivist_texts ). He may perhaps have made such an exaggeration by speaking to a European audience and wanting to simply convey the idea that Jesus was not a white Man born in California or something. :) Or that He wanted to indicate that this was the general trend. I do agree, however, that it is useful to suggest that some may come to the conclusion you have made here. Brettz9 (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2016 (PST)

I think that we should assume the literal meaning in statements such as the Master made above. His words here don't lend themselves to esoteric undertones or ambiguity. IMO, the obvious exoteric meaning is intended. The only time we should indulge in speculation regarding the meaning is when the words don't provide a strict literal understanding, violate science or equity, are obviously esoteric in nature, or are wildly exaggerated. None of those conditions apply here. Reed (talk) 04:24, 26 February 2016 (PST)

While it is clearly important to address the literal meaning, there are many such cases where 'Abdu'l-Baha's words cannot be taken 100% literally. Similarly with Baha'u'llah. Your rules for when to assume a literal understanding are your own, even though there is some basis for them in the Writings. While we obviously must reject understandings which contradict well-established science, if the Central Figures worded things in such a way in the first place, then why should we not be a little more tentative in understandings not yet proven to be erroneous? If Baha'u'llah were able to speak extremely loosely, for example, with statements such as "Empedocles...was a contemporary of David,", a Baha'i without modern historical knowledge would not have been well served to argue adamantly that we must take that 100% literally. Shoghi Effendi confirms this in his statement, "We must not take this statement too literally; "contemporary" may have been meant in Persian as something far more elastic than the English word." (15 February 1947, cited at http://bahai-library.com/uhj_letters_behalf_guardian#fn4 ) And, again, Shoghi Effendi refers to 'Abdu'l-Baha's "method of exaggerated emphasis". In any case, as individual Baha'is, we come to our own conclusions, and I think this underscores the need for a certain form of NPOV to accommodate the different possible interpretations. I believe the article should suggest something like "If the statement of 'Abdu'l-Baha is to be taken fully literally, this would suggest that no Manifestations of God have been born in the Americas." David may have his own appeal process in mind, but I think we need to accommodate differences of interpretations within reason. Brettz9 (talk) 08:52, 26 February 2016 (PST)

Brett, Let us shave this with Occam's Razor. If the literal meaning is coherent and does not conflict with other statements by the same author, there is no reason to expand the interpretation of a statement beyond the literal meaning. Using your approach we would never be able to confidently read anything the Master wrote, because you would have us assume he was exaggerating in all instances. Now, if you can show me where Baha'u'llah or Abdu'l-Baha wrote something that has Manifestations of God originating outside of the Orient, I would say that we should examine both passages critically. Otherwise, sound exegesis indicates that the literal understanding is appropriate. Meanwhile, we have other passages to support the Orient as the centre of lights. The following might intrigue you:

   The degree of material civilization in the Occident cannot be denied; nor can anyone fail to confirm the spiritual civilization of the Orient, for all the divine foundations of human uplift have appeared in the East. This, likewise, is clear and evident.(Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 165)

and

   One of the greatest obstacles to overcome before universal brotherhood and peace can come is the natural lack of confidence and understanding between the Oriental and Occidental peoples. The Orient has always been the source of the world's spiritual inspiration, while in the Occident has appeared the fruition of this inspiration in the form of a highly evolved civilization. Through the Bahá'í teachings this chasm between the East and the West is bridged, and for the first time in history Oriental and Occidental are meeting on a common ground of sympathy and understanding.(SOW - Star of the West, Star of the West -  7)

Now, I don't have the same appreciation of SOTW as you, nevertheless, the above might be useful to you. Reed (talk) 14:04, 26 February 2016 (PST)

Your re-introduction of The Universal House of Justice adds: "The Bahá'í Teachings do not explicitly confirm, nor do they rule out, the possibility that Messengers of God have appeared in the Americas. In the absence of a clear Text the Universal House of Justice has no basis for issuing the kind of statement you propose which would confirm, "in principle, that God sent Manifestations to the indigenous peoples of the Americas."

Serves only to confuse a very straightforward matter. For the House statement speaks of "the possibility that Messengers of God have appeared in the Americas", which we know is likely, but that may be misunderstood by some to mean that God raised up, from among the indigenous peoples of the Americas, a Manifestation; which directly contradicts the words of the Master concerning the origin of all Manifestations as being in the Orient. The House statement only affords the possibility that some Manifestations, or their followers, may have crossed to the Americas; not that Manifestations were born of the indigenous people.

I saw the apparent contradiction also, and I wasn't too happy about it. The problem is Promulgation of Universal Peace is a collection of talks recorded by individuals, which might qualify them for a status closer to pilgrim notes then actual doctrine. For that reason, I thought it was important to include a relevant quote from the House.

That is an interesting distinction about whether the Manifestations "appearing" in the Americas means they visited or whether they were indigenous. Again though, with the possibility for "exaggerated emphasis", I still wonder whether we can make any conclusions. Brettz9 (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2016 (PST)

There are always possibilities regarding any statement. However, unless a statement exceeds the bounds of science or equity, we have no need to go beyond the clear exoteric meaning. Just my opinion, of course. You will note that Abdu'l-Baha wrote of the land connection to the Americas, which would not be necessary if the Master believed that Manifestations of God could be born in the Americas. Reed (talk) 04:24, 26 February 2016 (PST)

That conclusion is not necessarily justified. 'Abdu'l-Baha may have been speaking about the fact that there was an ancient land connection (recognized by science) before those crossing from Asia evolved over time into what became known as native Americans. 'Abdu'l-Baha doesn't indicate a timeline. There are also statements about each people having their own messenger such as "Unto every nation hath an apostle been sent" from the Qur'an (which the Writings recognize as authentic). In any case, again, I see this as a matter for interpretation in the absence of more explicit guidance. Brettz9 (talk) 08:52, 26 February 2016 (PST)

You are welcome Brent to have your inability to understand the passage. Frankly, I think that the passage is clear and self-explanatory. We have no-one other than ourselves to do the interpretation, so to each his own. Reed (talk) 14:04, 26 February 2016 (PST)

Regarding the premise, given, given ergo etc. No, I do not think that is a valid way to present information here. The premise is based on personal understanding, the givens may be based in part on incomplete or inaccurate sources, and the ergo therefore flawed. Additionally, my point that we present facts and not conclusions was that it allows readers to go through that process you described by themselves, which fits the 'independent' part of independent investigation of truth.

I should clarify that I also don't think we should ever present conclusions without supporting evidence, or conclusions at all which are more then a one or two line introduction or background to the quotes or ideas that are cited to follow. David (talk) 05:33, 24 February 2016 (PST)

I understand your reasoning regarding PUP. However, the House now recognizes both Paris Talks and The Promulgation of Universal Peace as authoritative texts. See http://www.bahai.org/library/authoritative-texts/abdul-baha/ where they are so classified. I don't know what caused the category of those books to change, but it appears they did. Do you still wish to add the, potentially confusing, House note?

I don't think we can take the placement despite it appearing as such on the surface. Take a look at http://bahai9.com/wiki/Promulgation_of_Universal_Peace#Notes_on_authenticity for an authoritative discussion on the status of PUP. That they are placed within "authoritative" texts may more relate to the fact that they were considered good enough (enough authoritative material) to keep publishing: see http://bahai9.com/wiki/Promulgation_of_Universal_Peace#Permissible_within_compilations . Brettz9 (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2016 (PST)

Brett, I would trust the placement by the House as a strong statement. There is no reason for them to list it as authoritative when it is not. You will note, "Abdu'l_Baha in London" didn't make the cut. The source you provided is two decades old; possibly the researchers have not been idle in respect to PUP. For myself, the House casts them as authoritative, I accept that. Reed (talk) 04:24, 26 February 2016 (PST)

"'Abdu'l-Baha in London" probably didn't make the cut because it is recognized that no material in that book has an original Persian original. The research being old has no bearing on the fact that they indicate that some of those talks have no originals! Unless they removed or annotated which talks had no originals--which a comparison should reveal they have not--then the research is still valid. To take one example, as per http://bahai-library.com/uhj_letters_behalf_guardian#s4 , for the "talk of 8 November 1912" (in speaking of the cutting off of the hand) "the reference to the punishment in question does not occur". Yet the reference to the cutting off of the hand is still there: http://www.bahai.org/library/authoritative-texts/abdul-baha/promulgation-universal-peace/#f=f30-1658 . Brettz9 (talk) 08:53, 26 February 2016 (PST)

Regarding a premise as being based upon personal understanding, of course, that is true. But look at the original premise in "Progress of the Soul" - "The Bahá'í Writings make it clear that every soul progresses after death, but that the starting point of each is different. The soul progresses towards God.". That is a very definitive statement that is backed by no references. In fact, it is also largely incorrect. I changed it to "The Bahá'í Writings indicate that some souls progress nearer to God after death, but that some do not. There is no automatic progression, either in condition or nearness to God." with a reference to support the points.

While there is no automatic progression as per a law, it is mentioned that there is God's mercy. The authoritativeness of the following may be uncertain, but it is interesting:

"Question. If one refuses the Cause of BAHA'O'LLAH during his lifetime, may he hear of it after death?

"Yes, he will hear of it in his next life, but through the mercy of God alone, not through his own ability."

('Abdu'l-Bahá, Star of the West, vol. 2, issue 16, p. 3)

I am leery of Star of the West. I would prefer to keep all references to authoritative sources. Regarding progression and mercy, we cannot forget that God's Mercy cannot reach some souls (persons). Reed (talk) 04:31, 26 February 2016 (PST)

You should be (somewhat) leery of Star of the West (as with PUP and PT), but as the House states in a letter on its behalf, "For many of His addresses included in "The Promulgation of Universal Peace" and "Paris Talks", for example, no original authenticated text has yet been found. However, the Guardian allowed such compilations to continue to be used by the friends, and the Universal House of Justice has indicated that the same ruling applies to "Star of the West"". It would be nice to have the authoritative sources all confirmed, but that doesn't require that discussion be stopped until they are (such as the quote from PUP of the Prophets appearing all from the East). Since we are told that both sources can raise questions but should be permitted for publication, I think the policy here should have no reason to favor one over the other unless there is evidence to the contrary in a particular instance. Brettz9 (talk) 08:52, 26 February 2016 (PST)

"...spiritual progress in the other world is limitless, and is not confined to those who have attained unto the knowledge and recognition of the Cause while still in this world."

(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, April 30, 1940, in Lights of Guidance, no. 699)

Potential progress for some is limitless. That does not mean that all will share in that progress. As we have noted, haters of the light will not. Reed (talk) 04:31, 26 February 2016 (PST)

Again, I think you are taking a statement and assuming that the "eternal" deprivation which has "no remedy" may not be 100% literal either. 'Abdu'l-Baha may be indicating that so long as one hates the light, there is no remedy, and that "eternal" is a matter of emphasis. While you might view this as some kind of hedging, I view it as premature to come to such fully literal understandings, and neither of us ought to impose this view. NPOV is a good model where there is no very unambiguous meaning, and that includes the right to describe the literalist view as well as the figurative one. Brettz9 (talk) 08:52, 26 February 2016 (PST)

Brett, there is nothing ambiguous about

   This hatred of the light itself is irremediable and unforgivable; that is, it is impossible for such a soul to draw near to God. This lamp here is a lamp because of its light; without the light it would not be a lamp. A soul that abhors the light of the lamp is, as it were, blind and cannot perceive the light, and this blindness is the cause of eternal deprivation... enmity towards the light itself is the cause of eternal deprivation and has no remedy.

Above the master is elucidating Jesus's words:

   “All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.”

I just realized something! I am new to this site and Brett is simply hazing the new guy! Ha, you had me fooled! Well, I won't indulge in these talks again, what a waste of time. But you strung me along pretty well, Brett Reed (talk) 14:04, 26 February 2016 (PST)

There is also the following, but it is only a pilgrim's note: http://bahai9.com/wiki/Life_after_death/soul#Pilgrim.27s_note_re:_all_souls_eventually_progress

I don't do pilgrims' notes. :) Reed (talk) 04:31, 26 February 2016 (PST)

That's fine if you don't, and indeed none of us are to take them as authoritative. But books without Persian originals such as 'Abdu'l-Baha in London are described as having "its place in our literature". (Unfolding Destiny, p. 208) and that pilgrim's notes nevertheless "may bear points of interest" and "each pilgrim brings back information and suggestions of a most precious character" and "need not be suppressed". The work at Bahaikipedia is non-authoritative by its nature, so I don't think an occasional mention of a potentially relevant pilgrim's note should be out of the question, unless it very clearly contradicts the Writings--which I do not think is the case here. Brettz9 (talk) 08:52, 26 February 2016 (PST)

Maybe http://bahai9.com/wiki/Life_after_death/soul#Progression_indefinite would be of interest.

Brett, that page is incorrect in many regards. First, when the Guardian uses the word "soul" he means "spirit" as the Master uses it. Abdu'l-Baha is very clear in many instances in his use of a tripartite view of man - spirit, soul, and body.

From the latest translation of Some Answered Questions: "The human spirit, which distinguishes man from the animal, is the rational soul, and these two terms — the human spirit and the rational soul — designate one and the same thing." Brettz9 (talk) 09:15, 26 February 2016 (PST)

The Guardian tells us that translators made a mash of spirit, soul, and mind, using different English words for the same word in Farsi. The Guardian uses soul, mind, and body, IIRC.

While it is important for precision in translations, as 'Abdu'l-Baha mentions above, the terms nevertheless designate the same thing. Brettz9 (talk) 09:15, 26 February 2016 (PST)

So, when the Master says:

   "Thou didst ask whether, at the advent of the Kingdom of God, every soul was saved. The Sun of Truth hath shone forth in splendour over all the world, and its luminous rising is man's salvation and his eternal life -- but only he is of the saved who hath opened wide the eye of his discernment and beheld that glory."(Abdu'l-Baha, Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha, p. 191)

he is speaking of the soul, which is a created thing, changeable, and mortal. When the Master writes of the spirit of man:

   "The spirit is ever the same; no change or transformation can you perceive, and because there is no change or transformation, it is everlasting and permanent."	(Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 242)

More evidence is needed than simply asserting that the soul is somehow mortal. Brettz9 (talk) 09:15, 26 February 2016 (PST)

Thus there is no conflict when the Guardian speaks of every soul (spirit) progressing, as the spirit is an emanation for God, and when the Master writes that some souls can never progress because they hate the light.

   "If a soul distances himself from the Manifestation, he may yet be awakened, for he may have failed to know Him and to recognize Him as the Embodiment of the divine perfections. But if he loathes the divine perfections themselves, which are the Holy Spirit, this shows that, bat-like, he is a hater of the light.
   This hatred of the light itself is irremediable and unforgivable; that is, it is impossible for such a soul to draw near to God. This lamp here is a lamp because of its light; without the light it would not be a lamp. A soul that abhors the light of the lamp is, as it were, blind and cannot perceive the light, and this blindness is the cause of eternal deprivation.
   It is evident that souls receive grace from the outpourings of the Holy Spirit which are apparent in the Manifestations of God, and not from the individual personality of the Manifestation. It follows that if a soul fails to partake of the outpourings of the Holy Spirit, it remains deprived of God’s grace, and this deprivation itself is equivalent to the denial of divine forgiveness. That is why there have been many souls who opposed the Manifestations of God, not realizing that They were Manifestations, but who became Their friends once they had recognized Them.
   Thus, enmity towards the Manifestation of God was not the cause of eternal deprivation, for they were enemies of the candleholder and knew not that it was the seat of God’s effulgent light. They were not the enemies of the light itself, and once they understood that the candleholder was the seat of the light, they became true friends.
   Our meaning is that remoteness from the candleholder is not the cause of eternal deprivation, for one may yet be awakened and guided aright, but that enmity towards the light itself is the cause of eternal deprivation and has no remedy." (Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions 2014 ed) Reed (talk) 04:31, 26 February 2016 (PST)

I offer an interpretation of this above. Brettz9 (talk) 09:15, 26 February 2016 (PST)

I must go, perhaps I can finish later. Reed (talk) 04:31, 26 February 2016 (PST)

Likewise :) Brettz9 (talk) 08:52, 26 February 2016 (PST)

I think it is quite plausible to hold the view that we can reconcile all of the scriptural statements on the "eternal" nature of heaven or hell as being devices used for emphasis (though by not being 100% literal does not weaken it at all, such as to mean that souls do not actually face real punishment and regret, or face real rewards and delights, etc.). Brettz9 (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2016 (PST)

Presenting personal understanding of truths of the Faith is necessary to open any page or discussion, but we should support any assertions with references to the Writings. Just my opinion, of course. Thanks.

Thank you again for seeking to raise the level of confirmability, as some of the previous claims were indeed not based on evidence, or at least not explicit evidence. I've recommended to David that we do more cross-linking between http://bahai9.com and here so that people can see the full authoritative sources if they wish on a given topic or come here for more analysis and prose explanations. Brettz9 (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2016 (PST)

That's good to know about Paris Talks and PUP. I don't have issue with the other points you raised, but I would prefer to leave the contradictory quote on the Manifestations of God page. The reason being is that I think it's somewhat of a slippery slope to find something related, and then hide it because it seems contradictory. I think we should work to provide context for these areas even though it's not always possible to do immediately. David (talk) 19:42, 25 February 2016 (PST)

I agree that it is germane to the topic, though I think Reed's question about whether the meaning of "appear" is the same as "heralds from" is a legitimate concern. Brettz9 (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2016 (PST)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://bahai-library.org/articles/manifestation.html (archive)
  • In Manifestation of God on 2021-11-20 12:26:36, 404
  • In Bahá’í Faith on 2021-11-22 10:55:21, 404
  • In Manifestation of God on 2023-11-19 10:13:18, Not Found

The web page has been saved by the Internet Archive. Please consider linking to an appropriate archived version: [1]. --BahaiBot (talk) 02:13, 19 November 2023 (PST)

FIXED. -J.W.

Removal of content

Recently content has been removed citing "speculative, interpretive" as the reason. I don't want to start an edit war, just to voice my strong disapproval in the hopes the administrators will take notice and act accordingly. According to the laws, interpretations of the Bahá’í writings that alter the evident meaning is what is prohibited, and the nature of a wiki is to allow the public to contribute to the exchange of ideas in order to serve as a gateway not a destination. In other words, if contributors feel there has been a breach in interpretive license, they are free to correct it by offering their own correct interpretations, not prohibit all interpretation, contrary to the nature of a wiki and to the very nature of teaching itself. Ernobe (talk) 08:31, 30 March 2025 (EDT)

Previously this article had been copied from Wikipedia, my guess is that was the reason for the rewrite/removal. If you feel like the article is missing key information you can list it here or include it yourself, however please don't just add the wikipedia content again. If you want to add anything back please write using your own words. David (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2025 (EDT)

In the Spanish Bahaipedia, the content that is categorized as Wikipedian does not actually exist in the Spanish Wikipedia, but has been translated from the English Wikipedia. Searching the web I found some of these translations which were once a part of Wikipedia but have mysteriously, for some unexplained reason, disappeared. I trust you will not make it a policy to remove such content from the Spanish Bahaipedia, given their originals no longer exist on the Spanish Wikipedia. Ernobe (talk) 20:05, 30 March 2025 (EDT)