The Archeology of the Kingdom of God: Diving a Bit Deeper into a Baha'i Approach to Metaphysics

[Ahanu]

And perhaps the soul can die?

Only under a certain theological framework. The possibility of the human soul's death only opens if it indwells the body, like a tenant in a house. This ancient concept is rejected in the Baha'i Faith.

Instead, there is a non-physical connection between soul and body, between this world and the other world.

". . . it is absolutely impossible that the Holy Spirit should ascend and descend, enter, come out, or penetrate, it can only be that the Holy Spirit appears in splendour, as the sun appears in the mirror.”
-Abdu'l-Baha

Baha'u'llah says something similar here in the Seven Valleys:

"However, let none construe these utterances to imply the incarnation or descent of the worlds of God into the grades of His creatures, nor should they lead thine eminence to such misapprehensions. For God, in His Essence, is sanctified above all ascent and descent, egress and regress; He hath through all eternity been exalted beyond the attributes of His creation, and will ever remain so. No man hath ever known Him; no soul hath ever fathomed the nature of His Being. In the valley of His knowledge every mystic wandereth astray; in the comprehension of His Essence every saint standeth bewildered. Sanctified is He above the understanding of the wise; exalted is He beyond the knowledge of the knowing! “The way is barred and all seeking rejected. His proof is His signs, His evidence His being."

The same applies to the soul.

"Note that even in divine revelation, the use of spirit is associated with the concept of 'breathing into' the physical frame. This indicates that from the outset the explanation of a spiritual phenomenon appearing in a physical body had to be expressed in sensible and material terms comprehensible and imaginable by the believers . . ."
-Dr. Davudi

 

[RJM]

Only under a certain theological framework. The possibility of the human soul's death only opens if it indwells the body, like a tenant in a house. This ancient concept is rejected in the Baha'i Faith.

Perhaps the soul 'weaves' the body? How can we know exactly what constitutes our own soul? A state of self without personality or ego? Who knows?

Spirit weaves nature. Spirit pervades nature, but when nature dies -- as all nature must -- spirit is still there? The created world takes its form from the uncreated world, through a glass darkly. Light is the shadow of God. It's Plato's cave. We see only the shadow-play of the true reality?

The greater wheel of spirit turns the lesser wheel of nature, but is not turned by it

Do you personally believe you have an individual soul, or that after death your spirit dissolves back into the all pervading One?

 

[Thomas]

Hi Tony —

Why is Christ not the body of humanity? We are all created in that image.
Regards Tony

I'm of a mind that all creation is in that image.

All creation is an incarnation.
(Note: This is not pan- or panen-theism, or if it is, it is qualified in a Christological sense.)

 

[Thomas]

Again, we come to the strong relational theology in the Baha'i Faith. Ex nihilo is a relative concept in the Baha'i Faith.

The relativity of existence and nonexistence is ontologically important because it denies any form of creatio ex nihilo, or creation out of absolute nothing, a key doctrinal point for almost all Christians and Muslims.

In which case, if not ex nihilo, then how?

The Greeks believed in a prime, undifferentiated matter (itself 'nothing' until it receives its form),

 

[Ahanu]

In which case, if not ex nihilo, then how?

The Greeks believed in a prime, undifferentiated matter (itself 'nothing' until it receives its form),

I suspect a possible answer goes back to Shaykh Aḥmad, who flips the traditional view (e.g., matter becomes active and shapes form and form becomes receptive to the potential and influence of matter). To use an analogy, traditionally, classical metaphysicians focused on understanding the form (or the image) as the true essence of the painting. Shaykh Aḥmad seems to say we can also understand matter itself (e.g., the texture of the canvas, the way the paint is applied) as part of what makes the painting what it is. If matter is not passive but has its own potential and agency, then it can't be simply nothing waiting to be shaped by God. There's something there. The interaction between matter and form becomes a continuous process, not a one-time act of creation.

"According to Shaykh Aḥmad’s inverse and dialectical hylomorphism: In the relation between matter and form within a relative entity or substance, matter is the active and acting principle. Going further, the relationship between matter and form is no longer understood within a static ontology but within a dynamic dialectics. Form is no longer the active or actualizing principle within a substance, nor is form now merely passive or potential: Form is the receptive and responding principle. Henry Corbin (1983, p. 264) points to this as a metaphysical revolution on the part of our Shaykh. On the surface this is indeed the case. But the real revolution lies in Shaykh Aḥmad’s move from an ontological metaphysics and Aristotelian cognitivism to a dialectical metaphysics and Hermetic objective logic."

 

[muhammad_isa]

In which case, if not ex nihilo, then how?

Almighty God is Eternal .. so NOT created. Creation implies a beginning.
I believe that souls are FROM G-d, OF G-d, and also eternal.

For example, we knew we were going to be alive here on earth before we were placed in the wombs of our mothers, but many things are hidden from us in this life.
I suppose we could say that it will be like waking from a dream, when we return to G-d once more
upon death.
Some of us would wish we could be sent back, and promise to be good etc.
..but G-d does not wrong any soul .. He is aware of our strong points and bad points,
and the good annihilates the bad .. the problem arises if there is no good at all.

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

Hi Tony —

I'm of a mind that all creation is in that image.

All creation is an incarnation.
(Note: This is not pan- or panen-theism, or if it is, it is qualified in a Christological sense.)

Thank you Thomas.

Yes, and I personally see all creation emanates from the Holy Spirit and radiates certain attributes. But I see humanity has been given a capacity of a rational soul, that many other aspects of creation does not have. It thus takes it right back to the first scriptures and the choice between good and evil. Humans have been gifted this.

(I also see many othe creatures on many other planets, have also been given this gift, I see Christ is unlimited across all creation, the many Names and Attributes of God are unlimited, way beyond this little dot in the vast expanse of this creation and then we have all the worlds of God.)

The day we can be One in Christ, is the day of a Most Great Peace!

Regards Tony

 

[Thomas]

The day we can be One in Christ, is the day of a Most Great Peace!

How is that possible?

How do you do it?

 

[Thomas]

I suspect a possible answer goes back to Shaykh Aḥmad ...

But still the idea of a primordial, undifferentiated matter?

 

[Thomas]

Almighty God is Eternal .. so NOT created. Creation implies a beginning.

I'd say so.

I believe that souls are FROM G-d, OF G-d, and also eternal.

Ah ...

For example, we knew we were going to be alive here on earth before we were placed in the wombs of our mothers, but many things are hidden from us in this life.

OK ... I didn't know that

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

How is that possible?

How do you do it?

I do not need to do it beyond my own self. I accept we are one in Christ, that we made mistakes, that there is One God, I will be honest, trustworthy and truthful. I will accept that I am part of the one human race, that the earth is mine and everyones home, it has no boundaries but what we have made.

How do we acheive it together would most likely be the question you are asking. My guess is that only by acknowledging God does have a plan for humanitY and that acknowledgement may only happen after great suffering that we pile upon our own selves.

Regards Tony

 

[Ahanu]

But still the idea of a primordial, undifferentiated matter?

Don't know. I was focused on "itself 'nothing' until it receives its form," so I recalled Shaykh Ahmad's overturning of that idea in his philosophy.

 

[Ahanu]

Almighty God is Eternal .. so NOT created. Creation implies a beginning.

So you're saying the Creator at one time didn't have a creation? This would be inconceivable in my understanding of Baha'i theology. Creation is always an ongoing process.

The divine Will, although originated, is not originated in time and has always been the cause of creation.

"There should be no doubt that, before this Adam, there have been infinite worlds and endless Adams in God's creation, to a degree that none besides God can, or ever will, reckon."
-The Bab

"Know that it is one of the most abstruse questions of divinity that the world of existence—that is, this endless universe—has no beginning.

We have already explained that the very names and attributes of Divinity require the existence of created things. Although a detailed explanation of this matter was already provided,a brief mention will again be made here. Know that a lord without vassals cannot be imagined; a sovereign without subjects cannot exist; a teacher without pupils cannot be designated; a creator without a creation is impossible; a provider without those provided for is inconceivable—since all the divine names and attributes call for the existence of created things. If we were to imagine a time when created things did not exist, it would be tantamount to denying the divinity of God."
-Abdu'l-Baha

I believe that souls are FROM G-d, OF G-d, and also eternal.

Well, some believe souls are annihilated, disintegrating with the body it is housed in or indwells.

 

[Ahanu]

Do you personally believe you have an individual soul, or that after death your spirit dissolves back into the all pervading One?

Yes, I believe I have a soul.

No, my spirit does not "dissolve" back into the all-pervading One, if by all-pervading One you are referring to the Divine Essence. As Baha'i scholar Nader Saiedi explains, "the arc of ascent . . . terminates not in union with the Essence of God, but in union with the Will of God. Because there can be no direct tie between the transcendent being of God and His contingent creation, the connection between the two takes place through the divine or Primal Will, which, in turn, is the cause of all creation."

 

[muhammad_isa]

So you're saying the Creator at one time didn't have a creation?

No .. I'm just saying that being Eternal implies G-d was not created.

Well, some believe souls are annihilated, disintegrating with the body it is housed in or indwells.

Yes, some do .. and people also believe that souls are created from nought, too.

i.e we are born, and we die .. and there is "no need" of a soul (except for those in heaven)

 

[Ahanu]

i.e we are born, and we die .. and there is "no need" of a soul (except for those in heaven)

Okay. I'm not sure what you mean by "there is 'no need' of a soul (except for those in heaven)" here.

 

[Ahanu]

OK ... Clearly, I can't respond to this without referencing doctrine.

"The modality of the union of the soul and the body is a question that is found at the heart of all Christian Scholasticism, whereas Muslim Scholasticism seems to have been little concerned with this problem."[/B]
Just a note here – the doctrines regarding the union of body and soul are founded on Scripture.

Okay.

How is the union of soul and body to be of substance founded on scripture? Or is that a later development?

"During almost one thousand years, from Pseudo-Denis the Areopagite until Bonaventure, Neoplatonism was the philosophical language of the expression of Christianity, until Thomas Aquinas replaced it with Aristotelianism which in his eyes had the advantage of being able to explain trans-substantiation."
Three errors here:
1: Neoplatonism continued as an informative current in Christian theology;
2: Thomas did not replace Plato with Aristotle, he drew the best from both, correcting them in the light of Christian Revelation – as well as Aristotle, Thomas referenced Augustine and PseudoDionysius, both of whom were to a degree Neoplatonist, as was Thomas himself.
3: Thomas did not adopt Aristotle as a means of explaining trans-substantiation – that meaning had been in the Church from the very beginning. The Greeks use the term metousiosis (μετουσίωσις) which means change of ousia, change of 'essence' or 'substance', as long as both those terms are understood in their theological context.

Okay.

 

[Ahanu]

"We have seen that the Fathers of the Church considered this union to be of two substances, the one material and the other spiritual."
Yes. See Genesis 2:7.

But the verse doesn't explicitly state a substantial union. There's the rub.

 

[RJM]

We have already explained that the very names and attributes of Divinity require the existence of created things. Although a detailed explanation of this matter was already provided,a brief mention will again be made here. Know that a lord without vassals cannot be imagined; a sovereign without subjects cannot exist; a teacher without pupils cannot be designated; a creator without a creation is impossible; a provider without those provided for is inconceivable—since all the divine names and attributes call for the existence of created things. If we were to imagine a time when created things did not exist, it would be tantamount to denying the divinity of God."
-Abdu'l-Baha

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody sees it -- does the tree fall?

Like quantum wave function collapse: the observation causes the event to happen?

No matter how bright the light, there is always a brighter?

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody sees it -- does the tree fall?

I always thought the question was If a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it -- does it make a sound?

I would have always said yes, but now consider no, as sound is interpretation of sound waves. There would be no sound, unless there was that interpretation of the vibrating waves.

Regards Tony