Theophanological Conflicts

The concept of the Manifestation of God is especially relevant today in relation to the conflicting views held by religious believers about the Founders of their own particular Faith. Despite the enormous energy devoted to theological pursuits--or perhaps because of it--there are today profound differences among Muslims as to the precise station of Muhammad, among Christians as to that of Jesus, and among Buddhists with respect to the Founder of their own religion. Many of the world's religions have also sparred with one another over the relative station of the Founders of their own religion. Believers tend to believe that their own religion is better than others'. For this reason, Bahá'u'lláh's detailed explanations about the station of successive prophets are particularly interesting.

Every one of these Manifestations of God, Bahá'u'lláh says, has two stations: ``the station of pure abstraction and essential unity,'' and ``the station of distinction.''[13] In the latter station, they are distinct servants of God. In the former station, they are all identically the Manifestation of God, equal in station. In the Kitáb-i-Íqán, Bahá'u'lláh writes:

Were any of the all-embracing Manifestations of God to declare; ``I am God,'' He, verily speaketh the truth, and no doubt attacheth thereto. For it hath been repeatedly demonstrated that through their Revelation, their attributes and names, the Revelation of God, His names and His attributes, are made manifest in the world And were they all to proclaim, ``I am the Seal of the Prophets,'' they, verily, utter but the truth, beyond the faintest shadow of doubt. For they are all but one person, one soul, one spirit, one being, one revelation. They are all the manifestation of the ``Beginning'' and the ``End,'' the ``First'' and the ``Last,'' the ``Seen'' and the ``Hidden''--all of which pertain to Him Who is the Innermost Spirit of Spirits and Eternal Essence of Essences. And were they to say, ``We are the Servants of God,'' this also is a manifest and indisputable fact. For they have been made manifest in the uttermost state of servitude, a servitude the like of which no man can possibly attain.[14]

Hence, most Bahá'ís can quite happily accept Jesus Christ as ``the only begotten Son of God,'' Muhammad as ``the Seal of the Prophets'' (Khatam an-nabiyyin) and Krishna as ``Supreme Spirit'' (Purushottama) at one and the same time.[15] Bahá'ís do not see this view as inconsistent or contradictory because all these names and attributes are equally applicable to every Manifestation of God in ``the station of pure abstraction and essential unity.'' From this point of view of ``pure abstraction,'' Jesus, Krishna and Muhammad are all identically the same divine Being. All differences between them are attributable to their ``station of distinction.'' Unfortunately, this point never seems to have been understood by most people. For example, while there is some overlap between the Hindu concept of Avatara and the Buddhist idea of Buddhahood, in general Buddhists do not accept Jesus or Muhammad as a Buddha. Similarly, Jews, Christians and Muslims do not accept the Buddha as a Prophet. Historically, a Christian who regarded Buddha and Jesus as equals ran the risk of being accused as heretic! From the Bahá'í and Gandhian points of view, such parochial religious exclusivism is unnecessary and runs against the true spirit of religion. Bahá'ís believe that the Manifestations of God are like different teachers in a school. All teachers have the same rank and station, but the level of the student changes with time. Thus, according to Bahá'í thinking, there is no fundamental difference between Moses, Zoroaster, Jesus or the Buddha when they are viewed in their ``station of pure abstraction and essential unity.'' Their teachings differ only on account of the different requirements of the specific periods and places in which they lived. This explanation clarifies a number of issues relating to the founders of past religions.

Another example of the unifying power of concept of the Manifestation of God concerns beliefs about God. Whereas Judaism, Christianity and Islam are monotheistic faiths, Buddha preached a religion in which there is little or no mention of a Divine Being. Hence Buddhism has been regarded by many as an atheistic religion. How can monotheism be reconciled with atheism? Indeed, it cannot. It is fascinating to note, in this connection, what Gandhi and `Abdu'l-Bahá had to say about the Buddha and belief in God. (Perhaps the reader can already infer that if ``God is Truth,'' then disbelief in God must be inconsistent and irrational, since even atheists and Buddhists believe in truth.) `Abdu'l-Bahá said,

Buddha established a new religion   The beliefs and rites of the Buddhists have not continued in accordance with their fundamental teachings. The founder of Buddhism was a wonderful soul. He established the Oneness of God, but later the original principles of His doctrines gradually disappeared, and ignorant customs and ceremonials arose and increased until they finally ended in the worship of statues and images.[16]

Gandhi held a similar view. In a speech delivered by Gandhi at Vidyodaya College, Colombo, in reply to an address presented to him by the All Ceylon Congress of Buddhist Associations, he said,

I know that I speak in the presence of very learned priests and equally learned laymen, but I should be false to you and false to myself if I did not declare what my heart believes   I have heard it contended times without number and I have read in books also claiming to express the spirit of Buddhism that Buddha did not believe in God. In my humble opinion such a belief contradicts the very central fact of Buddha's teaching. In my humble opinion the confusion has arisen over his rejection and just rejection of all the base things that passed in his generation under the name of God. He undoubtedly rejected the notion that a being called God was actuated by malice, could repent of his actions, and like the kings of the earth could possibly have favorites. His whole soul rose in mighty indignation against the belief that a being called God required for his satisfaction the living blood of animals in order that he might be pleased, animals who were his own creation. He, therefore, reinstated God in the right place and dethroned the usurper who for the time being seemed to occupy that White Throne. He emphasized and redeclared the eternal and unalterable existence of the moral government of this universe   And hence the great confusion that Buddha disbelieved in God and simply believed in the moral law, and because of this confusion about God Himself, arose the confusion about the proper understanding of the great word nirvana. Nirvana is undoubtedly not utter extinction. So far as I have been able to understand the central fact of Buddha's life, nirvana is utter extinction of all that is base in us, all that is vicious in us, all that is corrupt and corruptible in us. Nirvana is not like the black, dead peace of the grave, but the living peace, the living happiness of a soul which is conscious of itself, and conscious of having found its own abode in the heart of the Eternal.[17]

It may interest the reader to know that most Bahá'ís would probably side with Gandhi as to the interpretation of Nirvana: the ``death of self''[18] refers not to the extinction of self-reflective human consciousness, but rather to the complete and utter submission to the will of the Manifestation of God. Ego--not the ``soul''--is extinguished. Indeed, in such a state, the seekers will see nothing in themselves, but see God in everything.

  Contents

Back to Published books Baha'i Academics Resource Library ][ Sacred Writings ][ Search
Primary sources ][ Secondary sources ][ Resources and etc.
Bulletin board ][ Links ][ Personal pages ][ Other sites hosted by the Library