This is a story recounted by H.M. Balyuzi in his book "'Abdu'l-Baha". Please tell me what it means:
" At home her little daughter had asked her what she would do should the Lord Jesus return to the world. She would rush to seek Him, she had said, only to be told [by her child] that "Lord Jesus was here!" [the girl's finger was on France on a globe they had in their living room]. How did she know, the mother had inquired. The child reported that the Lord Jesus had told her Himself. Some days later the mother was reproached for not doing what she had said she would do [i.e. travel to France to see Him]. Twice the Lord Jesus had told her that He was here, the little girl insisted. But she did not know where to look, the mother told her child. That afternoon, on a walk, the little girl suddenly stopped and, excited and ecstatic, pointed to a kiosk where magazines were displayed. Prominent there was the photograph of 'Abdu'l-Bahá. "There, there!" the child shouted, was the Lord Jesus. The magazine which contained the photograph of 'Abdu'l-Bahá [a French magazine] led the way to Paris, and the American lady, taking the first available boat to cross the Atlantic, sailed that very night." (Balyuzi, 'Abdu'l-Bahá, p.109)
Does anyone know what this story means?
Re: Does anyone know what this story means?
Hello Robert and all,
While this is not an authoritative text, I think it does suggest that the girl had been inspired to recognize that the Faith of Jesus was most perfectly animated at that time by 'Abdu'l-Baha. It does not, however, mean that 'Abdu'l-Baha was of the same station as Jesus since He Himself disclaimed being such:
Shoghi Effendi also goes to great pains to draw attention to the Writings of Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha which make clear 'Abdu'l-Baha did not possess or claim the station of Christ, as some of His followers attributed to Him--in part due to poor translations--or as accusations made by His enemies. See http://www.bahai-library.com/writings/s ... ob/39.html starting at the paragraph numbered 70.
The potential for the Writings to refer to those with different stations as being in a sense identical is well summarized in this letter:
best wishes,
Brett
While this is not an authoritative text, I think it does suggest that the girl had been inspired to recognize that the Faith of Jesus was most perfectly animated at that time by 'Abdu'l-Baha. It does not, however, mean that 'Abdu'l-Baha was of the same station as Jesus since He Himself disclaimed being such:
'Abdu'l-Bahá is himself a servant at the Threshold of the Blessed Beauty and a manifestation of pure and utter servitude at the Threshold of the Almighty. He hath no other station or title, no other rank or power. This is my ultimate Purpose, my eternal Paradise, my holiest Temple and my Sadratu'l-Muntaha. With the Abha Blessed Beauty and the Exalted One, His Herald-- may my life be a sacrifice for Them both--hath ended the appearance of God's independent and universal Manifestation. And for a thousand years all shall be illumined by His lights and be sustained by the ocean of His favours.
(Selections from the Writings of 'Abdu'l-Baha, section 225, at http://bahai-library.com/writings/abdul ... b/225.html )
Shoghi Effendi also goes to great pains to draw attention to the Writings of Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha which make clear 'Abdu'l-Baha did not possess or claim the station of Christ, as some of His followers attributed to Him--in part due to poor translations--or as accusations made by His enemies. See http://www.bahai-library.com/writings/s ... ob/39.html starting at the paragraph numbered 70.
The potential for the Writings to refer to those with different stations as being in a sense identical is well summarized in this letter:
"The names of those cited in Bahá'u'lláh's prayer in the Dispensation are quite correct as you have them.
"The Prophets 'regarded as One and the same person' include the Lesser Prophets as well, and not merely Those Who bring a 'Book'. The station is different, but they are Prophets and Their nature thus different from that of ours.
"In the prayer mentioned above Bahá'u'lláh identifies Himself with Imam Husayn. This does not make him a Prophet, but his position was very unique, and we know Bahá'u'lláh claims to be the 'return' of the Imam Husayn. He, in other words, identifies His Spirit with these Holy Souls gone before; that does not, of course, make Him in any way their reincarnation. Nor does it mean all of them were Prophets.
(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, February 8, 1949 at http://bahai-library.com/?file=hornby_l ... er=4#n1673 )
best wishes,
Brett
Re: Does anyone know what this story means?
Brett,
That is not what the story is saying, that 'Abdu'l-Baha was perfectly expressing the "Faith" of Jesus. The story was identifying 'Abdu'l-Baha "as" Jesus.
The Bab wrote that Mollah Husayn Bushuri was the "return" of the Prophet Muhammad. Yet, Mollah Husayn was not a prophet, lesser or otherwise, and did not write any book of laws. In what "way" was he the "return of Muhammad?
Nabil, in "The Dawnbreakers", identifies Quddus as the "return" of the Imaam Mehdi. But, also, he identifies The Bab as "the return" of the Imaam Mehdi. How is this possible?
Jesus Christ was composed of two different Beings:
The Christ/Father ("The Father is in me, and I am in the Father" "The Father and I are one") This was Jesus' RUH (Spirit)
The Word/Son ("The Father is greater than I") This was Jesus' NAFS (Soul-individuality)
Baha'u'llah is the "return" of the Father (RUH of Jesus)
'Abdu'l-Baha is the "return" of the Son (NAFS of Jesus)
The Bab was the "return" of the RUH of Muhammad
Mollah Husayn Bushrui was the "return" of the NAFS of Muhammad.
The Bab was the "return" of the RUH of the Imaam Mehdi.
Quddus was the "return" of the NAFS of the Imaam Mehdi.
This is perfect Shaykhi doctrine.
That is way this story in Bayuzi's book which has the little girl identifying 'Abdu'l-Baha was Jesus is true. By "Christ" is meant not Jesus, but the Spirit (RUH) that dwelt in Jesus, and this is why Jesus said, "The Father is in me".
That is not what the story is saying, that 'Abdu'l-Baha was perfectly expressing the "Faith" of Jesus. The story was identifying 'Abdu'l-Baha "as" Jesus.
The Bab wrote that Mollah Husayn Bushuri was the "return" of the Prophet Muhammad. Yet, Mollah Husayn was not a prophet, lesser or otherwise, and did not write any book of laws. In what "way" was he the "return of Muhammad?
Nabil, in "The Dawnbreakers", identifies Quddus as the "return" of the Imaam Mehdi. But, also, he identifies The Bab as "the return" of the Imaam Mehdi. How is this possible?
Jesus Christ was composed of two different Beings:
The Christ/Father ("The Father is in me, and I am in the Father" "The Father and I are one") This was Jesus' RUH (Spirit)
The Word/Son ("The Father is greater than I") This was Jesus' NAFS (Soul-individuality)
Baha'u'llah is the "return" of the Father (RUH of Jesus)
'Abdu'l-Baha is the "return" of the Son (NAFS of Jesus)
The Bab was the "return" of the RUH of Muhammad
Mollah Husayn Bushrui was the "return" of the NAFS of Muhammad.
The Bab was the "return" of the RUH of the Imaam Mehdi.
Quddus was the "return" of the NAFS of the Imaam Mehdi.
This is perfect Shaykhi doctrine.
That is way this story in Bayuzi's book which has the little girl identifying 'Abdu'l-Baha was Jesus is true. By "Christ" is meant not Jesus, but the Spirit (RUH) that dwelt in Jesus, and this is why Jesus said, "The Father is in me".
Re: Does anyone know what this story means?
Robert,
We need to establish our proofs with authoritative Writings. The story you provided is not authoritative, and even if it were completely accurate, it does not mean that the girl's dream meant that He was literally Jesus returned, so what I said was speculation on what a Baha'i perspective might be on such a story given other Writings we know about--as yours is speculation without authoritative support.
If you have quotations which can support 'Abdu'l-Baha being considered as the Son--despite the fact that He made statements such as the following and others similar such as I supplied or linked to earlier in my last post, we'd be interested to hear them:
and even more directly in making mention of the term "The Son" specifically:
Maybe you will say that this is referring to titles and not the personality (if that is what you mean by "soul individuality"), but the idea that His personality returned would, I think, be contradicted by quotations such as the following:
You have a rather familiar writing style by the way. Have you been around here before by any chance?
I think the quote I supplied earlier on behalf of Shoghi Effendi was quite clear about how either of these could be true.
In case the topic may get heated let's both consider this quotation of 'Abdu'l-Baha:
I think it would be most helpful and in the spirit of the Teachings if we do not assert the other person is wrong or that our interpretation is right; we can put forth quotations and rationales, but it is always possible we may be mistaken.
best wishes,
Brett
We need to establish our proofs with authoritative Writings. The story you provided is not authoritative, and even if it were completely accurate, it does not mean that the girl's dream meant that He was literally Jesus returned, so what I said was speculation on what a Baha'i perspective might be on such a story given other Writings we know about--as yours is speculation without authoritative support.
If you have quotations which can support 'Abdu'l-Baha being considered as the Son--despite the fact that He made statements such as the following and others similar such as I supplied or linked to earlier in my last post, we'd be interested to hear them:
`Abdu'l-Bahá repeatedly said, `Although I say always that I am `Abdu'l-Bahá, a servant of God, still people refer to me as a messenger and a prophet. It would be better if they would not attribute such titles to me.'
(Mahmud's Diary, May 13, 1912)
and even more directly in making mention of the term "The Son" specifically:
...that He is not to be acclaimed as the return of Jesus Christ, the Son Who will come "in the glory of the Father"--these truths find added justification, and are further reinforced, by the following statement of `Abdu'l-Bahá, addressed to some believers in America, with which I may well conclude this section: "You have written that there is a difference among the believers concerning the `Second Coming of Christ.' Gracious God! Time and again this question hath arisen, and its answer hath emanated in a clear and irrefutable statement from the pen of `Abdu'l-Bahá, that what is meant in the prophecies by the `Lord of Hosts' and the `Promised Christ' is the Blessed Perfection (Bahá'u'lláh) and His holiness the Exalted One (the Báb). My name is `Abdu'l-Bahá. My qualification is `Abdu'l-Bahá. My reality is `Abdu'l-Bahá. My praise is `Abdu'l-Bahá. Thraldom to the Blessed Perfection is my glorious and refulgent diadem, and servitude to all the human race my perpetual religion... No name, no title, no mention, no commendation have I, nor will ever have, except `Abdu'l-Bahá. This is my longing. This is my greatest yearning. This is my eternal life. This is my everlasting glory."
(Shoghi Effendi, World Order of Baha'u'llah, at http://www.bahai-library.com/writings/s ... graph%2023 )
Maybe you will say that this is referring to titles and not the personality (if that is what you mean by "soul individuality"), but the idea that His personality returned would, I think, be contradicted by quotations such as the following:
Then if John was Elias, why did he say, "I am not"? And if he was not Elias, why did Christ say that he was?
The explanation is this: not the personality, but the reality of the perfections, is meant--that is to say, the same perfections that were in Elias existed in John the Baptist and were exactly realized in him.
(Some Answered Questions, p. 133 at http://bahai-library.com/writings/abdul ... l.html#133 )
You have a rather familiar writing style by the way. Have you been around here before by any chance?
The Bab wrote that Mollah Husayn Bushuri was the "return" of the Prophet Muhammad. Yet, Mollah Husayn was not a prophet, lesser or otherwise, and did not write any book of laws. In what "way" was he the "return of Muhammad?
Nabil, in "The Dawnbreakers", identifies Quddus as the "return" of the Imaam Mehdi. But, also, he identifies The Bab as "the return" of the Imaam Mehdi. How is this possible?
I think the quote I supplied earlier on behalf of Shoghi Effendi was quite clear about how either of these could be true.
In case the topic may get heated let's both consider this quotation of 'Abdu'l-Baha:
Some called Christ God, some the Word of God, some others the Prophet of God, and through these differences disputes arose so that instead of spirituality there was hatred and amity was replaced by enmity. But Bahá'u'lláh has closed all the doors to such differences by appointing the interpreter of the Book and by establishing the Universal House of Justice -- that is, the People's Parliament. And by commanding an end to interference in people's beliefs and consciences, He has barred the way to these divisions. He has even said that if two persons differ in a matter and that difference ends in discord, then both are wrong and their position unacceptable.
(Mahmud's Diary, October 9, 1912)
I think it would be most helpful and in the spirit of the Teachings if we do not assert the other person is wrong or that our interpretation is right; we can put forth quotations and rationales, but it is always possible we may be mistaken.
best wishes,
Brett