Paragraph 197

In this day the breeze of God is wafted, and His Spirit hath pervaded all things. Such is the outpouring of His grace that the pen is stilled and the tongue is speechless.

We are at paragraph seven of twenty-two looking at those two stations that the Manifestations of God occupy. But it' a short paragraph, and that means that there is probably quite a bit to say about it, so let's look at the context of it.

He began part two by talking about the nature and station of the Manifestations in creation. He then talked about some of the qualities they exhibit, such as sovereignty. He's now explaining why so many of us are confused about their Return, showing their dual nature. On the one hand there is their absolute unity in the spiritual realm, and on the other is their station of distinction based on where and when they were born.

In addition to all of this, He has also just shown how the various statements they make about their reality are all true, even though they appear to be contradictory.

Here, in this paragraph, He has moved from looking at the past to commenting about the present day.

The "breeze of God" obviously "wafted" at the time of Jesus, and during the time of Muhammad. Today, he says, it is wafting again. While He is obviously referring to the Bab, He is also likely referring to himself. After all, even though He has not yet declared His Mission, He is obviously pouring out His wisdom to humanity. In just a short time He has given us The Hidden Words, The Seven Valleys, The Four Valleys, Gems of Divine Mysteries, The Book of Certitude, plus so much more. All of this within the space of a couple of years.

Within a few short paragraphs He will begin to give us the example of a "famous divine" whose pen was not stilled, and was in fact used to attack the Bab. This will be the negative example used to contrast the more positive examples of sincere seekers He has already mentioned.

So why is He pausing here to mention the stillness of the pen and the silence of the tongue? What possible reason could He have? And what can we learn from it?

In the previous paragraph, He spoke of the Manifestations, concluding, "...they have regarded themselves as utter nothingness, and deemed their mention in that Court an act of blasphemy... In the eyes of them that have attained unto that Court, such a suggestion is itself a grievous transgression."

It is not them who speak. It is not the Manifestations who write. Their pen is moved by the Hand of God Himself. Their speech is dictated by the Tongue of God. In the face of that reality, they have nothing to say, there is nothing that they can write.

And what does it mean that the "breeze of God is wafted"? To waft means to pass easily and gently through the air. So He seems to be saying that the great teachings, the incredible spirit of this day is there, in everything. But it is not a forceful imposition. It is gentle, yet pervading.

Over and over throughout this book, He is sharing with the uncle of the Bab these incredible insights in a gentle manner. He doesn't blow the uncle away with the force of His argument, like a hurricane blowing over the land. He is gentle, allowing the uncle to embrace these ideas. They filter through everything He says, permeating His argument at every level. Even in the most minute details we find the evidences of the unity He is trying to convey. And at every step He strives to uplift our vision, never tearing down an idea or belittling our understanding of the Manifestations of the past. He is always raising our vision, conveying the oneness of all things, and constantly moving us forward along this spiritual path.

We, too, can do the same thing in our teaching work.

If we recall the manner in which He spoke of Noah way back in paragraph 7, He mentioned "there remained with Him only forty or seventy-two of His followers". And then in paragraph 9, when talking about Hud, He said that Hud taught the people for "seven hundred years, according to the sayings of men". In both instances He did not criticize anyone's belief, as these details were not important. He was so gentle and certain to not offend.

His overarching message of peace and unity, like the gentle breeze, pervades everything He does. It has truly wafted within His writings, and pervades all His works.

Paragraph 196

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 name and His attributes, are made manifest in the world. Thus, He hath revealed: “Those shafts were God’s, not Thine!” And also He saith: “In truth, they who plighted fealty unto thee, really plighted that fealty unto God.” And were any of them to voice the utterance: “I am the Messenger of God,” He also speaketh the truth, the indubitable truth. Even as He saith: “Muḥammad is not the father of any man among you, but He is the Messenger of God.” Viewed in this light, they are all but Messengers of that ideal King, that unchangeable Essence. 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 “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. Thus in moments in which these Essences of being were deeply immersed beneath the oceans of ancient and everlasting holiness, or when they soared to the loftiest summits of divine mysteries, they claimed their utterance to be the Voice of divinity, the Call of God Himself. Were the eye of discernment to be opened, it would recognize that in this very state, they have considered themselves utterly effaced and nonexistent in the face of Him Who is the All-Pervading, the Incorruptible. Methinks they have regarded themselves as utter nothingness, and deemed their mention in that Court an act of blasphemy. For the slightest whispering of self, within such a Court, is an evidence of self-assertion and independent existence. In the eyes of them that have attained unto that Court, such a suggestion is itself a grievous transgression. How much more grievous would it be, were aught else to be mentioned in that Presence, were man’s heart, his tongue, his mind, or his soul, to be busied with anyone but the Well-Beloved, were his eyes to behold any countenance other than His beauty, were his ear to be inclined to any melody but His voice, and were his feet to tread any way but His way.

We are at paragraph six of twenty-two looking at the two stations the Manifestations of God occupy. Of course, there are many ways to look at this book, and even this little section of it. We have just chosen to see it as twenty-two paragraphs here for our own convenience. Nothing more. It helps us get a better understanding of how Baha'u'llah is approaching His teaching of the uncle of the Bab.

While at first this paragraph may seem a bit overwhelming due to its length, we find that it is very simple in its outline. It moves from one statement by the Manifestations to the next, from the broadest statement to the most concise, each one receiving a few lines describing it. Those four statements are:

• “I am God!”
• “I am the Messenger of God”
• "I am the Seal of the Prophets”
• “We are the servants of God”

It goes from the highest statement of "I am God Himself" to "I am the Messenger of that great King of Creation" to "I am the last of those Messengers", as that phrase is commonly understood, to "I am but a servant".

Imaging if someone were to say the following:

• I am the King
• I am the messenger of the King
• I am the last in my dynasty
• I am the King's servant

Anyone who would make all of those statements would be seen as either crazy or lying. So how are we to understand this? How can we make any sense of the Manifestations being able to make all those statements truthfully? It is no wonder that people are confused about all of this.

In many ways, it's more appropriate to see how one individual could be referred to in a number of different ways. For example, as a parent they might say "I am your father." As a manager at work, they might say, "I am your boss." To the owner of the company, they might say, "I work for you." We all fulfill many different roles in our life, and every statement will be exactly true in its circumstance. Those last two may seem contradictory, but in reality they are not.

After he has briefly expounded on each of these four statements, He then mentions the circumstances in which these statements are made. Beginning with the phrase, "Thus in moments in which these Essences of being were deeply immersed", He talks about how they all stated that their words were not from themselves, but from God. Over and over, in all the different religions, we see this concept. We may think of it as a form of humility, but it is a humility the likes of which we have never seen. He says that "they have regarded themselves as utter nothingness" and even think of "their mention in that Court an act of blasphemy". They are so effaced before God that "the slightest whispering of self" is abhorrent to them.

Can we even begin to imagine such humility?

And yet, is it not related to the detachment that we are asked to show at the very beginning of this book? Did He not say that those who want to walk on this path of faith must "cleanse themselves of all that is earthly—their ears from idle talk, their minds from vain imaginings, their hearts from worldly affections, their eyes from that which perisheth"? To pay attention to anything other than God, while walking this path, will lead us to nothing but error. After all, "were man’s heart, his tongue, his mind, or his soul, to be busied with anyone but the Well-Beloved, were his eyes to behold any countenance other than His beauty, were his ear to be inclined to any melody but His voice, and were his feet to tread any way but His way", where else could that lead?

Again, it is not that we are to ignore the world around us, but that we should not "busy" ourselves with it. In another passage He says that we need to be "anxiously concerned with the needs of the age ye live in", so we do need to be aware. But our heart should be focused on God. We should focus our conversation on God. We should constantly be thinking about God. Our soul should be centred on God. Even when we look at another person, we should be sure to see that spark of the divine within them, hear the divine truths in what they say, no matter how obscured it may be. But most of all, we should be certain to continually walk in His way and be steadfast in the Faith of God.

Paragraph 195

From these incontrovertible and fully demonstrated statements strive thou to apprehend the meaning of the questions thou hast asked, that thou mayest become steadfast in the Faith of God, and not be dismayed by the divergences in the utterances of His Prophets and Chosen Ones.

Paragraph five of twenty-two looking at the two stations the Manifestations of God occupy.

To start, "incontrovertible" is an interesting word here. Essentially, it means that it cannot be denied. To argue against them is to deny the very Word of God that you profess to believe in, if you are a Muslim.

But which statements is He referring to? The few passages He just quoted? Or all that He has said up to this point in the book?

But which statements is He referring to?

Most likely it is the two He just cited, but, of course, we are not authorities. We don't really know.

Let's suppose it is, though. Let's say that He is referring to "I am the servant of God", and "I am but a man like you." These two statements sum up in the most succinct way the two stations He has been talking about here. The first refers to that station of absolute unity shared by all the Manifestations, their unique spiritual station that differentiates them from the rest of humanity. The second refers to the station they occupy as seemingly ordinary people walking around like anyone else.

These two statements, each encapsulating one of the two stations they all occupy, casts a new light on those very questions that led to the revelation of this book. He doesn't just tie it back to those questions, though. He asks the uncle to "strive" to see how those statements actually change the very premise of those questions.

By using the word "strive", He is implying that it not going to be easy. It will take work and, probably, a lot of effort. But it will result in a greater understanding of one's own faith.

To better understand what He means, we need to look back at the questions the uncle asked and see what they imply. These questions, though, were not simple yes / no questions. They were full paragraphs explaining a concept he had trouble understanding. For simplicity's sake, they have been placed under certain headings, each one dealing with a particular theme.

When we look at the first question, it was all about the Resurrection. The uncle was questioning the concept of a corporeal resurrection, which he fully accepted. He was wondering, though, how the just would be rewarded and the unjust punished if there was no physical afterlife. The whole concept of this confused him.

Baha'u'llah has just spent many paragraphs explaining a very different understanding of the Resurrection, one in which the question itself is no longer all that relevant. By seeing the Resurrection as a spiritual renewal, and a resurrection of all the surrounding circumstances, from the Manifestation to the followers to the enemies, the reward and punishment are far more self-evident. The greatest reward would be to come face to face with the divine Messenger in His lifetime, fully recognizing who it is you are meeting. The greatest punishment would be not only missing Him, but actively attacking Him and His followers.

Remember how we just read that the people would be recognized by their own countenance? Those that are angered by the new message look as if they are already going through hell. What punishment could be greater than that? They will never find satisfaction.

The question the uncle has asked, however, presupposes that the rewards and punishments are material, completely denying the spiritual nature of reality. That is very dangerous ground on which to tread.

In addition to this, though, it also relies on the "words and deeds of mortal men as a standard for the true understanding and recognition of God and His Prophets", for this interpretation is the one that is commonly accepted, flawed though it is.

By looking at these two stations, in light of the spiritual understanding of the Resurrection, we begin to see the whole question in a new way. We recognize that there must be a spiritual world in which the question of justice is answered, or else we must admit the sheer folly of both the Manifestations as well as their followers for having suffered as they did. And we must also either recognize that the paradigms in each Revelation, such as the Manifestations, their followers, and their enemies, are a spiritual reality, or that many statements in the Qur'an are outright false.

The implication of denying this understanding is that we must deny the very foundation of our Faith, too. Therefore, the question itself has now become a question of denying one's own religion.

Another question that he had was how the literal meaning of the various prophecies and texts could be reconciled with the spiritual interpretations the Bab offered. These interpretations seemed to contradict the established and commonly accepted religious doctrines.

The implication of this is that he is, again, accepting these religious doctrines as authoritative. He is taking the "words and deeds of mortal men as a standard for the true understanding and recognition of God and His Prophets". In other words, he is making the same mistake that so many in the past have made.

Throughout these questions, the uncle is continually asking why certain events that were predicted to occur with the appearance of the Promised One had not yet transpired. He asks, over and over, why certain signs that were expected to have a literal fulfillment never happened.

This means, to go back to the word Baha'u'llah used, that if he were only to accept the literal fulfillment of these prophecies, then he should not accept Muhammad as a Manifestation of God. Going back to the explanation in Part One of the prophecy from Jesus cited in Matthew, we see again and again the countless layers of meanings hidden within the sacred Word, and how they referred to Muhammad, as well as all the other Manifestations, but usually in a spiritual way.

The whole concept of "Why didn't the Bab show the sovereignty that is supposed to be shown by the Promised One" has been turned on its head. It was, from the very beginning, the wrong question to ask. The true question that should have been asked was "How did the Bab show this sovereignty".

It may be for this reason, that unintended insult implied by a poorly phrased question, that the Bab told His followers not to ask questions of "He Whom God shall make Manifest". It was only by the grace of God that the uncle was saved from breaking this command by the request of Baha'u'llah, Himself, to put his questions in writing. Later, of course, this command was rescinded by Baha'u'llah, and the followers were free to ask whatever they wished, while still counseled to use wisdom.