Paragraph 198

By virtue of this station, they have claimed for themselves the Voice of Divinity and the like, whilst by virtue of their station of Messengership, they have declared themselves the Messengers of God. In every instance they have voiced an utterance that would conform to the requirements of the occasion, and have ascribed all these declarations to Themselves, declarations ranging from the realm of divine Revelation to the realm of creation, and from the domain of Divinity even unto the domain of earthly existence. Thus it is that whatsoever be their utterance, whether it pertain to the realm of Divinity, Lordship, Prophethood, Messengership, Guardianship, Apostleship or Servitude, all is true, beyond the shadow of a doubt. Therefore, these sayings which We have quoted in support of Our argument must be attentively considered, that the divergent utterances of the Manifestations of the Unseen and Daysprings of Holiness may cease to agitate the soul and perplex the mind.

We are now at paragraph eight of twenty-two that look at those two stations that the Manifestations of God occupy.

There are many things in this paragraph that we could focus on, but we haven't looked at the development of a path of words for a while, so let's check it out here.

Why does Baha'u'llah list these words in order: "Divinity, Lordship, Prophethood, Messengership, Guardianship, Apostleship or Servitude"? Of course, we don't really know, but we just presume there is a reason.

As we read over this list it feels to us like a decrescendo, which is unusual in the Writings. Almost everywhere else, Baha'u'llah builds up in a crescendo. So seeing this begin with Divinity and end with Servitude has made us sit up and pay attention.

Why would it be a decrescendo? Perhaps because this whole section is about that movement from God down to and through the Manifestations to us. The order of these words highlights that fact.

It begins with the vast scope of Divinity, that overarching... everything. That all-encompassing reality that is the Divine.

From there it moves down to the Lordship, which feels like the One that is overseeing the rule of creation, as if on behalf of that Divine Essence.

We move to Prophethood, which can, in a sense, be seen as that advisor to the Lord, informing Him of what is coming.

Messengership is that turning point in the list, that central pivot where we move from looking upwards and perhaps inwards, to looking down towards the rest of creation. It is that station of taking the message from above and conveying to those below.

With the station of Guardianship, we have to keep in mind that this is not referring to the Guardian, but rather to that station of Guarding. The question, of course, is what is being guarded? We feel it is the integrity of the Message. In other words, we have the Messenger giving that divine message, and then we have the one protecting it from corruption.

The Apostles then take that pure and intact divine message and bring it to the masses.

These people who receive that message are the ones who should live in servitude to it, ensuring that it is spread to all regions, intact. They are the ones who carry out its provisions and transform the world into a new creation.

In addition to all of this, the very last sentence has also caught our attention. He has said, "these sayings which We have quoted in support of Our argument must be attentively considered...", but which sayings is He referring to? The ones He quoted in paragraph 196 in regards to the different roles that the Manifestation fulfills. They are the ones in which They say:

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

The differences in these statements have been a source of great confusion for so many. They have also been the cause of many people turning away from the Faith. After all, it is a very different thing to hear them say that they are a "servant of God", as opposed to "I am God". But Baha'u'llah has taken the time to draw our attention to this matter, explaining how they are all true in their own way.

Why does He do this? So "that the divergent utterances of the Manifestations of the Unseen and Daysprings of Holiness may cease to agitate the soul and perplex the mind." But He knows that this is not an easy thing to grasp. That is why He says "these sayings... must be attentively considered..." It will take work, but it is worth it in the end.

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.

Paragraph 194

Viewed in the light of their second station—the station of distinction, differentiation, temporal limitations, characteristics and standards—they manifest absolute servitude, utter destitution and complete self-effacement. Even as He saith: “I am the servant of God. I am but a man like you.”

We are now at the fourth paragraph of twenty-two describing the two stations that the Manifestations occupy. Here Baha'u'llah has really begun describing that second station. He has already cautioned us that we can become "perplexed and dismayed" if we focus too closely on this station without keeping firmly in mind the first station, that of absolute unity.

Here He has outlined five aspects of this second station for our consideration, namely those of "distinction, differentiation, temporal limitations, characteristics and standards". What exactly are those? How are we to understand them, especially in light of that first station?

Let's take a look at them one at a time, and see what we can discover.

First, there is "distinction". This word has a number of definitions. It can mean "a difference or contrast between similar things", such as in the phrase "a distinct advantage". It can also mean something that stands out from the rest, as in "a man of distinction".

As we saw in Part 1, in those early paragraphs where He talks about the earlier Manifestations, they all stood out from the people of their day. They were, one and all, people of distinction.

But there is also the contrast between them. While they all manifest that absolute servitude, the personality of Jesus as described in the Gospels is quite different from that of Moses or Muhammad as described in the Tanakh or the Qur'an. So we can see that if we expect them all to have the same personality, we might be either disappointed or confused.

Second, there is "differentiation". This is usually defined as "the act of showing or finding difference between things that are compared". But it can also be defined as "the development from the one to the many, the simple to the complex". Again, the Manifestations of that divine Spirit do both.

If we look at that second definition first (yeah, we know it's out of order, but bear with us), and compare it to the different faiths chronologically, we can see that development in action. Moses, in a sense, talked about a family, the descendants of Jacob. Jesus expanded this to city-states, which is why we see so many books of the New Testament named after places. Muhammad broadened His appeal to what we would now refer to as nations. And Baha'u'llah is working towards uniting the whole planet. As time moves on, the circle of unity grows, ever wider, ever more complex.

If we look at that first definition, we see that the Manifestations also show the differences between things, like the spirituality of people. They "differentiate" one thing from another, such as the living and the dead. They separate the "sheep" from the "goats", "truth" from "falsehood", and so forth.

But let's look at another example, namely prayer. For the Jewish people, a pious person would face Jerusalem, the Wailing Wall, when they pray. And the prayers they say would be those prescribed by the priests, or their particular rabbi. For a Muslim, the pious individual would face Mecca, the Kabba, and they would recite the prayers from the Qur'an. From an outside perspective, we can see that what really matters is their state of heart.

If we focus on the material aspect, like where someone faces, then we can get confused when the rules change. Baha’u’llah mentions this back in paragraphs 54 and 55 as one of the examples of the tests that people face when the new religion is founded. As a reminder, “The most acceptable prayer”, says the Bab, “is the one offered with the utmost spirituality and radiance.”

The third aspect is that of "temporal limitations". This means the limitations that were imposed upon them by the times in which they lived.

For example. no earlier Messenger could have talked about the oneness of humanity because we didn't really know all of humanity yet.

We also didn't know how, as a human race, to purify water until just prior to the advent of Muhammad. It was safer to drink alcohol than most sources of water. Once we understood this process, though, Muhammad told us to no longer drink alcohol, presumably because it was now safer to drink the water. The damage done to us from the alcohol no longer outweighed the damage done to us from the water.

Another example is that of dietary restrictions. For desert dwellers, eating pork made no sense. It was too dangerous. For a crowded population living on grassland surrounded by mountains, forbidding beef made sense, for otherwise the population would starve just to be able to feed all the cows.

We often hear people discounting things because, as they say, "It's not mentioned in the Bible." But that is usually just because the idea hadn't taken root yet in the minds of the people, such as various rights, or it just hadn't been invented yet, such as computers or other modern technology. When Jesus famously said, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now", He was pointing out this temporal limitation.

The fourth aspect is that of "characteristics". We often think of these as those traits that distinguish one individual from another, or those attributes and qualities that make up their character. They are how we identify people.

When looking at the various Manifestations, we can get confused by these, expecting the "return" to be the same as what we saw before, but we know this is not the case. For example, Moses was a Hebrew born in Egypt raised in the House of Pharaoh. Jesus was a Hebrew born in Palestine during the Roman occupation, and worked as a carpenter. Muhammad was an Arab born to the Banu Hashim clan of the Quraysh tribe in Mecca, and He was a merchant working with caravans. They each had their own characteristics, and if we expect the new Manifestation to be exactly like the previous one, that can be very confusing for us.

Finally, there are the "standards" by which they lived. This also changed from time to time, and from place to place. But they all demonstrated the amazing ability to show how to follow the laws of the previous Manifestation before changing them. They followed the standard set by the previous Messenger, instead of the standard of the day.

In the time of the Bab it had become a standard practice to learn to recite the Qur'an in Arabic, even if you didn't speak the language. They felt that it somehow connected them more closely to the divine. The Bab, however, recognized the importance of understanding the words and, as a young child, insisted on knowing what the meaning of the words were before reciting them. He later fulfilled the obligation of Pilgrimage by going on the Hajj.

This is quite different from what Jesus did, demonstrating how to truly fulfill the law of Moses.

Each in their own time showed their profound understanding of the importance of obedience to the Law of God, and were held up as an example to others around them.

We find that if we focus on any of these aspects without considering their first station, that of essential unity, then we can think of them as very different from one another. When we see, instead, how they each stood out in their time and helped bring humanity forward, then we can see all these differences as part of the natural order imposed on us all by time and the ever-advancing nature of civilization.

Paragraph 193

It hath ever been evident that all these divergences of utterance are attributable to differences of station. Thus, viewed from the standpoint of their oneness and sublime detachment, the attributes of Godhead, Divinity, Supreme Singleness, and Inmost Essence, have been and are applicable to those Essences of being, inasmuch as they all abide on the throne of divine Revelation, and are established upon the seat of divine Concealment. Through their appearance the Revelation of God is made manifest, and by their countenance the Beauty of God is revealed. Thus it is that the accents of God Himself have been heard uttered by these Manifestations of the divine Being.

As Baha'u'llah has now moved on to describe the second station occupied by the Manifestations of God, we would expect Him to talk about it. But it looks as if He has gone back to the first. It seems perplexing.

What He has actually done, though, is introduce the second station, and then reinforce the first to ensure we don't get confused. Remember, He has just told us that we may ""feel perplexed and dismayed" by focusing too much on that second station.

So, He begins this paragraph by referring to the "divergences of utterance (which) are attributable to differences of station". Which station? Presumably that second station, that of distinction, as described in paragraph 191.

Just in case we are not sure what this would look like, let's look at an example.

Remember way back in the Tanakh when Moses said "an eye for an eye"? And then in the Gospel Jesus changed that to "if a man strikes you on the right cheek, offer him your left"? These sure seem different. One seeks justice, while the other commands forgiveness, of a sort.

How can we reconcile these?

Simple, we think.

Imagine if Moses taught us to turn the other cheek. What would have happened? The Jews would still be in Egypt. Moses' mission, getting the Jews out of Egypt, would never have happened.

Now what about if Jesus taught "an eye for an eye"? What would have happened then? Realistically, the Roman legions would have wiped out the early Christians.

You see, the circumstances were very different, and like a good physician, the prescription needed to change in order to help humanity move forward.

But looking at this can be confusing. It can seem as if Moses and Jesus shared different messages, and so Baha'u'llah immediately reminds us of the absolute unity of the Messengers. He does not want us to "feel perplexed and dismayed at the varying utterances pronounced by Manifestations that are essentially one and the same".

When viewed in this light, we can see that both these teachings, an eye for an eye and turning the other cheek, lead us forward. The first takes us from the vengeance of killing someone for hurting us to a more equitable retribution. The second leads us forward to a more forgiving stance. Two steps on the same path.

He then describes their absolute unity again, in slightly different terms. As usual, there seems to be a path in His description.

Looking at it a bit more closely, we notice that "Godhead" comes from the word "God-hood", meaning divine in nature. It is an apt word to describe the Manifestations of God.

Given that, we can look at the four attributes in the second sentence and pair them up with the four phrases found later in the paragraph, giving us:

1. Godhead - throne of divine Revelation
2. Divinity - seat of divine Concealment
3. Supreme Singleness - Revelation of God is made manifest
4. Inmost Essence - Beauty of God is revealed

The Manifestation, or Godhead, is the one who brings the Revelation to humanity. They allow us to get an idea of divinity, which is supremely concealed from our sight, as said so well back in paragraph 104. "He is and hath ever been veiled in the ancient eternity of His Essence, and will remain in His Reality everlastingly hidden from the sight of men."

This brings us forward to Baha'u'llah's message found throughout His revelation,  that first station of the Manifestations which He has been explaining to us since paragraph 161, namely that station of absolute and essential unity, through which we can now understand the progressive nature of the Revelation of God.

This allows us to better understand the difference between the Manifestations and that inmost Essence of the Divine, which is so far beyond us that we cannot even begin to truly comprehend it, and further appreciate the Beauty of God and what He has accomplished throughout the breadth of religious history.

Paragraph 192

It is because of this difference in their station and mission that the words and utterances flowing from these Wellsprings of divine knowledge appear to diverge and differ. Otherwise, in the eyes of them that are initiated into the mysteries of divine wisdom, all their utterances are in reality but the expressions of one Truth. As most of the people have failed to appreciate those stations to which We have referred, they therefore feel perplexed and dismayed at the varying utterances pronounced by Manifestations that are essentially one and the same.

Wow. Twenty-two paragraphs on this theme, the two stations of the Manifestations, and it's going to be a bit tricky, we feel, to keep this in mind, but we'll do our best.

He begins by talking about "this difference", but which difference is He referring to? The "difference in their station and mission" as described in the previous paragraph, in which each One "fulfills a definite Mission". Because these Missions differ, and the circumstances of the day were different, it can seem as if the message is different, too. And note that He says they "appear to diverge and differ", not that they do. They only appear to.

So what does this mean? Can we think of an example? Fortunately, we don't have to. Baha'u'llah already did, way back in paragraphs 54 and 55. Remember that story of Muhammad when He changed the Point of Adoration from Jerusalem to Mecca? This is a simple example of how He changed where we face when praying. A lot of people were thrown off by this. But, you see, the important thing is the prayer, not the direction. While it may appear to be different, the law of prayer is still the same basic law.

Another example is found in raising a child. You don't tell the hyperactive child to be more assertive. You tell them to calm down. And you don't tell the child who is always being bullied to calm down. You tell them to be more assertive.

Although the message appears to be different, in reality they are the same. Both of these messages help the child move towards a more moderate attitude.

Similarly, the Messages of the Manifestations may appear to differ, yet they "are in reality but the expressions of one Truth".

But let's not think this is easy. After all, imagine you went to the doctor with a headache, and they prescribed some aspirin. Later on, you have a stomachache and remember that the aspirin helped your pain earlier, but you need a new prescription. Since the first doctor has moved away, you end up seeing someone new. The problem, though, is that this new doctor prescribes something different. Why, you may wonder. Your last doctor prescribed that aspirin and it worked. Why should you take this new medicine? Well, this time, since your ailment is different, the aspirin would just make you more ill. Having been trained, your doctor knows this, but you might not. It would be so easy to become confused, and question the new doctor.

This is similar to what Baha'u'llah is saying.

If we do not understand the station of the doctor, we may not trust the second one. This is why we might become "perplexed and dismayed". But if we understand their station, their training, and perhaps even the fact that our illness is now different, then we would follow the new prescription without question.

Another phrase that stands out for us in this paragraph is the phrase "initiated into the mysteries". While we often think  of the word "initiate", in this context, to mean being brought into a group that understands some obscure knowledge, it also has the implication of beginning an endeavour. Here, the obscure knowledge might just be these two stations Baha'u'llah has unveiled to our eyes, and we really are only beginning to understand it. As we come to a better understanding of these two stations, our understanding of the similarity of their messages will also grow. All this brings us back to paragraph 75, where He said, "Wert thou to cleanse the mirror of thy heart from the dust of malice, thou wouldst... discover the mysteries of divine knowledge."

The next question is how can we appreciate those stations to which He has referred? Here, we might want to look at the definition of "appreciate", which means "to understand fully, to recognize the full worth of". We often think of it in terms of being grateful, but that is the result of recognizing the full worth of something. 

With that in mind, we can understand His statement reading more like, "most of the people have not fully recognized those two stations of the Messengers". This is why so many of us are "perplexed and dismayed". We try to apply a good remedy to the wrong illness. But the more that we understand that second station, that of distinction, especially in light of their essential unity, the more we will recognize the value of those commands that appear to differ. They are solely due to the time in which they were revealed, and the social illnesses they are trying to heal.

As Baha'u'llah says, "The All-Knowing Physician hath His finger on the pulse of mankind. He perceiveth the disease, and prescribeth, in His unerring wisdom, the remedy.