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.