unity and progressive revelation - irfanirfancolloquia.org/pdf/lights5_klebel.pdf · aquarian...

7 7

A. Introduction

In the year 1949, less than a decadebefore the death of Pierre Teilhard deChardin (1881-1955) and before the

posthumous publication of his books,Shoghi Effendi, the Guardian of theBahá’í Faith,1 wrote these words:

The world has — at least the think-ing world — caught up by nowwith all the great and universalprinciples enunciated byBahá’u’lláh over 70 years ago, andso of course it does not sound“new” to them. But we know that

the deeper teachings, the capacityof His projected World Order tore-create society, are new anddynamic. It is these we must learnto present intelligently and entic-i n g l y .2

What is the meaning of this statementof the Guardian, claiming that the think-ing world has caught up with the Bahá’íprinciples during the last 70 years? Whatare the dynamics of this process and whatcan we expect to find, when scrutinizingthe “thinking world” after the Revelationof Bahá’u’lláh? Today the Bahá’í Faithhas a history of over a century and there

Unity and Progressive Revelation:

Comparing Bahá’í Principles with the Basic Concepts of Teilhard de Chardin

Wolfgang A. Klebel

C o n t e n t sI n t r o d u c t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 7Unity Method of Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 1Comparison of Bahá’í Principles with Teilhard’s basic concepts . . . . . . . . . . . .8 3

An “Integral Vision” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 6Appendices of Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 8E n d n o t e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 0 3

Bahá’í Principles Teilhard’s Basic Concepts1 Unity in diversity Unity and multiplicity, the one and

the many2 Independent Investigation Our age an age of science3 Progressive Revelation, Harmony

between Science and Religion“God of Evolution,” “Christ theE v o l v e r ”

4 Attraction and love as principle ofR e a l i t y

Love and reason as principle ofexistence in “spirit-matter”

5 Service to an ever advancing civilization Service in a “religion of the Earth”6 Return of Christ in Bahá’u’lláh “Christ must be born again”

Lights of ‘Irfán Book Fi ve

are many indications that the principlesof the Bahá’í Revelation have influencedthis world, even beyond the influence ofthe Bahá’í community as such.

The catching up of the “thinking world”with the Bahá’í Principles, as pointed outby Shoghi Effendi, will be the point ofcomparison of this paper, which attemptsto “correlate with the Bahá’í teachings”the corresponding concepts of Teilhardde Chardin, whose books created a sensa-tion in European intellectual circles whenthey were first published. This correlationwill allow a comparison of the Faith withthe “progressive movements of today”and promote the study of the “Bahá’íteachings more deeply.”3

Why, we may ask, is this paper intro-ducing Teilhard de Chardin as a represen-tative of the “thinking world” into thiscomparison, why is Teilhard introducedinto this dialogue between the Bahá’íFaith and the progressive movements oftoday? Norman L. Geisler in his forewordto David H. Lane’s The Phenomenon ofTeilhard: Prophet for a New Age,4 h a ssaid the following:

New Age writer of the popularAquarian Conspiracy MarilynFerguson observed that many ofthe leading lights of the New Agemovement claim Teilhard as one ofthe most influential persons intheir lives. Other influencesacknowledged include C. G. Jung,Aldous Hux ley , SwamiMuktananda, Thomas Merton,Werner Erhard, and MaharishiYogi. Indeed, of the 185 New Ageleaders surveyed, Teilhard was themost frequently mentioned of any

person who had most influencedtheir thinking. If this is the case,then if we are to understand theNew Age movement properly itbehooves us to take a careful andcritical look at Teilhard deC h a r d i n .

David H. Lane further claims that“today, within the Roman CatholicChurch in most parts of Europe andAmerica, Teilhardism is the dominanttrend. Teilhard is referred to with adula-tion by many of the ‘progressive’ withinthe church.”5

Wolfgang Smith in his bookTeilhardism and the New Religionremarks:

Christianity (as personified, first-ly, by major contingents of theRoman Catholic Hierarchy, andsecondly, by a number ofProtestant and inter-denomina-tional institutions, such as theWorld Council of Churches) hasbegun to turn in the directionmapped out by Teilhard deC h a r d i n .6

It has to be noted that these booksclaim to prove that Teilhardism is untrueand contrary to the Christian message.However, they present the system ofTeilhard quite well, and critique it from aconservative, traditional and often fun-damentalist Christian point of view,which cumulates in the statement ofRama Coomaraswamy: “The Truth, beingtimeless and immutable, is clearly immunefrom such ‘forces of change.’”7 T h i sunderstanding of the truth would equallyconflict with Shoghi Effendi’s under-standing, when he says for example:

7 8

Unity and Pro gre s s i ve Re ve l a t i o n

The fundamental principle enunci-ated by Bahá’u’lláh8 . . . is thatreligious truth is not absolute butrelative, that Divine Revelation isa continuous and progressiveprocess, that all the great religionsof the world are divine in origin,that their basic principles are incomplete harmony.9

New Age writers and readers, progres-sive Catholics and Protestants alike, areall looking for new forms of religion,they are looking for something new inthe meaning and understanding oftoday’s world. They are the peopledescribed by Karen Armstrong in the lastsentence of her book about the H i s t o r yof God:1 0

Human beings cannot endureemptiness and desolation; theywill fill the vacuum by creating anew focus of meaning. The idolsof fundamentalism are not goodsubstitutes for God; if we are tocrate a vibrant new faith for thetwenty-first century, we should,perhaps, ponder the history ofGod for some lessons and warn-i n g s .

Can man create a new faith? Try as theymight, they will end up with somethinglike the New Age faith, or, even worse,with the faith of ideologies that havecharacterized the last century1 1 a n dbrought destruction, death and misery tothe whole world.1 2 This paper is writtento investigate a new faith, i.e. the Bahá’íFaith, and the comparison with Teilhardis not intended to be a proof of the truthof this Faith, but could hopefully pro-vide a bridge from modern and postmodern thinking to this Faith.

As will be shown below, it is signifi-cant that Teilhard de Chardin’s ideashave been misunderstood in a similar waythan the principles of the Bahá’í Faith.Such misunderstood ideas, among others,are the globalization of this world andworld unity, the relativity of truth andthe progressiveness of Revelation, theconcept of unity in diversity and the har-mony between science and religion,between reason and theology.

Teilhard attempted to “integrate purescientific research with a religious voca-tion” and tried “to reconstruct sciencefrom the perspective of faith.”1 3 H i sbooks were perceived by the Vatican as athreat to the integrity of the Faith. While“a small number of world-class scientistshave taken his ideas seriously . . . themajority of scientists have reacted asdefensively as the Vatican theolo-g i a n s . ”1 4 As can be seen, Teilhard wascritically evaluated and equally rejectedby both sides, by traditional Christiantheologians and by traditional scientists.

In what way can the developments inthe “thinking world” be seen as caused bythe Revelation of Bahá’u’lláh or ascaused by other social dynamics? This is aquestion for which there is no simpleanswer, it depends on the worldview ofthe observer. Even the scientific method-ology cannot answer these questions,because history, unlike the natural sci-ences, does not allow experiments, toprove a causal connection. We can showantecedents and consequences, but theconnection between them is, by defini-tion, beyond scientific proof. Therefore,any understanding presented is always

7 9


speculative, based on historical facts. Theproof of a speculation is in its predictivevalue, or in its historical results, whichagain are based more on the way theinvestigator looks at his data than on anyscientific proof.

For example, as a scientific hypothesiswe could ask the question: is the Marxisttheory of the development of society trueor false? Before the breakdown ofMarxism as a viable social philosophy,this question would have been answereddifferently, depending on the worldviewof the observer. Today, there is no ques-tion that the system did not work in thelong run, and even former Marxists willhave to admit that. Nevertheless, the fail-ure of that system can again be attributedto different causes, maybe it was notimplemented properly, maybe the respec-tive societies were not ready, or maybethe system is just plain wrong and cannotwork. All historical analyses are bound bysimilar limits.

When asking about the influence of theRevelation of Bahá’u’lláh, it is again inthe eyes of the beholder, what we see.Sometimes, it appears that a historicalfinding can shed a closer light on thisproblem. As will be shown in this paper,when a scientist-philosopher, Teilhard,who has no knowledge of the Revelationof Bahá’u’lláh, comes to conclusions sur-prisingly similar with this Revelation, onecould assume that there is something hap-pening beyond natural and scientificallyprovable causes. Nevertheless, it could bestated as well, that both these elementsare caused by a natural and not religioussource, and consequently the outcome

appears similar. And there is no doubtthat this will be stated by historians whohave the methodological assumption thatall effects are due to natural causes.1 5

That means if you definitely exclude any-thing else but natural causes, you will notsee anything else. In addition, how do wedefine here natural versus spiritual orreligious, or supernatural causes? Thesethree terms are commonly used inter-changeably, but they have different mean-ings according to the respective theologi-cal or philosophical system in which theyare used.

In this context Teilhard stated:“However, it is just at this point, in fact,that we meet an initial split in the think-ing mass of mankind.” And further:

Beneath an infinite number of sec-ondary differentiation, caused bythe diversity of social interests, ofscientific investigation or religiousfaith, there are basically two typesof minds, and only two: those whodo not go beyond (and see no needto go beyond) perception of themultiple — however interlinked initself the multiple may appear tobe — and those for whom percep-tion of this same multiple is neces-sarily completed in some unity.There are only, in fact, pluralistsand monists: those who do not see,and those who do.1 6

The investigation presented in thispaper is clearly based on what Teilhardcalls monistic understanding or, as wewould prefer to say, universalistic under-standing or integral vision,1 7on seeing thewhole and not only parts, on seeing theunity of the world and not only the plu-

8 0


rality of events; and in this point again,Bahá’í thinking1 8 and the thinking ofTeilhard are akin. This correspondence isone of the findings of this paper,described further below. Consequently,when in this paper the unity principle isthe basis of understanding and itsmethod, this cannot be proven to plural-istic thinkers, but neither can they provethis way of monistic thinking wrong,except when they unscientifically taketheir pluralistic and materialist assump-tions as scientific truth, beyond proof.By definition, there is no scientificprocess that can prove either side as trueor false.

Teilhard de Chardin was chosen for thisinvestigation as representing the pro-gressive movements of today. Thoughwritten in the first half of the last centu-ry, Teilhard’s works have a rather signif-icant following today. It has been shownthat he is the most quoted author in thewritings of the “New Age” literature anddoes seem to attract many seeking soulsof today.1 9 In addition there is a rathersignificant influence of his thinking intoday’s discussion of religion and of thefuture of the world, which makes him anauthor whose importance might be ris-ing, rather than diminishing. There are anumber of books available about him andhis books are available in new editions.

The following chapters will describethe method of investigation used in thispaper, will compare the Bahá’í principleswith basic concepts of Teilhard’s writ-ing, and will explain how they differ andwhy and how they function in the givencontext in a corresponding fashion.

B. Unity Method of Investigation

A word here about the method of thisinvestigation. William S. Hatcher writes;

In particular, the refusal of manypracticing scientists to give seri-ous attention to fundamentalphilosophical and metaphysicalquestions has undoubtedly retard-ed development of science itself aswell as creating an intellectualmilieu in which immoral and anti-social uses of science and technol-ogy are more easily accepted bothby the public and by the intellectu-als.20

The fundamental philosophical ques-tions as expressed by Teilhard are theway of looking at this world, from amonistic or universal and spiritual pointof view or from a pluralistic and materi-alistic point. These different points ofview obviously influence the methodolo-gy of any investigation, which will resultin different findings of the inquiry.

The correspondence between theTeilhardian and the Bahá’í thinking willdetermine the method of this investiga-tion, because any method has to beappropriately adjusted to the topic ofthe investigation. Following the abovementioned characteristic of a monistic oruniversalistic point of view, this investi-gation will keep the unity of the investi-gated topic in focus and in this processthis approach will be verified anddemonstrated. This circular way ofthinking, i.e. to prove a method whileapplying it, and then again concludingback from the result of the investigation

8 1


to the justification of the method, whichhad made the findings possible, seems tobe required whenever the investigationsurpasses a simple counting and describ-ing of elements and their material causa-tion.

This approach appears to be necessaryand uniquely justified whenever themeaning and higher level of understand-ing, in other words the spiritual, isfocused upon. We have to keep in mindthat basic assumptions of any investiga-tion are never proven, they are appliedand prove or disprove themselves duringthe process of application.

In other words, the method of investi-gation is not determined by detectingcauses and effects in a materialistic andphysical sense, but by finding the mean-ing of the elements or parts in the respec-tive whole. For example the tax on teawas not the cause of the AmericanRevolution in the same sense that thelegal rule of taxation is the cause of gov-ernment money or as a virus is the causeof an illness — and even there are severalother causes involved, because not every-one exposed gets every illness. The tax ontea was only one elements or historicalfact, which in the understanding of thecolonials became meaningful and an ele-ment in the forthcoming revolution. Thetea leaves in the Boston harbor did notcause anything, except maybe stomachproblems for the fish population. But themeaning of the act of protest in the wholeself awareness of the colonists was creat-

ing a new meaning and only in this sense a“cause” for rebellion and war.2 1

This investigation will, in a modestway, follow the method which can becalled “ganzheitlich,” or “integral,” i.e.based on the “wholeness” of being. Itproceeds in three steps, indicated by thelevel of inquiry as presented in the fol-lowing scheme:2 2

If the wholeness, the Unity of being, isthe guiding principle of the investigationthen these three steps are consistent withsuch an investigation and can be appliedin any inquiry comparing such systems toeach other.

8 2

Level ofI n q u i r y

Description ofI n q u i r y

E x a m p l e

Level IT e x t

Key texts formBahá’í andT e i l h a r d ;

Issues of transla-tion, terminology

Attraction - Love;U n i t y - W h o l e n e s s ;

Reason - Spirit

Level IIContext in

P a r t s

Relationship com-pared in systemson the level ofelements, parts,

p l u r a l i t y

Unity in gender,religion, and peo-ples of the earth

Level III Context inW h o l e n e s s

/ Unity

Relationship ofthe Parts and theWhole (Teil undGanzes), Holon

T e i l h a r d :Unification and

evolution; Bahá’í:Unity and progres-

sive revelation;The world as a

W h o l e

Vienna school ofthought: Spann,

Gabriel (Solov’ev),W u c h e r e r -

H u l d e n f e l d ;2 3 T h e“Integral Whole”and in USA more

recently KenWilber’s “Integral

V i s i o n ”2 4


Comparison of Bahá’í Principleswith Teilhard’s basic concepts

In the following comparison only shortpassages from the Bahá’í and Teilhardiantexts will be quoted and a referral to theAppendix will indicate the context andthe quote of these sections. The numberof comparison and the letter of the textwill indicate the context and the sourceof the quote. (For example 1a indicatesthe appendix 1 and the text under a.) Inthe spirit of independent investigation,which is a Bahá’í principle as well, theinterested reader is invited to read thetexts independently from the interpreta-tion of this writer and come to her ownconclusions. A comparison of the read-er’s own conclusion with the findings ofthis article could be a most valuableimprovement on this paper.

It has to be considered that the writ-ings being compared were not only orig-inally presented in different languages,but also in different theological, philo-sophical, and metaphysical systems ofunderstanding. While both texts are herequoted in their English translation, thetheological, philosophical, and meta-physical context requires a considerationof norms of translation as well, which isattempted in this paper and needs furthers t u d y .2 5

It should be noted that the selection oftexts is certainly not comprehensive andexhaustive, it is intended to give cre-dence to the interpretations presented inthis paper and to stimulate further read-i n g s .

Comparison 1 (cf. texts in Appendix 1)

Bahá’í: Unity in diversityTeilhard: Unity and multiplicity,

the one and the many

On the issue of philosophical transla-tion, we have to note that the term“diversity” or its French equivalent is nota term used by Teilhard. Teilhard usuallytalks about unity and wholeness and mul-tiplicity, or plurality and complexity.The Bahá’í Writings present the futuredevelopment of the world as unity indiversity (1a,b,c).2 6 Teilhard is interestedin the physical and spiritual relationshipsof unity and diversity and how theyrelate to each other (1f,g).2 7

Consequently, in the chosen excerptsthe corresponding term for diversity isplurality, multiplicity, and even frag-mentation (1e). Complexity is also usedas a central description of the fact thatunity and diversity (or complexity)increase together, not in opposition toeach other. So we can state that anincrease in complexity and multiplicitywill demand a higher level of unity. TheBahá’í “watchword” of “unity in diversi-ty” (1c) does not analyze the relationshipof these two concepts but uses themtogether, indicating, in a similar way,that they are complementary and notcontradictory concepts, in the same wayas Teilhard understood the concept ofunity and plurality or multiplicity.

Teilhard sees the world as a world inevolution and therefore explains that theone and the multiple are not opposed toeach other; actually he states that the oneis born from the multiple and the unity is

8 3


woven from the plurality in a synthesis(1i). Teilhard presents the discourse of thecomplementary relationship between theone and the many, between the whole andits parts and between the unity and diver-sity. This philosophical topic of the whole(“das Ganze”) and its parts was furtherdeveloped by Leo Gabriel and byW u c h e r e r - H u l d e n f e l d2 8 in the concept ofthe integral whole.

A more recent development of the con-cept of the integral whole is presented byKen Wilber, who uses the concept ofHolon to indicate that each whole is actu-ally composed of many parts, as well asbeing itself a part in a greater whole. Thisholistic process is described as a funda-mental principle of all reality, from sub-atomic particles, to atoms, to molecules,to cells, to organisms, and humans, con-tinuing into the awareness of humans,forming different levels of holons eventhere. So what is a part on one level ofbeing is a whole on a lower level, and con-stitutes with other parts a whole on thenext higher level.2 9 Consequently, Wilberconcludes “Reality as a whole is not com-posed of things or processes, but ofholons. Composed, that is, of wholes thatare simultaneously parts of other wholes,with no upward or downward limit.”3 0

While more explicit, Wilber follows inthat matter Teilhard and Koestler.3 1

Summarizing the new literature aboutthis issue it can be stated that unity andmultiplicity are concepts that are usednot only in the relationship between thewhole and the parts, but also in the rela-tionship between the parts related to eachother (1g). We can speak of an increasing-

ly higher level of unity, Teilhard beginswith the atom or subatomic particle anddevelops this throughout the universe.The increasing unity and increasing com-plexity of the elements or parts indicatesthe increasing level of these elements inthe whole of the cosmos, which hedescribes as cosmogenesis, indicating thatthis relationship is on the basis of theevolution of the world. Studying the phe-nomenon of man, Teilhard sees in humandevelopment the apex of this evolutionand anticipates an even higher level ofunity in the future evolution of theworld, for which he coins the word“anthropogenesis” (1g).

The Bahá’í concept of unity in diversityis a basic idea that includes the develop-ment of the whole world community andit is aptly described by Shoghi Effendi asa unity that does not suppress the ele-ments by which it is constituted, such asethnicity, climate, language, and tradi-tions, which all constitute this unity (1c).Before this, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá anticipated theBahá’í community to “offer to the entireworld a vibrant model of unity in diversi-ty” (1b). Bahá’u’lláh laid the groundworkfor this development, when He calledhumankind to purge the vision of menand to perceive this “unity in diversity, ofvariation and oneness, of limitation anddetachment” stating that this will “wingour flight unto the highest and innermostsanctuary of the inner meaning of theWord of God,” thus connecting thevision of this new unity of the world withHis Revelations (1a).

It needs to be noted that the term“unity” is not a univocal concept. This

8 4


becomes immediately clear when it isapplied to different levels of existence.First of all, when we speak of the unity,or oneness of God, we only mean thatthere is only one God, and as much as thisterm is used in the Bahá’í writings,Bahá’u’lláh has the following to sayabout it:

And if I attempt to describe Theeby glorifying the oneness of ThyBeing, I soon realize that such aconception is but a notion, whichmine own fancy has woven andthat Thou hast ever been immea-surably exalted above the vainimaginations, which the hearts ofmen have devised.3 2

Bahá’u’lláh stresses the unity of all theManifestations, but this does not imply asameness of the human aspect or stationof the Manifestation. This is clearlyexpressed in the Bible, where Christ indi-cates that John the Baptist is the returnof Elias, even though no human identityis assumed and the Baptist could justifi-ably deny such identity.3 3 In the samesense every Manifestation is the returnof all the prior Manifestations, a unity inthe Divine Station or Spirit, yet all dif-ferent in Their historical and humans h a p e .

When we speak of the unity ofmankind, we talk about something dif-ferent again, we talk about a unity that isbased on a plurality, and we talk about aunity in diversity. The unity of an organ-ism, such as a human being, needs to beapplied in an analogous manner, but isdifferent from the unity of humanity.

Teilhard, in his book The Phenomenon

of Man, has developed a vision of thewhole world not only in evolution butalso in unification, in wholeness, whichhe calls unimpeachable and describes as a“system by its plurality, a totum by itsunity, a quantum by its energy; all threewithin a boundless contour” (1e). At thispoint the ontological placement ofTeilhardian thinking needs to be noted.Wucherer-Huldenfeld has not only clari-fied the ontological roots in theScholastic tradition of Teilhard’s think-ing but has additionally explained thatthis thinking is based on the unity ofmatter and spirit, of unity and diversity,and in this understanding it is especiallyimportant to note that these conceptdescribe the reality of the cosmos inwhich these seemingly contradictory con-cepts are not opposed to each other, butdependent on each other. Therefore,Teilhard frequently remarks that unifica-tion does at the same time differentiatethe parts, so the parts and the whole arein an integral relationship, where theincrease of unity requires an increase ofd i v e r s i t y .3 4

In concluding, it can be stated that theTeilhardian concept of the whole and itsparts is not only congruent with theBahá’í watchword of unity in diversity,but can provide an understanding of thiswatchword in modern thinking. A solidunderstanding of the Teilhardian conceptof unification is not only comparablewith the Bahá’í thinking about wholenessand unity, it adds understanding and con-ceptual assistance to the Bahá’í teachingsand allows the Bahá’í scholar to grasp theBahá’í concept of unity in diversity

8 5


“more deeply.”3 5

Comparison 2 (cf. texts in Appendix 2)Bahá’í: Independent InvestigationTeilhard: Our age an age of science

Again we have to consider that the con-cepts used by Teilhard are not directlytranslatable into Bahá’í concepts. TheBahá’í Writings are theological and reve-latory texts. Teilhard, who was nostranger to theology and revelation, clear-ly states that his investigation of man andof the universe is not based on theology —he describes it as purely and simply a sci-entific treatise (2e). When he concludesthat truth is nothing other than the totalcoherence of the universe, he makes, inhis understanding, a scientific statement(2e). The same is true when Teilharddeclares that the truth of the human beingis the truth of the universe (2f). Teilhardeven acknowledges that this understand-ing of truth is a new thing, is somethingenormous and something the universe hasgiven birth to in our times of scientificresearch (2g).

The text from Bahá’u’lláh states thesame facts in theological language;“Looking and pondering” at the “world”will make the world “unveil” itself before“thine eyes” and will “reveal what God hasinscribed in it.” It will give you “clearexplanations” and make you “indepen-dent” from other opinions ( cf. 2a).‘Abdu’l-Bahá in interpreting Bahá’u’lláh’swords adds the social benefit of thisapproach, stating “once every soulinquireth into truth, society will be freedfrom darkness of continually repeatingthe past” (2b). The independent investiga-

tion of reality (or truth, as stated in otherpassages) is one of the Bahá’í principlesstated by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá (2c). Teilhard hasunderstood this unity of the truth and theneed, or as he would claim, the modernobsession with investigating it. In anoth-er statement, Teilhard directly called thisattitude of science and this need tounderstand the truth of this world thenew “religion of evolution” and an expe-rience of conversion that encompasses allthinking people today.3 6

The understanding of reality, the look-ing and pondering at the world, reveals tohumankind the truth, which God hasinscribed into the world. God has givenman the ability to investigate this truth.Teilhard seems to be a witness to this abil-ity and he found the vestiges of the truthof the Revelation of Bahá’u’lláh in inves-tigating this world, commensurate to hiscapacity. This development could bedemonstrated in many other philosophersand scientists, Teilhard (2g) seems only tobe an outstanding example of this recog-nition of the truth from scientificallystudying this world today. It is importantthat only in a view that looks at thewhole, looks at the universe as a“Ganzheit,” an integral whole, this visionwill emerge, reinforcing the Bahá’í under-standing of the unity of the world.

In his writings about unification andthe whole and its part, Teilhard has pre-sented his worldview under the conceptof evolution or progress. This new under-standing of history has to be investigatedin the next section in order to understandthe congruence of these two approachesbetter. The human reason, or ability to

8 6


understand the world as a whole, is seenhere as a special ability that is the basisof scientific progress. The relationshipbetween reason and reality, the ability ofhumankind to understand the world andthe relations of its parts to each otherand to the whole, is the aspect consideredby Teilhard in his writings.

How science as a human capacityrelates to the object of scientific study isa question of fundamental importance.Ashbrook and Albright in their book T h eHumanizing Brain, Where Religion andNeuroscience Meet,3 7 express similarthoughts when they say:

In understanding the brain, weseekers may come to understandhow we become the human beingsthat we are — our genetic inheri-tance, our cultural variations, andour divine destiny.3 8

They further claim in the same venue:“God is the ‘self evident’ and ‘dynamicsource’ of all reality as experienced andexpressed by human beings.” They dis-cuss the attempted creation of God inthe human image by the thinkers ofEnlightenment, from Newton,Feuerbach, Marx, Freud, and Nietzscheand conclude:

Today, postmodern perspectivesremind us of the constraint ofcontext, the pluralisms of per-spectives, and the constructionsof the mind. Even though, all the-ories of projection must accountfor that screen upon which theprojection is directed. Meaningembraces meaning making as wellas meaning discovery!3 9

In conclusion it can be recognized thatthe Bahá’í principle of “independentinvestigation of the truth” is not only apersonal challenge to all people of today,it is also a mandate towards the scientif-ic enterprise of the future. It is not onlythe individual person who is obligated toinvestigate the truth; it is also, inTeilhard’s words, an obligation towardsthe “patient, prosaic, but cumulativework of scientists of all kind” (2h).Teilhard even states that “the universe, inits totality and unity, inexorably forcesitself on our attention.” And hedescribes this situation “to be a burdento us, to fascinate us, to exalt us” (2h).

Bahá’u’lláh has stated of His revela-tion: “The universe is pregnant withthese manifold bounties, awaiting thehour when the effects of its unseen giftswill be made manifest in this world.”4 0

Believing in this statement, should wenot recognize the birth of this newunderstanding? Should we not perceivethe offering of the manifold bounties ofthe Manifestation of God in the progressof science and investigation? It appearsto me that Teilhard has aptly gleaned thefascination as well as the burden andobligation of this nascent worldview; weall, individually and cumulatively, in ourpersonal lives and in our scientific enter-prises are compelled to seek, in accep-tance of the principle of the independentinvestigation of truth.

Comparison 3 (cf. texts in Appendix 3)B a h á ’ í : Progressive Revelation,

Harmony of Science, ReligionTeilhard: “God of Evolution,” “Christ

the Evolver,” “Cosmic Christ”

8 7


In this comparison we again encounterthe need to use the concept of translationnorms and we will see how initial distinc-tion of the process will result in the unityof the findings. The Bahá’í Writings, asquoted, talk about progressive revelation,while Teilhard speaks about evolution andthe development of the cosmos, from theatom to the human, as a scientific con-cept. Additionally, he himself integratesor synthesizes this evolution of the cos-mos with the physical concept of thepoint Omega and the theological conceptof the Eternal or Cosmic Christ (3h). Thetranslation in this case will be to extrapo-late the biblical, mostly Pauline conceptof the Cosmic Christ into the Bahá’í con-cept of Manifestation. Later on, we willexemplify this translation in the Returnof Christ from a Bahá’í and Teilhardianperspective as well. Here it has to beexplained why world evolution is compa-rable with progressive Revelation.

While Teilhard envisions the EternalChrist as the cause and motor of theprogress of the world to the point Omegaand calls him the Christ of Evolution, heis painfully aware that a new perceptionand understanding of the Christian mes-sage is required to be effective in thiscontext of our time. So he states:

The fact is that Christianity hasalready been in existence for twothousand years, and the time hascome (as it does for every otherphysical reality) when it needs tobe rejuvenated by an injection ofnew elements.

( cf. Appendix 6e,f, quoted from6 g )

These needed new elements areexpressed in the new understanding of theChristian message in the light of evolu-tion, which is at the core of Teilhard’sworldview.

The Bahá’í concept of progressive reve-lation has to be seen in a twofold manner.From the perspective of the world therevelation is aptly described as progres-sive; from the perspective of the Unity ofthe Divine Manifestations it is betterdescribed as successive, because there isno progressive difference from oneManifestation to the next, except in theform the Manifestations revealThemselves to humankind. Any progressfrom one Revelation to the next is, there-fore, a function of the recipients of theRevelation, on which the appearance ofthe Revelation depends, in order to beunderstood. Consequently, the progres-siveness of the successive Revelations istotally dependent on the progress ofhumanity, which is the addressee of everynew Revelation.

Bahá’u’lláh, therefore, uses these termsinterchangeably in the original language.The distinction occurs in the Englishtranslation by Shoghi Effendi,4 1 a c c o r d-ing to the context, as in the followingp a s s a g e :

Contemplate with thine inward eyethe chain of successive Revelationsthat hath linked the Manifestationof Adam with that of the Báb. Itestify before God that each one ofthese Manifestations hath beensent down through the operationof the Divine Will and Purpose,that each hath been the bearer of a

8 8


specific Message, that each hathbeen entrusted with a divinely-revealed Book and been commis-sioned to unravel the mysteries ofa mighty Tablet. The measure ofthe Revelation with which everyone of them hath been identifiedhad been definitely foreordained.This, verily, is a token of Ourfavor unto them, if ye be of thosethat comprehend this truth. . . .And when this process of progres-sive Revelation culminated in thestage at which His peerless, Hismost sacred, and exaltedCountenance was to be unveiledto men’s eyes, He chose to hideHis own Self behind a thousandveils, lest profane and mortal eyesdiscover His glory.4 2 [e m p h a s e sa d d e d]

Bahá’u’lláh clearly states that theprogress of the world is a “principle andordinance of God” (3a). ‘Abdu’l-Bahá,His interpreter in the Bahá’í Faith, fur-ther develops this thought. Vividly Hedescribes the divine institution of reli-gion as a dynamic, evolutionary conceptand includes into this evolution of the“divine reality” all the human achieve-ments of this “century of life and renew-al” in “science, art, industry, and inven-tions” (3b). This compares directly withthe statement of Teilhard that the uni-verse has been appreciated “as an organ-ic whole, advancing towards an everyhigher degree of freedom and personali-ty” (3f). Teilhard concludes correctly,without being able to appreciate theprophetic character of his enunciation,that humanity needs and wants this newform of religion (3f and 3g). He explored

the evolution of the cosmos from a sci-entific point of view in his book T h ePhenomenon of Man and then, in a theo-logical reflection, he placed the universaland cosmic Christ (using Pauline formu-lations) at the same point Omega, whichhe had scientifically anticipated (3h).

This seems to be a mysterious coinci-dence, or an indication that the Bahá’íRevelation is influencing the develop-ment of human thought. Teilhard, com-ing from the scientific perspective, endsup with the same conclusions, whichbefore him were clearly expressed in theBahá’í writings, originating from theRevelation of the Prophet of God. Amore evident, astounding, and unantici-pated result of these two lines of investi-gation can hardly be found.

There is commonality in the approachof those two lines of thinking; they bothstart with the unity and wholeness of theworld of man and of the cosmos. WhileTeilhard expresses himself in a scientificmanner, his basic understanding of themeaning of the world is religious, is for-mulated in the tradition of the CatholicChurch following the Gospel of Christ.We can consequently compare the mate-rialistic and reductionistic philosophicalbackground of modern science on theone hand, with the fundamentalist, liter-al, and legalistic tradition ofChristianity, as expressed in protestantdenominations and in the CatholicChurch, on the other. It might well bethat historically these two traditionswere not developed independently fromeach other, but rather demonstrate thatthe religious misconstruction of reality

8 9


has resulted in an opposing developmentof science, which inadvertently has notsolved the problem, but participated inthe same problem as its point of depar-ture.

So we could suspect that the materialis-tic orientation of modern science wasdeveloped in opposition to a similar,mainly legalistic, and repressive under-standing of Christianity, but has not shedthe common misunderstanding of reality.The spiritual sins of the fathers were crip-pling the scientific attempts of the chil-dren. It could be speculated that the rapidincrease in scientific progress and find-ings in the last century might indicatethat these problems are being solved andwe could further suspect and venture thethought that this has something to dowith the Revelation of Bahá’u’lláh, sincethat progress of science was predicted byHim.

The rejection of Teilhard’s thinking byboth sides of this divide should not sur-prise us. As Teilhard says, “There areonly, in fact, pluralists and monists: thosewho do not see, and those who do.”4 3 W ecan further conclude from this findingthat there will never be harmony betweenthe reductionistic and materialisticunderstanding of science, as well asbetween the repressive and legalistic mis-understanding of the message of Christ aspresented in traditional Christian theolo-gy on the one hand, and the Bahá’í Faithon the other. It is the concept of Unitythat harmonizes religion and science; it isagain the concept of the Whole, or theUnity of God’s Revelation in all religions,which will bring harmony and unity to the

different religions of the earth.

It is clear that Teilhard was keenlyaware that the world is not static or with-out evolution, as appears to be the stan-dard Christian doctrine (3e). When thehistory of the world is reduced to the sal-vation of individual souls, any evolutionof the universe is of little or no impor-tance. Teilhard came to the conclusionthat human progress is of little impor-tance to Christians within that world-view. Among others, that is the same dif-ficulty Teilhard’s Christian critics expressclearly today.4 4 The fact that this under-standing is particular to WesternChristianity, and especially developed inthe Protestant denominations, as well asin different form in the Catholic Church,will not further be pursued here.4 5

In concluding, it can be stated that theTeilhardian approach originated in a sci-entific treatise and developed into thescientific understanding of the progres-sive nature of the cosmos, so thatTeilhard finally could harmonize this ideawith religion in the theological conceptof the Cosmic Christ. This scientificprocess is a parallel to the kerygmatic(related to the proclamation of faith)thought in the Bahá’í way of thinking.

In the Bahá’í Writings the point ofdeparture is the Will and Command ofGod, and this new recognition and mani-festation of Divine Will in our timeresults in the same understanding of theprogressive nature of reality, of spiritualreality and of human reality, or civic real-ity in the progress of sciences and arts.We now can say that both ways are legit-

9 0


imate, nevertheless, we will avow thatthe scientific progress is a consequenceof the divine intervention in theRevelation of Bahá’u’lláh. This conclu-sion is a result of the comprehension ofthe unity of the cosmos, of the wholenessof the world and, again, cannot beproven scientifically, as scientific dis-course is not based on this or any otherfundamentally metaphysical understand-ing of the world.

The choice is not a scientific one, thechoice is a matter of the heart as Teilhardhas indicated (3i) using the same conceptof the heart as Bahá’u’lláh, who said inthe Hidden Words:

O My Brother! Hearken to thedelightsome words of My honeyedtongue, and quaff the stream ofmystic holiness from My sugar-shedding lips. Sow the seeds of Mydivine wisdom in the pure soil ofthy heart, and water them with thewater of certitude, that thehyacinths of My knowledge andwisdom may spring up fresh andgreen in the sacred city of thyh e a r t .4 6

Comparison 4 (cf. texts in Appendix 4)Bahá’í: Attraction and love as

principle of RealityTeilhard: Love and reason as principle

of existence in “spirit-matter”

This comparison will be brief, basical-ly comparing only two texts. For everyreader who has patiently proceeded tothis point, it has become apparent thatthe principle of Unity, of the Whole, isthe idea that connects the thinking ofTeilhard and his understanding of the

evolution of the world with the Bahá’íprinciple of Unity and Progress in God’screation. While this understanding isclearly biblical, as Teilhard would insist,the Bible in the Christian tradition isusually not interpreted in that way,because it originated in a world thatcould not fathom this idea, in a worldtwo thousand years removed from ourtimes. This explains the resistance of theconservative Catholic hierarchy and offundamentalist Protestants to Teilhard.

Teilhard perceives the world in a unityand in progress, consequently he sees theworld as unity and the spiritual and thephysical or material are for him not twodifferent entities. In fact, the insistenceof Christianity on individual salvationfrom the evils of this fallen world and itseager effort to secure this salvation inthe next world culminates in the crucialquestion: “Am I saved?” Inquiringwhether the world is saved, if the worldis going in the right direction, or if thereis an evolution of the world at all, is nota question for the typical safety seekingChristian. But it is a question of themodern thinker Teilhard, who restlesslyand passionately pursued this ideathroughout his life.

He solved this question in a newly con-ceived idea of evolution, which is onlypartially and rather accidentally depen-dent on Darwin or his followers, but is aresult of a clearly mystical and personalseeking human being who was thorough-ly imbued in the Christian message and,at the same time, was deeply involved inscientific research. Therefore, Teilhardcame to the conclusion of the unity

9 1


between spirit and matter in the famousstatement of the “universal multiple”:“Spirit which is born within, and as afunction of matter” (italics in the origi-nal, see 4b). This statement centers andsummarizes many of Teilhard’s writings.

‘Abdu’l-Bahá expresses the samethought in the quoted text (4a) and manymore times in His other Writings.Separation brings “hurt and harm” and isactually the source of evil, while “unionof created things yield most laudableresults.” He further explains that this uni-fication is a principle of the constitutionof this world: “From the pairing of eventhe smallest particles in the world ofbeing are the grace and bounty of Godmade manifest.” He adds a principle ofimportance in understanding how unityand plurality is connected positively andmutually in the world, when he continues:“the higher the degree, the more momen-tous the union” (4a).

When the pairing of even the smallestparticles of the world are in principle thesame as the union of the highest degree,i.e., the union between spirit and matter,the unity of the universe, the unity of allpeople of the world with each other andthe union of their hearts, the union ofhumanity and God which we call religion,then the same is expressed in theTeilhardian principle that spirit and mat-ter are not separated but a function ofeach other, that the spiritual world of theheart and soul and of God and the mater-ial world of physics and causality are notopposed, but are mutually interdepen-dent. This is the nucleus of the attractive-ness of the Teilhardian worldview to

modern thinkers of today. The same ideaof the Whole and Unity of the world inprogress could be the center of attractionof modern seekers to the Faith ofBahá’u’lláh.

Comparison 5 (cf. texts in Appendix 5)Bahá’í: Service to an ever advancing

civilization, work as worshipT e i l h a r d : Service in a “religion of

the Earth”

This comparison is even more impor-tant as it deals with a rather new elementof religion expressed by the Bahá’í Faith,i.e. work as worship and the value of theimprovement of civilization of humanity(5a,b,c,d). This element is crucial as wellin understanding the development of theworld during the last century and thefuture development of modern societies.Consequently, it was an important con-cern of Teilhard as well.

It should not be forgotten that KarlMarx had started his career by definingwork as the most important factor forman. In order to become himself, man hasto create himself through work and, con-sequently, religion is in the way of thisprocess and has to be eliminated. Marxcertainly was not the only one at that timewho promoted these ideas, nevertheless,he was the most successful one, albeitposthumously. The young Marx in hisphilosophical period saw God as an “alienbeing” in opposition to the new man, the“socialist man,” “who is nothing but thecreation of man by human labor,”4 7 a n dconcludes that atheism must be the nega-tion of this idea of God. Men had devel-oped religion and the idea of God as cre-

9 2


ator as an “opium of the people” to pro-duce a false happiness, because he didnot understand that man does create him-self by human labor.4 8 This understand-ing of religion is frequently expressed byMarx: “Religion is only the illusory sunwhich revolves around man as long as hedoes not revolve around himself.” Inorder to free man from all alienation, itis primarily postulated by Marx, thatreligion and the concept of God cannotbe real, cannot exist, or at least will dis-appear rapidly, as soon as the new under-standing of man is accepted.4 9

The unexpected worldwide success ofMarxism in the last century is certainlyrelated to many issues, but the accep-tance of work as an essential element ofhuman beings was definitely not the leastimportant fact. Teilhard, as well, speaksconstantly about this issue and remindsthe Christians that they are not partici-pating in this modern “religion of theearth” as he calls it. A dedicated scien-tist, he was keenly aware that the presentform of Christianity is not in touch withthe modern world, so he expressed hisneed by saying “The God whom I seekmust reveal himself to me as a savior ofman’s work.” (5e) This situation of theworld, dedicated to the earth in work andscience, is for Teilhard the driving forceto request a change of religion, to ask fora new religion and to express his unceas-ing demand, that Christianity must andcould accept this need of the world ofmodern man. This desire cumulates in thestatement that “Christ must be bornagain.” (6e)

Teilhard states that the “supreme value

of life consists in devoting oneself bodyand soul to universal progress” (5g) andthat one can understand “worship” onlyin a devotion of “body and soul,” to “thecreative act” and to the fulfillment ofoneself in “hard work and intellectualexploration.” (5h) In a sense, Teilhardgoes farther than Marx in elevating workas a central obligation for humanity andhe certainly does not see it in oppositionto religion, as a matter of fact, he buildshis religion on this truth.

It is certainly remarkable in this con-text that Bahá’u’lláh, born of an aristo-cratic family in Persia, founded theBahá’í Faith during the 19t h Century, justat the same time as Karl Marx wrote hispapers declaring that God had to be elim-inated because of man being a product ofhis labor. And is it not even more of his-torical importance that Bahá’u’lláhplaced work in the center of its princi-ples, has equated work with worship ofGod, and has declared that humanity wascreated to promote civilization throughwork?

Another, not unrelated fact is therecognition that during the next half cen-tury, Teilhard in looking at the phenom-enon of man noted the same need for areligion of the earth, a religion that doesnot turn people against the world inwhich they live, a religion that dedicatesitself to progress and improvement ofthe world, a religion that does preservethe deepest claims of Christianity, butdevelops these claims into a powerfulforce in the modern world. Teilhardexpected this change to come from theinner meaning of the biblical message, as

9 3


best expressed in the letters of Paul and asfound in the gospels. And in the processof unification of all of the religions ofthe world, as prophesied in the Bahá’íFaith, this might yet have to happen, eventhough it is not really visible today.

In this context ‘Abdu’l-Bahá talks of aspiritual civilization and a material civi-lization, compares them to body and souland states that one cannot live withoutthe other. Again a concept of Unity oftwo elements, in the past seen as contra-dicting each other, now declared as beingboth necessary and mutually supportingeach other (5c,d).

Comparison 6 (cf. texts in Appendix 6)Bahá’í: Return of Christ in

B a h á ’ u ’ l l á hTeilhard: “Christ must be born again”

As student in the 1950s, when I firstwas exposed to the writings of Teilhard,his statements that Christ must be bornagain did not elicit any special attentionfrom me, neither has it caused his criticsto start an elaborate opposition, as theyhave against many of his other ideas.Teilhard’s ideas of change, of evolution,were critically perceived as being opposedto orthodoxy, as were his positions onoriginal sin and the evolution of man. Iunderstood these statements probablyexactly as Teilhard meant them.Progressive Christians, Catholic orProtestants, all knew that some change,some development is going to happen,that will make their religion more mean-ingful in the light of the achievementsand horrors of modern times.

The ecumenical council Vatican II soon

became the hope of many, and its pastoralconstitution is based in its conception onTeilhardian ideas. The development since,especially under the present pope hasdirected the Catholic Church in a moreretro and conservative position. Howeverthat may be, nobody expected Christ tobe born again and everybody, includingprobably Teilhard, accepted this state-ment as a symbolic rather than historicalevent. Teilhard in his statement expressesthe need for change, for the rebirth ofChristianity, but Christ is seen asRedeemer who will combine heaven andearth but “will take his place supernatu-rally (as seen by our faith) at the actualfocus-point upon which the rays of evo-lution naturally (as seen by our science)converge” (6f).

On the other hand, the idea that isclearly expressed by Bahá’u’lláh and in theBahá’í Writings is that the return ofChrist has happened, has happened in thisworld as a historical event, has happenedthe same way it happened before: a humanbeing, a man, born from a woman, isfilled with the spirit of God and pro-claims to be the Messenger of God, justlike Jesus proclaimed His special functionin manifesting His heavenly Father (6b).

Christians by and large accept thefuture return of Christ as a symbolicevent and hardly believe it could happenin their lifetime; Bahá’ís on the contraryaccept some of the biblical statements assymbolic, like the return in the heavensand the public and visible judgment overgood and bad, but accept other biblicalstatements, like the return as a thief in thenight and the rebirth, in a more concrete

9 4


and historical fashion. So Shoghi Effendiformulates as the most important dis-tinction between all previous religions,especially Christianity and the Bahá’íFaith, the fact that Bahá’ís believe thatthe return of Christ has happened in his-tory, has happened on this earth and hashappened in the Báb and Bahá’u’lláh, asit has happened before.

In spite of this fact, and following thetrend of thought of Teilhard as explainedabove, reading his numerous statementsindicating the needed changes, the needfor a new religion and, yes, the need forChrist to be born again, we must sense astrong desire, an obvious passion and amystical experience that leads theTeilhardian thinking in the direction ofthe return of Christ. It appears as thoughTeilhard felt the truth but could not per-ceive it, because of this knowledge andpreconceived understanding. This is, aswe know, the position of many Christianseekers, who just cannot believe what theBahá’í Faith teaches.

One could deplore this fact, and onecould hope that it will change. In anycase, for Teilhard we can only say thatone can sense a providential meaning inthe fact that Teilhard was never seriouslyor at all confronted with the message ofthe Bahá’í Faith; he certainly never men-tioned it in all the books that I have read.Because of that fact and because he couldnot overlook the need of his times andthe lack of the previous religions to pro-vide for humanity, what it clearly seemsto need, he was forced to do two things.He firstly described the need of modernman more substantially and more deeply

than anybody else, and secondly, hesearched the religions of the world, notonly Christianity, but also Buddhism andHinduism, as well as the Chinese formsof devotion for an answer, which hecould not find there. He further lookedwith open eyes into present dayChristianity and found it lacking as well.As a devoted Christian, he did not giveup his faith but deepened it and tried tofind a solution in his faith for himselfand for all other seeking souls of hist i m e .

This made Teilhard a beacon towards aland he could not enter. Like a modernMoses, he stood on the mountain andlooked into the Promised Land, withoutthe possibility to go there. Teilhard hasbeen called the prophet of the last centu-ry by followers of New Age spirituality.His statement that Christ must be bornagain certainly places him as close aspossible into the new Jerusalem,announced by Bahá’u’lláh. Yet, he couldnot see Him who “verily, came downfrom Heaven even as He came downfrom it the first time” (6b). Neither didPius IX to whom these words were orig-inally directed by Bahá’u’lláh. The Popeeither did not understand the message ordid not accept any of it. Teilhard wasopen and seeking and in his writings pre-pared the way to a better understandingof the Bahá’í message, to a better unifi-cation of all religious of the world, andto an open invitation to all seekings o u l s .

9 5


E. An Integral Vision

‘Abdu’l-Bahá in one of His prayers stat-ed the following about the privilege andspecial status of humanity, especially inacquiring knowledge and understandingof the hidden truths that are embedded inthe heart of hearts of all that is:

O God, O Thou Who hast cast Thysplendor over the luminous reali-ties of men, shedding upon themthe resplendent lights of knowl-edge and guidance, and hast chosenthem out of all created things forthis supernal grace, and hast causedthem to encompass all things, tounderstand their inmost essence,and to disclose their mysteries,bringing them forth out of dark-ness into the visible world! “Heverily showeth His special mercy towhomsoever He will.”

O Lord, help Thou Thy loved onesto acquire knowledge and the sci-ences and arts, and to unravel thesecrets that are treasured up in theinmost reality of all created things.Make them to hear the hiddentruths that are written and embed-ded in the heart of all that is. Makethem to be ensigns of guidanceamongst all creatures, and piercingrays of the mind shedding forththeir light in this, the “first life.”Make them to be leaders untoThee, guides unto Thy path, run-ners urging men on to ThyKingdom. Thou verily art the Powerful, theProtector, the Potent, theDefender, the Mighty, the MostG e n e r o u s .5 0

This paper was written with this impli-

cation and in following Shoghi Effendi’sencouragement, on whose behalf it wass t a t e d :

Study history, economics, sociolo-gy, etc., in order to be au courantwith all the progressive movementsand thoughts being put forthtoday, and so that they could cor-relate these to the Bahá’í teachings.What he wants the Bahá’ís to do isto study more, not to study less.The more general knowledge, sci-entific and otherwise, they possess,the better. Likewise he is constant-ly urging them to really study theBahá’í teachings more deeply.5 1

It is hoped that this paper will haveshown how close the progressive thinkingof our days is to the Faith we profess,how deeply the Bahá’í principles havepenetrated modern thought and howmuch they direct human civilizationtowards the goal of increasing human-ness, in spite of the apparent breakdownof modern societies. Teilhard knew thatChrist must be reborn, that a new religionmust unfold and he described what he sawin his studies of the phenomenon of man.Not knowing about the Revelation ofBahá’u’lláh he stretched the Christianmessage as far as possibly in the directionof the new worldview he had gained fromscience.

According to the Bahá’í principle of theunity of all religions of God, the onlyconcept he could not understand was theissue of the return of Christ and thereturn of all Manifestations. One couldemploy the modern colloquialism that onthis point he could not think “outside ofthe box” of Christian tradition but, by

9 6


giving Christ the epithet of “cosmic” and“universal,” he came as close as possibleto the concept of Divine Manifestation,trying to fit Christian tradition into hisnew concept of the “God of evolution.”

As pointed out above, this process hasnot ended with the death of Teilhard andthe publication of his work in 1955.Some of the New Age writers have triedto continue in Teilhard’s view, but havenot been able to really comprehend themessage of this writer, due to their lackof historical understanding. This wasclearly pointed out by Ken Wilber,5 2

who himself continued and expanded thenew view of Teilhard and others into aimpressive opus, that has been translatedinto more than 20 languages and hasfound followers in different lands, espe-cially in Japan and Germany.5 3

Bahá’í theology is in its beginningstages and will develop together and indialogue with today’s philosophy. It isthis author’s conviction that in spite ofTeilhard’s Catholic background andWilber’s Buddhist influence, bothauthors, if understood in the Bahá’í con-text, will contribute to the developmentof a Bahá’í theology, thus promoting theUnity of all Religions of God as pro-claimed in the Revelation of Bahá’u’lláh.

9 7


APPENDICES OF TEXTS

Appendix 1Bahá’í: Unity in diversityTeilhard: Unity and multiplicity, the one and the many

9 8

Bahá’í Writings5 4 T e i l h a r d5 5

B a h á ’ u ’ l l á h

a) Please God, that we avoid the land of denial,and advance into the ocean of acceptance, sothat we may perceive, with an eye purged fromall conflicting elements, the worlds of unityand diversity, of variation and oneness, of limi-tation and detachment, and wing our flightunto the highest and innermost sanctuary ofthe inner meaning of the Word of God.

K i t á b - i - ̂ q á n , p. 160

A b d u ’ l - B a h á

b) You should strive to create a Bahá’í commu-nity, which will offer to the entire world avibrant model of unity in diversity.

The Call into Being, p. 16

Shoghi Effendi

c) Let there be no misgivings as to the animatingpurpose of the world-wide Law of Bahá’u’lláh.Far from aiming at the subversion of the exist-ing foundations of society, it seeks to broadenits basis, to remold its institutions in a mannerconsonant with the needs of an ever-changingworld. It can conflict with no legitimate alle-giances, nor can it undermine essential loyal-ties. Its purpose is neither to stifle the flame ofa sane and intelligent patriotism in men’shearts, nor to abolish the system of nationalautonomy so essential if the evils of excessivecentralization are to be avoided. It does notignore, nor does it attempt to suppress, thediversity of ethnical origins, of climate, of his-tory, of language and tradition, of thought andhabit, that differentiate the peoples andnations of the world. It calls for a wider loyal-ty, for a larger aspiration than any that has ani-mated the human race. It insists upon the sub-ordination of national impulses and interests tothe imperative claims of a unified world. Itrepudiates excessive centralization on onehand, and disclaims all attempts at uniformityon the other. Its watchword is unity in diversi-ty such as Abdu’l-Bahá Himself has explained. .. .

World Order of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 41-42

d) On the other hand the more we split and pul-verize matter artificially, the more insistently itproclaims its fundamental unity.

The Phenomenon of Man, p. 41

e) The cosmos in which man finds himself caughtup constitutes, by reason of the unimpeachablewholeness of its whole, a system, a totum, aquantum; a system by its plurality, a totum byits unity, a quantum by its energy; all threewithin a boundless contour.


f) The distressing spectacle of the multiplicityof the world and of its present state of disor-der, which in the end forces us into an impas-sioned faith in the possibility of reducing thatfragmentation to unity — in that lies the sourceof various philosophical currents.

Towards the Future, p. 40

g) The One and the Many; whence comes thefragmentation? And how can there be a returnto unity? The increasing clarity with which thisproblem is seen, and the gradual approach toits solution, are probably guide to the stages(some of which are still to come) of anthropo-g e n e s i s .


i) And now, the world of man — bursting with anew exuberance of energies and desires — dis-appointed, and yet more than ready to accept anew form — feels all the pain and anxiety ofthe need for a spiritual orientation.

Towards the Future, 4 1

j) From the modern point of view, which is gov-erned by the idea of evolution, the one is notmerely opposed to the multiple as a total per-fection opposed to the sum of imperfections:partially at least, it is b o r n from that multiple.Its unity is, to some degree, w o v e n from theplurality whose consummation and synthesis ite n s u r e s .



Appendix 2Bahá’í: Independent InvestigationTeilhard: Our age an age of science

9 9

Bahá’í Writings T e i l h a r d

B a h á ’ u ’ l l á h

a) Look at the world and ponder a while uponit. It unveileth the book of its own self beforethine eyes and revealeth that which the Pen ofthy Lord, the Fashioner, the All-Informed,hath inscribed therein. It will acquaint theewith that which is within it and upon it andwill give thee such clear explanations as tomake thee independent of every eloquente x p o u n d e r .

Tablets of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 141-142

A b d u ’ l - B a h á

b) The first [of Bahá’u’lláh’s teachings] is theindependent investigation of truth; for blindimitation of the past will stunt the mind. Butonce every soul inquireth into truth, societywill be freed from the darkness of continuallyrepeating the past. Selections from the Writings of Abdu’l-Bahá, 2 4 8

c) Among these teachings was the independentinvestigation of reality so that the world ofhumanity may be saved from the darkness ofimitation and attain to the truth; may tear offand cast away this ragged and outgrown gar-ment of a thousand years ago and may put onthe robe woven in the utmost purity and holi-ness in the loom of reality. As reality is oneand cannot admit of multiplicity, thereforedifferent opinions must ultimately becomefused into one. Selections from the Writings of Abdu’l-Bahá, 2 9 8

Shoghi Effendi

d) The extent of their future undertakings inboth continents; their contribution to theGlobal Crusade to be launched throughout thewhole planet; their particular and, in manyways, unique, reinforcement of the work, con-nected with future Bahá’í research and schol-arship, in view of the characteristic qualitiesof painstaking thoroughness, scientific exacti-tude and dispassionate criticism distinguishingthe race to which they belong, — these are toovast and complex to be assessed at the presenttime.

Light of Divine Guidance, vol. 1, p. 185

e) If this book (The Phenomenon of Man) is tobe properly understood, it must be read not asa work on metaphysics, still less as a sort oftheological essay, but purely and simply as ascientific treatise. The title itself indicatesthat. This book deals with man solely as a phe-nomenon; but it also deals with the whole phe-nomenon of man.


f) Truth is nothing other than the total coher-ence of the universe in relation to each partof itself. Why suspect or underestimate thiscoherence because we ourselves are observers?The truth of human beings is the truth of theuniverse for human beings, that is, the truth,pure at simple.

Teilhard Lexicon, p. 199

g) We are given to boasting of our age being anage of science. And if we are thinking merelyof the dawn compared to the darkness thatwent before, up to a point we are justified.Something enormous has been born in the uni-verse with our discoveries and our methods ofresearch. Something has been started which, Iam convinced, will now never stop. Yetthough we may exalt research and derive enor-mous benefit from it, with what pettiness ofspirit, poverty of means and general haphaz-ardness do we pursue truth in the world today!


h) Thus, from the patient, prosaic, but cumula-tive work of scientists of all types, there hasspontaneously emerged the most impressiverevelation of the Whole that could possibly beconceived. . . . Today the universe, in itstotality and unity, forces itself inexorably onour attention, Whatever the avenue opened upby our thought or our activity, there it stands,whole and entire, to be burden to us, to fasci-nate us, or to exalt us.

Christianity and Evolution, p. 63


Appendix 3Bahá’í: Progressive RevelationTeilhard: “Religion of Evolution,” “Cosmic Progress”

1 0 0

Bahá’í Writings T e i l h a r dBahá’u’lláh

a) The progress of the world, the developmentof nations, the tranquility of peoples, and thepeace of all who dwell on earth are among theprinciples and ordinances of God.

Tablets of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 129-130

‘A b d u ’ l - B a h á

b) Religion is the outer expression of the divinereality. Therefore, it must be living, vitalized,moving, and progressive. If it be withoutmotion and non-progressive, it is without thedivine life; it is dead. The divine institutes arecontinuously active and evolutionary; there-fore, the revelation of them must be progres-sive and continuous. All things are subject toreformation. This is a century of life andrenewal. Sciences and arts, industry and inven-tion have been reformed. Law and ethics havebeen reconstituted, reorganized. The world ofthought has been regenerated. Sciences of for-mer ages and philosophies of the past are use-less today.

Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 140

c) Among the bounties of God is revelation.Hence revelation is progressive and continu-ous. It never ceases.

Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 378

Shoghi Effendi

d) The fundamental principle enunciated byBahá’u’lláh . . . is that religious truth is notabsolute but relative, that Divine Revelation isa continuous and progressive process, that allthe great religions of the world are divine inorigin, that their basic principles are in com-plete harmony, that their aims and purposes areone and the same, that their teachings are butfacets of one truth, that their functions arecomplementary, that they differ only in thenonessential aspects of their doctrines, andthat their missions represent successive stagesin the spiritual evolution of human society. . . .

Promised Day Is Come, p. 1

e) For such a Christian, accordingly, the uni-verse has ceased to extend the primary of itsorganic unity over the whole field of interiorexperience: the operation of salvation, reducedto being no more than a matter of personalsuccess, develops without any reference to cos-mic evolution. Christianly gives the impressionof not believing in human progress.

Christianity and Evolution, p. 126f) The universe, we may well believe, has nowfinally and permanently been appreciated byour generation as an organic whole, advancingtowards an ever higher degree of freedom andpersonality. By that very fact, the only religionmankind wants and can henceforth acknowl-edge is one that s capable of justifying, assimi-lating and animating cosmic progress.

Christianity and Evolution, p. 154g) As a result, then, of life’s very recent passingthrough a new critical point in the course ofits development, no older religious form orformulation can any longer (either factually orlogically) satisfy to the full our need andcapacity for worship . . . So true is this, that a‘religion of the future’ (definable as a ‘religionof evolution’) cannot fail to appear beforelong; a new mysticism, here and now.

Christianity and Evolution, p. 240h) Just suppose that we identify (at least in his‘natural’ aspect) the cosmic Christ of faith withthe Omega point of science; then everything inour outlook is clarified and broadened, and fallinto harmony. . . . If we are to effect the synthe-sis between faith in God and faith in the world,for which our generation is waiting, there isnothing better we can do than dogmatically tobring out, in the person of Christ, the cosmicaspect and function which make him organicallythe prime mover and controller, the ‘soul’ ofevolution.

Christianity and Evolution, p. 180i) Only purity of heart (assisted or not by grace,as the case may be) and not pure science i scapable, . . . of overcoming the essential inde-terminacy of appearances and of unmistakablydisclosing a creator behind the forces of nature— and the Divine underlying the abnormal.



Appendix 4Bahá’í: Attraction and love as principle of RealityTeilhard: Love and reason as principle of existence in “spirit-matter”

Appendix 5Bahá’í: Service to an ever advancing civilization, work as worship T e i l h a r d : Service in a “religion of the Earth”

1 0 1

Bahá’í Writings T e i l h a r d‘A b d u ’ l - B a h á

a) From separation doth every kind of hurt andharm proceed, but the union of created thingsdoth ever yield most laudable results. Fromthe pairing of even the smallest particles inthe world of being are the grace and bountyof God made manifest; and the higher thedegree, the more momentous is the union.

Selections from the Writings of Abdu’l-Bahá,p. 119

b) It (the spirit) in no way represents someentity, which is independent of matter orantagonistic to it, some force locked up in, orfloating in, the physical world. By spirit Imean ‘the spirit of synthesis and sublimation’,in which is painfully concentrated, throughendless attempts and setbacks, the potency ofunity scattered throughout the universal mul-tiple: spirit which is born within, and as afunction of matter.

Christianity and Evolution, pp. 107-108

Bahá’í Writings T e i l h a r dB a h á ’ u ’ l l á ha) All men have been created to carry forwardan ever-advancing civilization.Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, 215

b) It is enjoined upon every one of you toengage in some form of occupation, such ascrafts, trades and the like. We have graciouslyexalted your engagement in such work to therank of worship unto God, the True One.Ponder ye in your hearts the grace and theblessings of God and render thanks unto Himat eventide and at dawn. Waste not your timein idleness and sloth. Occupy yourselves withthat which profiteth yourselves and others.

Tablets of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 26‘ A b d u ’ l - B a h ác) Bahá’u’lláh taught that hearts must receivethe Bounty of the Holy Spirit, so thatSpiritual civilization may be established. Formaterial civilization is not adequate for theneeds of mankind and cannot be the cause ofits happiness. Material civilization is like thebody and spiritual civilization is like the soul.Body without soul cannot live.

Abdu’l-Bahá in London, p. 30d) God gave this power to man that it might beused for the advancement of civilization, forthe good of humanity, to increase love andconcord and peace.

Paris Talks, p. 42

a) The God whom I seek must reveal himself tome as a savior of man’s work.


b) We are now finding that the concentrationof scientific research, focused a h e a d on theextension of the ‘phenomenon of man’, isopening up an even more astonishing prospectin that direction: that of a progressive‘humanization’ of mankind.


c) In spite of many differences in detail, arapidly increasing number of our contempo-raries are henceforth agreed in recognizingthat the supreme value of life consists indevoting oneself body and soul to universalprogress — this progress being expressed in thetangible development of mankind.


d) To worship was formerly to prefer God tothings, relating them to him and sacrificingthem for him. To worship is now becoming todevote oneself body and soul to the creativeact, associating oneself with that act in orderto fulfill the world by hard work and intellec-tual exploration.

Christianity and Evolution


Appendix 6Bahá’í: Return of Christ in Bahá’u’lláhTeilhard: “Christ must be born again”

1 0 2

Bahá’í Writings T e i l h a r dB a h á ’ u ’ l l á h

a) Wherefore, should one of theseManifestations of Holiness proclaim saying: “Iam the return of all the Prophets,” He verilyspeaketh the truth. In like manner, in everysubsequent Revelation, the return of the for-mer Revelation is a fact, the truth of which isfirmly established. Inasmuch as the return ofthe Prophets of God, as attested by verses andtraditions, hath been conclusively demonstrat-ed, the return of their chosen ones also istherefore definitely proven. This return is toomanifest in itself to require any evidence orp r o o f .

K i t á b - i - ̂ q á n , p. 154

b) O POPE! Rend the veils asunder. He Who isthe Lord of Lords is come overshadowed withclouds, and the decree hath been fulfilled byGod, the Almighty, the Unrestrained . . . He,verily, hath again come down from Heaveneven as He came down from it the first time.Beware that thou dispute not with Him even asthe Pharisees disputed with Him (Jesus) with-out a clear token or proof. On His right handflow the living waters of grace, and on His leftthe choice Wine of justice, whilst before Himmarch the angels of Paradise, bearing the ban-ners of His signs.

Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 83

Shoghi Effendi

c) You should point out to the believers that, bybelonging to other organized religious bodies,we are not acting openly because we firmlybelieve Christ has come again — so how can webelong to a church, which does not acceptBahá’u’lláh and His message as the fulfillmentof Jesus’ message and the reappearance ofJesus Himself?

Light of Divine Guidance vol. 1, p. 107

d) The churches are waiting for the coming ofJesus Christ; we believe He has come again inthe Glory of the Father.

Light of Divine Guidance vol. 1, p. 123

e) After what will soon be two thousand years,Christ must be born again, he must be reincar-nated in a world that has become too differentfrom that in which he lived. Christ cannotreappear tangibly among us; but he can revealto our minds a new and triumphant aspect ofhis former countenance. I believe that theMessiah whom we await, whom we all withoutany doubt await, is the universal Christ, theChrist of evolution.


f) The great event with which our day is preg-nant, and whose birth we must assist, may wellbe, surely, that these two spiritual currentsmay feed, swell, and fertilize one another, andso by synthesis, make Christianity breakthrough into a new sphere: the very sphere inwhich the Redeemer, combining in himself theenergies of both heaven and earth, will take hisplace supernaturally (as seen by our faith) atthe actual focus-point upon which the rays ofevolution naturally (as seen by our science)c o n v e r g e .


g) The fact is that Christianity has already inexistence for two thousand years, and the timehas come (as it does for every other physicalreality) when it needs to be rejuvenated by aninjection of new elements.



N o t e s1. For readers who are not familiar with the

Bahá’í Faith a very brief introduction willbe added here. The Bahá’í Faith under-stands itself as being the most recent rev-elation of the One Religion of God, thatwas presented to the world in many dif-ferent steps by the founders of all previ-ous religions, such as Krishna, Buddha,Moses, Christ, Mohammad, and in ourage the Báb (1819-1850) and Bahá’u’lláh(1817-1893). Bahá’u’lláh was born anobleman in Persia, today Iran. The Báb,a forerunner of Bahá’u’lláh, was executedthrough a firing squad 6 years after Hisannouncement of the new revelation in1844. Bahá’u’lláh was a prisoner for 40years, first of the Shah of Persia inTeheran and then exiled to Baghdad, fromthere exiled to Constantinople toAdrianople and finally confined in theprison city of Akka. On His death Hetransferred the leadership of His Cause toHis son, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá who guided thefaith and visited many European coun-tries and the USA in 1912. In His testa-ment He transferred the Guardianship ofthe faith to Shoghi Effendi (1897-1957),His Grandson, who at that time was a stu-dent in Oxford England. Under hisGuardianship the Bahá’í Faith grew to aworld religion, today the fasted growingof all world religions. Counting approxi-mately 6 million members, the Faith todayis spread out over the whole world, sec-ond only to Christianity.

2 . Importance of Deepening, p. 152.

3. “Shoghi Effendi has for years urged theBahá’ís (who asked his advice, and in gen-eral also) to study history, economics,sociology, etc., in order to be au courantwith all the progressive movements andthoughts being put forth today, and sothat they could correlate these to theBahá’í teachings. What he wants theBahá’ís to do is to study more, not tostudy less. The more general knowledge,scientific and otherwise, they possess, thebetter. Likewise he is constantly urging

them to really study the Bahá’í teachingsmore deeply. One might likenBahá’u’lláh’s teachings to a sphere; thereare points poles apart, and in between thethoughts and doctrines that unite them.”Excerpt from a letter written on behalf ofShoghi Effendi, 19 April 1947, T h eImportance of Deepening, pages 228-229.

4. Quoted from the foreword by Norman L.Geisler, in David H. Lane, T h ePhenomenon of Teilhard, Prophet for aNew Age (Mercer University Press,Macon, Georgia, 1996).

5. Ibid. page 81.

6. Wolfgang Smith, Teilhardism and the NewReligion, a Thorough Analysis of theTeaching of Pierre Teilhard of Chardin(Tan Books and Publishers Inc.,Rockford, Illinois, 1988).

7. Quoted from David H. Lane, ibid., page89. The full quote states: Rama Coomaraswamy (The Destructionof the Christian Tradition, 129-130) isquite correct when he states: These con-cepts of ‘progress’ and ‘evolution’ arethe most pernicious pseudodogmas andpseudomyths that the world has everproduced. This is not to state that theydo not exist, but their existence is par-tial and of quite limited applicability,and never without their antithesis indegradation and degeneration. TheTruth, being timeless and immutable, isclearly immune from such ‘forces ofc h a n g e . ’

8. Bahá’u’lláh (1817–1893) is believed byBahá’ís to be a Divine Manifestation (likethe other Prophets of the world religions)and the founder Prophet and of the Bahá’íFaith. See endnote 1.

9. Shoghi Effendi (1896–1957), the Guardianof the Bahá’í Faith, in The Promised DayIs Come, p. 1. Compare in this contextthe paper from Moojan Momen“Relativism: a Basis for Bahá’íMetaphysics” in Studies in Honor of theLate Husayn M. Balyuzi: Studies in theBábí and Bahá’í Religions. Vol. 5, ed.Moojan Momen (Los Angeles; KalimatPress, 1988).

1 0 3


10. Karen Armstrong, A History of God, The4000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianityand Islam (Alfred A. Knopf, New York,1 9 9 4 ) .

11. The proposition that “man makes religion,religion does not make man,” was antici-pated by Feuerbach and then popularizedby Karl Marx in, “Towards a Critique ofHegel’s Philosophy of Right” in Karl Marxselected writings, ed. David McLellan(Oxford University Press, 1977), page 63.In this sense, it could be stated that theNew Age might attempt, in a post modernattitude, to solve the problem of atheisticMarxism and Armstrong’s statement seemsto be based on a similar way of thinking,as if religion was a creation of man.

12. Stephane Courtois et al. in: The BlackBook of Communism, Crimes, Terror,R e p r e s s i o n (Harvard University Press,Cambridge Massachusetts, 1999):

These are the “cold” statistics of the vic-tims of communism as described in thisbook page 4:

U . S . S . R : 20 million deathsC h i n a 65 million deathsV i e t n a m 1 million deathsNorth Korea 2 million deathsC a m b o d i a 2 million deathsEastern Europe 1 million deathsLatin America 150,000 deathsA f r i c a 1.7 million deathsA f g h a n i s t a n 1.5 million deaths

13. Charles S. Henderson in Chapter 5 of hisbook Towards a Science charged withF a i t h (John Knox Press, 1986), revised andexpanded under God and Science, p. 1.

14. Ibid. p. 1.

15. This was concisely expressed by MoojanMomen in “Bahá’í Scholarship —Definitions and Perspectives,” publishedin the Bahá’í Studies Review, vol. 3.2(1993) when he described the “scientific”or “academic” methodology: “The method-ology of the academic study of the Bahá’íFaith is that everything is explicable fromthe outside, that any text or episode inBahá’í history is explicable from the exter-

nal circumstances. Everything has anexplanation in terms of psychology, soci-ology, economics or whatever.” And later:“On the other hand, the academic study ofthe Bahá’í Faith is based on a methodologythat is basically irreligious, in the sensethat it is methodology which assumes thatGod does not intervene in the world.

16. Teilhard, “How I believe,” page 101 inChristianity and Evolution ( H a r c o u r tBrace & Company: San Diego, 1969).

17. This was presented in a consequent con-tinuation of Teilhardian thinking, andbased on the tenets of perennial philoso-phy (Plato, Plotinus), and of developmen-tal psychology, as well as the transperson-al psychology by Ken Wilber, see A Theoryof Everything, An integral Vision forBusiness, Politics, Science and Spirituality(Shambhala: Boston, 2001), especiallyChapter 3, page 33 passim and throughouthis other works.

18. In Dialog and Universalism, P o l i s hAcademy of Science, 11-12/1996,Published monthly by “Centre ofUniversalism” (Warsaw University:Poland, 1996), several authors from threedifferent continents present contributionto the topic “The Bahá’í Faith,Universalism in Practice,” Guest Editor:Jan T. Jasion. The different aspects ofUniversalism and the Bahá’í Faith aredescribed especially by Udo Schaefer,“Bahá’u’lláh’s Unity Paradigm” (p. 23),and Jan T. Jasion: “The Universalism ofthe Bahá’í as reflected in the writings ofShoghi Effendi” (p. 105) and PhyllisSternberg Parrakis, Bahá’í Universalism:“Uniting Religious Belief and SocialIdeology,” (p. 17).

19. David H. Lane and Wolfgang Smith, ibid.,see endnotes 6 and 8.

20. Dialog and Universalism, ibid. p. 14.

21. This methodological distinction betweencause in the physical sciences and meaningin social science was clearly developed byOthmar Span in this G e s e l l s c h a f t s l e h r e(Sociology) (Verlagsbuchhandlung Qu e l l e

1 0 4


& Meyer, Leipzig, 1923), who based hisscience on the philosophical theory ofWholeness (Ganzheit) and developed asystem and methodology appropriate tothis worldview, following the“philosophia perennis” of Aristotle,Avicenna, Aquinas and the romanticGerman philosophy. It is not surprisingthat one of the few American studies onOthmar Spann totally missed this pointand only looked at the political errors andmistakes Spann made. In the abstract tohis dissertation John J. Haag (O t h m a rSpann and the Politics of “Totality,”Corporatism in Theory and Practice(Dissertation, Rice University, HoustonTexas, 1969), clearly reveals his material-istic prejudice when he defines philoso-phy as “verbiage” stating: “stripped of itsRomanticist and metaphysical verbiage,Spann’s social and political theoryrevealed itself to be little more than anelitist variant of Pan-German national-ism.” This one-sided misunderstanding ofHaag is already expressed in the Title ofhis dissertation where he talks about thePolitics of “Totality,” a word Spann didnot use in his philosophical “verbiage,”even though “Total” and “Totalität” werekey word in Nazi propaganda. Obviously,Spann misjudge the growing NationalMovement in Austria and Germany, buthe certainly was in good company in thismisunderstanding, when considering thatthe Cardinal of Vienna, Innitzer, tried asimilar rapprochement with Hitler withdevastating consequences, i.e. a storm ofNazi youth at his Residence and the mur-der of a priest, who could not hide him-self, like the Cardinal.

22. Othmar Spann has described these threemethodological steps as the method of hisG e s e l l s c h a f t s l e h r e (ibid. page 531), of anyhistorical or sociological investigation: 1.Recognizing the whole of the area ofinvestigation, 2. Recognizing how themembers or parts relate to each other and3. Recognizing how the individual partshave to be understood in their respectivewhole. In the process used in this paper

these three levels have been reversed toprovide a systematic method of compari-son.

23. See below, note 26.

24. Ken Wilber has extended and continuedin the Teilhardian tradition, including thePerennial Philosophy, the GermanIdealists and Process Philosophy ofWhitehead. Ian Kluge, writing aboutWhitehead and Chardin, placed this devel-opment into the Bahá’í Theology and con-cludes: “we may conclude that by studyingother process philosophies such asWhitehead’s and de Chardin’s, we will dis-cover new ways to enrich our understand-ing of the Writings themselves. ForBahá’ís this is valuable as a deepening oftheir knowledge of their religious faith;for non-Bahá’ís, this is valuable as shed-ding new light on a relatively un-exploredaspect of humanity’s intellectual history”(Ian Kluge, “Process Philosophy and theBahá’í Writings: An Initial Exploration,” atw w w . g e o c i t i e s . c o m / i a n k l u g e / i a n _ k l u g e _whitehead-dechardin.rtf 2003.

Similar and more extended thoughts canbe found in Ken Wilber, Sex, Ecology,Spirituality, The Spirit of Evolution,Shambalha, Boston London, 2000, seechapter 4 (“A View from Within,” pages115-158) and chapter 9 (“The Way UP Isthe Way Down,” pages 329-354). TheOpus of Ken Wilber deserves furtherstudy, especially in its closeness to thephilosophical understanding expressed nthe Bahá’í Writings.

25. The translation norms as described byGideon Toury, In Search of a Theory ofT r a n s l a t i o n , (Jerusalem: Academic Press,1980), are adapted from the paper byDiana Malouf, “The Hidden Words ofBahá’u’lláh, Translation Norms Employedby Shoghi Effendi,” in The Vision ofShoghi Effendi, Proceedings of theAssociation for Bahá’í Studies NinthAnnual Conference, November 1984,Ottawa Canada (Ottawa: Association forBahá’í Studies, 1993). Malouf indicatesthat Translation Studies are a relatively

1 0 5


new field (ibid. page 131), the translationfrom different thought system to anotherare even less studied. In this paper, theEnglish translation of both the Bahá’íwritings and the Teilhardian texts areassumed of having established sufficientlythe norms of translation from the differ-ent languages, the task of applying thenorms for translating of one system ofthinking to another will be attempted inthis paper, a study of these issues of epis-temology as applied to the task of compar-ing modern thinkers with the Bahá’í writ-ings is still outstanding.

26. The pages of the Appendix are indicatedby the number and the corresponding textis indicted by the following letter, so that1abc means referral to the texts a, b, c onthe Appendix 1.

27. Othmar Spann, a contemporary ofTeilhard, has a similar understanding ofthe whole and the parts, the one and themany. Compare this brief and formal def-inition of “Gesellschaft” (Othmar Spann,G e s e l l s c h a f t s l e h r e (S o c i o l o g y), 1923) Seite509 (translated by this writer):Expressed in a short phrase, the formalconcept of Society can be definedaccording to the universalistic under-standing as follows: Society is spiritualand acting Wholeness - a formula con-sisting of three characteristics:“Wholeness,” which is the most generalform or essence of Society (this is incontrast to the individualistic under-standing of Society); “spiritual” is acloser characterization of this whole-ness; insofar as it is not the biological,not the living-substantial wholeness,which characterizes society (as it is bio-logically present in an organism) ”act-ing” is the second attribute of the socialWholeness, on the one hand this express-es its purely serving nature, for examplein the economy (economy is a meantowards goals); on the other hand, thisattribute expresses the quality, the real-ization, and the unfoldment (self presen-tation) of the spiritual.” The Germanword “Ganzheit” is here translated asWholeness, the temptation to translateit with the simpler concept of Totality(see John J. Haag, ibid.) must be resist-ed, as this word is equally available in

German (Totalität), but never used bySpann for obvious reasons. The ratherawkward English translation of“Ganzheit” with Wholeness cannot beavoided, since only this concept conveysthe idea of a whole, a healthy and inte-grated unity, which are all descriptionused for Ganzheit by Spann in his uni-versalistic understanding of the wholeand the parts.

28. The thoughts presented here are stronglyinfluenced by Augustinus Karl WuchererHuldenfeld, Ursprüngliche Erfahrung undpersonales Sein: (Original Experience andpersonal existence), p. 434-445, whowrites about the new history of the inte-gral opposition, between the unity andmultiplicity, which is expressed in the ideaof the integral whole. Unity is based onUnification and Wucherer discusses thethoughts of Teilhard about multiplicityand unity, quoting Teilhard who statedthat the human thinking has never stoppedto deal with the question of unity and mul-tiplicity, spirit and matter and Teilhardexpresses his opinion that this problem ison the basis of all of physics, philosophyand religion. (pp. 406-420.) In anotherpaper in Z u r Aktualität des integralenDenkens Leo Gabriels (About theActuality of the integral thinking of LeoGabrie) by Augustinus Karl Wucherer-Huldenfeld, (presented at the 100 yearanniversary of the Birthday of LeoGabriel, at the University at ViennaNovember 27, 2002), he describes thatunity, which seems to contradict on alower level with diversity and multiplicity,can be established on a higher level ofbeing. Teilhard de Chardin, for example,mentions the law of entropy in the physi-cal world, which is not valid on the biolog-ical level. In The Phenomenon of Man(Harper and Row, New York, 1975), page6 6 .

29. This concept is extensively explained inmost of Wilber’s books; see for exampleThe Essential Ken Wilber, AnIntroductory Reader, Shambhala, Bostonand London, 1998, chapter “Holons andHierarchy,” page 55 and “Reality Is Made

1 0 6


of Holons,” page 61.

30. Ibid. p. 61.

31. Ibid. p. 56. In the following parts of thispaper the continuation of the Teilhardianconcept of unity by Wilber will not becommented upon, except in the final sum-mary of this paper.

32. Bahá’u’lláh, Prayers and Meditations,LXXV, p. 123.

33. Mathew, 17:10-13: And his disciples asked him, saying,Why then say the scribes that Elias mustfirst come? And Jesus answered and saidunto them, Elias truly shall first come,and restore all things. But I say untoyou, that Elias is come already, and theyknew him not, but have done unto himwhatsoever they listed. Likewise shallalso the Son of man suffer of them.Then the disciples understood that hespake unto them of John the Baptist.

34. Wucherer Huldenfeld, Ibid., page 406passim about Teilhard: Zur Ontologie derV e r e i n i g u n g (About the ontology of uni-fication), where he not only explainsTeilhard’s scientific origin in the scholas-tic tradition of the Jesuit order, but alsodevelops the Teilhardian thinking aboutunification into the idea of the integralwhole, see note 30.

35. Shoghi Effendi, ibid., see endnote 3.3 6 . In spite of many differences in detail, a

rapidly increasing number of our con-temporaries are henceforth agreed inrecognizing that the supreme value oflife consist in devoting oneself bodyand soul to universal progress — thisprogress being expressed in the tangibledevelopments of mankind. It is a verylong time since the world has witnessedsuch an effect of ‘conversion’. This,surely, can only mean that in forms thatvary ( communist or nationalist, scien-tific or political, individual or collec-tive) we have without any doubt beenwatching for the last century the birthand establishment of a new faith; thereligion of evolution.

Teilhard de Chardin, Christianity and Evolution, ibid, page 123.

37. Ashbrook and Albright in their book T h eHumanizing Brain, Where Religion and

Neuroscience Meet (Cleveland: ThePilgrim Press, 1997).

38. Ibid. Introduction p. XXIX.

39. Ibid. Introduction p. XXXI.

40. Bahá’u’lláh, Kitáb-i-ˆqán, p. 60

41. This writer expresses his thanks to IrajAyman, who made him aware of thistranslation issue.

42. Gleanings from the Writings ofB a h á ’ u ’ l l á h , XXXI, pp. 74-75.

43. see endnote 16.

44. Among others, compare the books byLane and Smith, see endnotes 6 and 8.

45. The Western theological theory of satis-faction, a rather legalistic concept pro-moted by Anselm of Canterbury (d. 1109)implying that God had to send His Son toearth in order to satisfy divine justicethrough His own Son’s death in order tosave humanity, is today rather generallyaccepted in Western Christianity, eventhough it was never defined as a dogma inthe Catholic Church. See Karl Rahner,Kleines Theologisches Wörterbuch (B r i e fTheological Lexicon), Herder Bücherei,Freiburg i. Br., Germany 1961(“Satisfaktionstheorien”). A vividdescription of this theory and its influ-ence in Catholic Theology to this day ispresented by James Carroll in Toward aNew Catholic Church, The Promise ofReform, Houghton Mifflin Company,Boston, New York, 2002, Page 77 passim,contrasting Salvation with Revelation asthe central message of the Bible.

46. Bahá’u’lláh: Persian Hidden Words, p. 33

47. Towards a Critique of Hegel’s p h i l o s o p h yof right, 1843, quoted from Karl Marx,Selected Writings, ed. David McLellan(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977),p. 63.

48. Ibid. p. 95.

49. Under postulatory atheism, we under-stand a worldview, which postulates thenon-existence of God from the assertionof man’s dignity and freedom, based on

1 0 7


his ability to change the world. SeeAugustinus Karl Wucherer-Huldenfel,1994 “Marx und Freud: Zur Problematicder Struktur des Atheismus innerhalb ihrerReligionskritik” (Marx and Freud, Essayabout the problematic of the structure ofatheism in its critique of religion).Further, passim in his volume of selectedstudies I, 1994 and II, 1997 (Böhlau VerlagWien, Köln, Weimar, 1997); this conceptis expressed especially in the section aboutthe “structure of the postulatory atheism,”pp. 447–450.

50. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Bahá’í Prayers, p. 103.

51. See endnote 2.

52. Ken Wilber in: Sex, Ecology, Spirituality,The Spirit of Evolution ( S h a m b h a l a ,Boston & London, 2000), pp. 654-655,where he states that these writers overlookthe dialectic of progress.

53. Ibid. pp. 115-119 where he describes the“View from Within” quoting Teilhardstating: “Things have their within. I amconvinced that the two points of viewrequire to be brought into union, and thatthey soon will unite in a kind of phenome-nology or generalized physic in which theinternal aspect of things, as well as theexternal aspect of the world will be takeninto account. Otherwise, so it seems tome, it is impossible to cover the totality ofthe cosmic phenomenon by on coherentexplanation.” Wilber has developed thiswithin in his “All quadrant all level” theo-ry that has explicated this statement o fTeilhard into a full-fledged philosophy, ora “theory of everything” as one of hisbook titles claims. It is hoped that thisnew opus of Wilber will find its Bahá’íinterpreter, as other modern philosopherhave. Compare the paper of Ian Klugedealing with Heidegger and existentialism,“The Call into Being: An Introduction to aBahá’í Existentialism” (www.bahai-l i b r a r y . o r g / a r t i c l e s / e x i s t e n t i a l i s m . k l u g e . ht m l ) .

54. In the Appendix all quotes from the Bahá’íwritings are copied from: Bahá’í Library

CD-ROM (Laguna Hills California: DigitalEra Productions, 2001).

55. The following books of Teilhard are quot-ed in the Appendix by name and page:Teilhard de Chardin,

The Phenomenon of Man (Harper & Row,New York, 1975).

Christianity and Evolution ( H a r c o u r tBrace & Company, San Diego, 1974).

Towards the Future (Harcourt Brace &Company, San Diego, 1973)

The Teilhard Lexicon, Understanding thelanguage, terminology and vision of thewritings of Teilhard de Chardin ( B r i g h t o n :Sion Cowell, Sussex Academic Pres, 2001)

1 0 8

unity and progressive revelation - irfanirfancolloquia.org/pdf/lights5_klebel.pdf · aquarian...

Documents