Reconciliation of Races and Religions — 21 – [Part V. A Series of Illustrative Studies Bearing on Comparative Religion]: Great Manifestation; When?; Non-Finality of Revelation; Early Christianity and Bahaism and Buddhism; Western and Eastern Religion.

GREAT MANIFESTATION; WHEN?

I do not myself think that the interval of nineteen years for the Great Manifestation was meant by the Bāb to be taken literally.

The number 19 may be merely a conventional sacred number and have no historical significance.

I am therefore not to be shaken by a reference to these words of the Bāb, quoted in substance by Mirza Abu'l Fazl, that after nine years all good will come to his followers, or by the Mirza's comment that it was nine years after the Bāb's Declaration that Baha-'ullah gathered together the Bābīs at Baghdad, and began to teach them, and that at the end of the nineteenth year from the Declaration of the Bāb, Baha-'ullah declared his Manifestation.

Another difficulty arises.

The Bāb does not always say the same thing.

There are passages of the Persian Bayan which imply an interval between his own theophany and the next parallel to that which separated his own theophany from Muḥammad's. He says, for instance, in _Waḥid_ II.

Bāb 17, according to Professor Browne, 'If he [whom God shall manifest] shall appear in the number of Ghiyath (1511) and all shall enter in, not one shall remain in the Fire.

If He tarry [until the number of] Mustaghath (2001), all shall enter in, not one shall remain in the Fire.'

[Footnote: _History of the Bābīs, edited by E. G.

Browne; Introd.

p. xxvi.

_Traveller's Narrative_ (Browne), Introd.

p. xvii.

] I quote next from _Waḥid_ III.

Bāb 15:-- 'None knoweth [the time of] the Manifestation save God: whenever it takes place, all must believe and must render thanks to God, although it is hoped of His Grace that He will come ere [the number of] Mustaghath, and will raise up the Word of God on his part.

And the Proof is only a sign [or verse], and His very Existence proves Him, since all also is known by Him, while He cannot be known by what is below Him.

Glorious is God above that which they ascribe to Him.'

[Footnote: _History of the Bābīs_, Introd.

p. xxx.

] Elsewhere (vii.

9), we are told vaguely that the Advent of the Promised One will be sudden, like that of the Point or Bāb (iv.

10);

it is an element of the great Oriental myth of the winding-up of the old cycle and the opening of a new.

[Footnote: Cheyne, _Mines of Isaiah Re-explored_, Index, 'Myth.'

] A Bahai scholar furnishes me with another passage-- 'God knoweth in what age He will manifest him.

But from the springing (beginning) of the manifestation to its head (perfection) are nineteen years.'

[Footnote: Bayan, _Waḥid_, III.

, chap.

iii.

] This implies a preparation period of nineteen years, and if we take this statement with a parallel one, we can, I think, have no doubt that the Bāb expected the assumption, not immediate however, of the reins of government by the Promised One.

The parallel statement is as follows, according to the same Bahai scholar.

'God only knoweth his age.

But the time of his proclamation after mine is the number Waḥid (=19, cabbalistically), and whenever he cometh during this period, accept him.'

[Footnote: Bayan, _Brit.

Mus.

Text_, p. 151. ] Another passage may be quoted by the kindness of Mirza 'Ali Akbar.

It shows that the Bāb has doubts whether the Great Manifestation will occur in the lifetime of Baha-'ullah and Ṣubḥ-i-Ezel (one or other of whom is addressed by the Bāb in this letter).

The following words are an extract:-- 'And if God hath not manifested His greatness in thy days, then act in accordance with that which hath descended (i. e. been revealed), and never change a word in the verses of God.

'This is the order of God in the Sublime Book; ordain in accordance with that which hath descended, and never change the orders of God, that men may not make variations in God's religion.'

NON-FINALITY OF REVELATION

Not less important than the question of the Bāb's appointment of his successor is that of his own view of the finality or non-finality of his revelation.

The Bayan does not leave this in uncertainty.

The Ḳur'an of the Bābīs expressly states that a new Manifestation takes place whenever there is a call for it (ii.

9, vi.

13);

successive revelations are like the same sun arising day after day (iv.

12, vii.

15, viii.

1).

The Bāb's believers therefore are not confined to a revelation constantly becoming less and less applicable to the spiritual wants of the present age.

And very large discretionary powers are vested in 'Him whom He will make manifest,' extending even to the abrogation of the commands of the Bayan (iii.

3).

EARLY CHRISTIANITY AND BAHAISM AND BUDDHISM

The comparisons sometimes drawn between the history of nascent Christianity and that of early Bahaism are somewhat misleading.

'Ali Muḥammad of Shiraz was more than a mere forerunner of the Promised Saviour; he was not merely John the Baptist--he was the Messiah, All-wise and Almighty, himself.

True, he was of a humble mind, and recognized that what he might ordain would not necessarily be suitable for a less transitional age, but the same may be said--if our written records may be trusted--of Jesus Christ.

For Jesus was partly his own forerunner, and antiquated his own words.

It is no doubt a singular coincidence that both 'Ali Muḥammad and Jesus Christ are reported to have addressed these words to a disciple: 'To-day thou shalt be with me in Paradise.'

But if the Crucifixion is unhistorical--and there is, I fear, considerable probability that it is--what is the value of this coincidence?

More important is it that both in early Christianity and in early Bahaism we find a conspicuous personage who succeeds in disengaging the faith from its particularistic envelope.

In neither case is this personage a man of high culture or worldly position.

[Footnote: Leslie Johnston's phraseology (_Some Alternatives to Jesus Christ_, p. 114) appears to need revision.

] This, I say, is most important.

Paul and Baha-'ullah may both be said to have transformed their respective religions.

Yet there is a difference between them.

Baha-'ullah and his son Abdul-Baha after him were personal centres of the new covenant; Paul was not.

This may perhaps suffice for the parallels--partly real, partly supposed--between early Christianity and early Bahaism.

I will now refer to an important parallel between the development of Christianity and that of Buddhism.

It is possible to deny that the Christianity of Augustine [Footnote: Professor Anesaki of Tokio regards Augustine as the Christian Nagarjuna.

] deserves its name, on the ground of the wide interval which exists between his religious doctrines and the beliefs of Jesus Christ.

Similarly, one may venture to deny that the Mahâyâna developments of Buddhism are genuine products of the religion because they contain some elements derived from other Indian systems.

In both cases, however, grave injustice would be done by any such assumption.

It is idle 'to question the historical value of an organism which is now full of vitality and active in all its functions, and to treat it like an archaeological object, dug out from the depths of the earth, or like a piece of bric-à-brac, discovered in the ruins of an ancient royal palace.

Mahâyânaism is not an object of historical curiosity.

Its vitality and activity concern us in our daily life.

It is a great spiritual organism.

What does it matter, then, whether or not Mahâyânaism is the genuine teaching of the Buddha?'

[Footnote: Suzuki, _Outlines of Mahâyâna Buddhism_, p. 15. ] The parallel between the developments of these two great religions is unmistakable.

We Christians insist--and rightly so--on the 'genuineness' of our own religion in spite of the numerous elements unknown to its 'Founder.'

The northern Buddhism is equally 'genuine,' being equally true to the spirit of the Buddha.

It is said that Christianity, as a historical religion, contrasts with the most advanced Buddhism.

But really it is no loss to the Buddhist Fraternity if the historical element in the life of the Buddha has retired into the background.

A cultured Buddhist of the northern section could not indeed admit that he has thrust the history of Gautama entirely aside, but he would affirm that his religion was more philosophical and practically valuable than that of his southern brothers, inasmuch as it transcended the boundary of history.

In a theological treatise called _Chin-kuang-ming_ we read as follows: 'It would be easier to count every drop of water in the ocean, or every grain of matter that composes a vast mountain than to reckon the duration of the life of Buddha.'

'That is to say, Buddha's life does not belong to the time-series: Buddha is the "I Am" who is above time.'

[Footnote: Johnston, _Buddhist China_, p. 114. ] And is not the Christ of Christendom above the world of time and space?

Lastly, must not both Christians and Buddhists admit that among the Christs or Buddhas the most godlike are those embodied in narratives as Jesus and Gautama?

WESTERN AND EASTERN RELIGION

Religion, as conceived by most Christians of the West, is very different from the religion of India.

Three-quarters of it (as Matthew Arnold says) has to do with conduct; it is a code with a very positive and keen divine sanction.

Few of its adherents, indeed, have any idea of the true position of morality, and that the code of Christian ethics expresses barely one half of the religious idea.

The other half (or even more) is expressed in assurances of holy men that God dwells within us, or even that we are God.

A true morality helps us to realize this--morality is not to be tied up and labelled, but is identical with the cosmic as well as individual principle of Love.

Sin (i. e. an unloving disposition) is to be avoided because it blurs the outlines of the Divine Form reflected, however dimly, in each of us.

There are, no doubt, a heaven where virtue is rewarded, and a hell where vice is punished, for the unphilosophical minds of the vulgar.

But the only reward worthy of a lover of God is to get nearer and nearer to Him.

Till the indescribable goal (Nirvana) is reached, we must be content with realizing.

This is much easier to a Hindu than to an Englishman, because the former has a constant sense of that unseen power which pervades and transcends the universe.

I do not understand how Indian seekers after truth can hurry and strive about sublunary matters.

Surely they ought to feel 'that this tangible world, with its chatter of right and wrong, subserves the intangible.'