Kingdom Concept

Discussion of `Abdu'l-Baha's Kingdom Concept

By John Taylor; 22 February, 2006

Yesterday I read aloud, recorded and shared the text of a talk on
Oneness of God that the Master gave in New Jersey (Promulgation,
113-116). Here, in capsule summary, are the first two main points He
made:

- It is axiomatic that the phenomenal cannot grasp the "ancient and
essential Reality"
- Any difference in degree means that the higher comprehends the lower
but the lower cannot understand what is above it. This is true not
only for God over creation, but within creation itself, going upward
from mineral to plant, animal, and finally to the human kingdom.

These three kingdoms are like ghosts walking among each other, made up
of one another yet divided by an infinite gap that is inherent to the
height of their respective stations. I am made up of minerals, plant
and animal matter, but they do not understand me any more than I
understand what is above me. Higher things take in what is below, but
are in their turn taken in by even higher entities.

In the midst of making this point, the Master probably hesitated.
Then, seeing a rose nearby, He pointed it out and remarked that no
matter how perfect this flower may progress in the plant kingdom, it
will never reach the point where it will see or hear. The even higher
realms of the human and divine are "to it as infinite." Try counting
up to infinity some time; yet without the idea of infinity, higher
mathematics would grind to a halt. That is what I learned in Grade Ten
math class; anyway, I think that is what I learned before I dropped
off.

When I think of all the public talks I have attended, well, there
seems to be an unwritten rule that there be a large flower arrangement
decorating the table. The most beautiful member of the plant kingdom
is always sitting right there before the speaker ready and waiting for
this lovely lesson to be drawn from it. Yet you never see this idea
cropping up, especially among non-Baha'is. Are they afraid of
insulting the flowers? In fact, now that I think of it, this "kingdom
thesis" is given surprisingly little attention in the history of
philosophy as well. How so? Is it that a negative thesis is so hard to
make that we must ignore it completely?

Let there be no mistake. A negative proof is very hard to make indeed.
I remember back in the Eighties reading Daniel Boorstin's, "The
Discoverers," which tells the long and tedious story of the legend of
a southern continent. It took many disastrous attempts and wasted
careers until Captain Cook finally proved by his long voyages of
exploration that there was no habitable land mass in the southern
extremities of our planet. It was tough to do, but somebody had to do
it. Otherwise, like lemmings, sailors would have continued to follow
one another to their doom in fruitless quest of what was not there.

Even then, the idea of a lost continent like Atlantis did not die.
Jules Verne in Voyage to the Center of the Earth speculated that the
lost continent might be hidden away in the depths of the earth under a
volcano in Iceland, complete with mastodons and dinosaurs. The other
day my wife Marie bought an old comic book version of this novel and
tried to persuade eleven year old Silvie to check it out. The story
thrilled us in our youth but Silvie was skeptical. "That is
ridiculous; there cannot be a lost continent with dinosaurs living in
it!" I pointed out that this is not so obvious. Michael Creighton, for
instance, wrote the Jurassic Park series speculating how such a thing
may possibly come about using the latest cloning technology. Creighton
openly acknowledged his debt in this thesis to early scientific
novelists, like H. G. Wells and Jules Verne. Without saying anything,
I also recalled Abdu'l-Baha's comment to the northern explorer Peary
that it was wonderful that he had proven that nothing is to be found
at in the boreal regions. He may not have been as facetious as some
took him to be. It is a difficult and important thing to make a
negative discovery. Nonetheless, the advance of science is so rapid
that it is very hard to say with absolute certainty that anything is
impossible. This did not persuade Silvie, who is already more rock
hard in her world view that any senior snit I have ever seen.

Let there not be another mistake. There are a great many people out
there who hold to science as their religion. This antinomian religion
has no name, some call it humanism or scientism. Another moniker might
be "the religion with no name" or the non-faith. I like scientism, so
let us call it that here. By some counts scientism is the second or
third largest religion in the United States. In most Western countries
the proportions are probably similar. Scientism has been the ruin of
many a poor soul, and God, I know I was one. At least until I was
seventeen years old. You may think that the Master was talking to
Christians most of the time in His addresses in the West, but I know
better. He was talking to us atheists.

Anyway, the Unfaith feeds on uncertainties like the legend of the lost
continent. You never can tell. Or the possibility that computers will
be built that are smarter than us, and will take over the world and
exterminate us. Who knows? Or that science will one day find a "cure"
for death. You never know. When I came across the Master's philosophy
at age 17, this was the astonishing beauty of his contribution. He
established limits. No, not just limits, he explained with rational
arguments why there are inherent limitations. Death? There will be no
"cure" for it, it will always here and it is part of the design of the
universe. Can you believe what a comfort this is to a paid in full
member of the Church of Science? There is constant anxiety, the
constant question running through your mind: will I die too soon,
before the cure for death is found? Will my existence be snuffed out
the day before the headlines announce: "Cure for Death Found; If You
are Already Dead, You Are Out of Luck."

You cannot believe what a relief it was for me when the Master
decisively finalized with his negative proofs so many puzzling
uncertainties about the nature of life and everything. And among the
greatest of these negative proofs was the one under consideration in
this talk, that there is no way for the lower to understand the
higher. Of course this is part and parcel of several other negative
proofs, including the proposition that there is a God in the first
place. But once you accept that He Himself is permanently beyond
comprehension -- and that anyone who claims to know is committing
blasphemy, or at least idolatry, then it follows that the universe is
permanently unable to do certain things, that there is such a thing as
a station, degree or kingdom.

I am being called away, so I will have to continue this tomorrow.

--
John Taylor

badijet@gmail.com