OH in Green Acre

Oneness of Humanity as a Baha'i Principle, Part II

By John Taylor; 2009 May 12, Jamal 15, 166 BE

I have been revising and rewriting an essay on the central Baha'i principle that originally was called "Oneness of Mankind as a Baha'i Principle," written back in March, 2001 for a now-defunct Geocities web site about the Baha'i principles.

In part one I compared the Baha'i principles to my son's Tinkertoy construction set, whose slogan is "build big fast." Like a Tinkertoy set, a person applying principle takes two simple pieces, truth seeking and oneness of humanity, and in the creative spirit of play connects them into big things fast. The method of principle sets two invariables before us on the assumption that commonalities will overcome difference.

"If the points of contact which are the common properties of humanity overcome the peculiar points of distinction, unity is assured." (Promulgation 64-5)

As an individual seeks truth for herself their discovery, however unique and personal, must fit into a deeper consciousness of the underlying oneness of all that is human. The more we investigate the better we appreciate the oneness in all things, our selves, our planet and indeed the universe itself. Each part of search and oneness fits perfectly into the other, assuring that no fundamental is ever passed over.

Indeed the further dozen or so Baha'i principles are little more than the effects and implications in every major sphere of human endeavour of these two simple joints and connectors, search and oneness. Keeping these two things in mind we can use the Baha'i principles as a modular construction system that, if everybody adheres to them, can wipe war, suffering, injustice and other dislocation from the slate.

Nothing common to everybody can be left aside by the majority and relegated to the expertise of a few specialists. For example, one should not need a PhD in Women's Studies in order to be able to apply the principle of equality of men and women, nor a graduate degree in diplomacy, race relations or conflict resolution to be qualified to remove prejudice. These enter into every situation imaginable, and in a shrinking planet every social agent must understand and apply them. We therefore must build these universals into education from day one.

Yesterday we started into the fourth address that Abdu'l-Baha gave at Green Acre school in Maine (Promulgation, 369-377), which was entirely devoted to explaining the principle of the Oneness of Humanity. He began by saying that if we ever established the oneness of humanity the results would be astonishing, that peace would break out everywhere. This would snuff out the conflict that has afflicted human relations from the beginning, especially in the area of religion. He said that the problem is that this bias historically has been built into religions themselves. They saw their own group as the divine tree of God while picturing other faiths as of the tree of Satan. He pointed out Baha'u'llah's central teaching that "Ye are all leaves of one tree" has ended that parlous condition permanently. The law of Baha'u'llah established the religious grounds of the oneness of humanity by outlawing any words or deed contrary to that spirit. "Baha'u'llah has made no exception to this rule." Any badmouthing of others, or gossip, backbiting or even lack of courtesy to any servant of God is now considered a direct insult to God.

Having taken care of the legal, negative, protective application of oneness, Abdu'l-Baha turns to its positive application. This is a sort of unification imperative that might be called the sub-principle of "Merciful Action":

"He said that among mankind there may be those who are ignorant; they must be trained. Some are sick; they must be treated. Some are immature; they must be helped to attain maturity. In other respects humanity is submerged in the ocean of divine mercy. God is the Father of all. He educates, provides for and loves all; for they are His servants and His creation."

This positive teaching of Baha'u'llah is none other than the full application of pure monotheism. By holding that there are two "trees" mankind has throughout its childhood denied that God is kind and loving. Although characteristic of the Baha'i Faith, this compassionate vision could (and should) be extracted from the pure spiritual leanings of all older religious scriptures. Abdu'l-Baha continues, invoking reason rather than authority,

"Surely the Creator loves His creatures. It would be impossible to find an artist who does not love his own production. Have you ever seen a man who did not love his own actions? Even though they be bad actions, he loves them. How ignorant, therefore, the thought that God, Who created man, educated and nurtured him ... and then did not love him. This is palpable ignorance, for no matter to what religion a man belongs, even though he be an atheist or materialist, nevertheless, God nurtures him, bestows His kindness and sheds upon him His light. How then can we believe God is wrathful and unloving?"

Having got the image of God right, the next step is to act upon God's example of kindness. To know God is to love Him and to love Him means acting in His loving, compassionate spirit.

"If, therefore, God be loving, what should we do? We have nothing else to do but to emulate Him. Just as God loves all and is kind to all, so must we really love and be kind to everybody. We must consider none bad, none worthy of detestation, no one as an enemy. We must love all; nay, we must consider everyone as related to us, for all are the servants of one God. All are under the instructions of one Educator. We must strive day and night that love and amity may increase, that this bond of unity may be strengthened, that joy and happiness may more and more prevail, that in unity and solidarity all mankind may gather beneath the shadow of God... Thus may they be confirmed in the Kingdom of God and live forever through His grace and bounty."

This is diametrically opposed to how racism, sexism and any number of other "isms" and ideologies respond to differences. These generally attempt to put one part of society down in order to raise another. They say:

"Yes, some are ailing so we need to eliminate, ignore or marginalize them. Yes, some are less intelligent, so let us direct limited resources to more productive ends."

While society has largely relegated the most blatant racist and extremist thinking to the lunatic fringe, it is safe to say that in many cases passive forms do greater harm. Even mild acceptance of a central moral imperative like this can amount to resistance and denial. In its secular form the "ism" of liberalism, which imitates this principle closely, tends to ignore Christ's dictum that it is better to give than to receive. Liberalism concentrates more on liberality of taking than the divine model of liberality in sacrificial, magnanimous outflow.

The oneness of humanity does the reverse of an ideology, it acknowledges that differences, deficits and inequalities exist and apply, but it responds generously, with merciful action. As Abdu'l-Baha puts it:

"Baha'u'llah has clearly said in His Tablets that if you have an enemy, consider him not as an enemy. Do not simply be long-suffering; nay, rather, love him. Your treatment of him should be that which is becoming to lovers. ... To consider a man your enemy and love him is hypocrisy. This is not becoming of any soul. You must behold him as a friend."

The influential contemporary Baha'i writer Paul Lample points out the broad implications on politics and social policy that rejection of this principle's liberal bias and divinely compassionate spirit has:

"Refusal to be generous and giving is an invitation to corrosive habits and practices, among which are impatience with the mistakes of others and a desire to control their actions. Ungenerous souls in positions of authority deny others the opportunity to serve, demonstrating interest and appreciation only for enterprises in which they directly participate. They are instead to be free `from every word and deed that may savour of partiality, self-centeredness and prejudice.' As community members, souls who lack generosity constantly criticize their leaders and institutions." (Creating a New Mind, 27)

In Green Acre Abdu'l-Baha insisted that this spirit is not mere idealism or emotionalism but an outcome of the most fundamental, binding laws of nature.

"When we observe the phenomena of the universe, we realize that the axis around which life revolves is love, while the axis around which death and destruction revolve is animosity and hatred."

He then traces the action of the principle of oneness through the mineral to the plant and animal kingdoms, and finally to us, where unfortunately we all to often fail to grasp its full implications. No matter what level nature works in, dispersal always means death while coherence and cohesion means progress and life. While I am tempted to cite the four large paragraphs covering each of the kingdoms, mineral, plant, animal and human, in their entirety, instead I will offer some general comments.

It is easy even for committed, highly educated Baha'is to pass over this "kingdoms of God" thesis. In fact I have observed that the more prominent and well-trained a Baha'i is, the more likely they are to be uncomfortable with, if not outright suspicious of this "kingdoms of God" idea, as well as the principles in general.

Some (and they are very outspoken in the blogosphere) even look at a few talks of the Master whose authenticity is questionable, and conclude that the principles themselves inauthentic. This ignores their central position in the Tablet of the Hague, a climactic, unquestionably authentic document that amounts to the consummation of the Master's entire ministry to the public at large.

We surely would avoid such egregious mistakes if there were a definitive biography of Abdu'l-Baha and all Baha'is were trained from an early age in His entire teaching.

What the Master is doing here is tracing the outlines of a future unified curriculum that would be in the spirit of the "university," which literally means "oneness in the whole." The university, significantly, originally came out of the Madraseh in Islam. It is an institution designed to unify all knowledge into a single, liberal education. Educational pioneer John Comenius appreciated this and propounded an educational system where practical, vocational training would be balanced by a liberal education for each and all. Unfortunately, I do not think Comenius understood as well as Kant did how fundamental generous, liberal hospitality is to the whole peace process.

The great contribution of Islam was that it took the "compassionate action" tendency of Christianity, which had generously taken the "love feast" begun at the Last Supper and extended it by instituting the world's first free schools and hospitals, which Christians founded throughout the Roman world, and carried that principle further still. It "force fed," as it were, the duty of hospitality into the family. Even today one can be assured of a hospitable reception in any Muslim household throughout the Islamic world, even if bigotry may oblige them to smash the dishes you ate off of later on.

Unfortunately, over the centuries the liberal spirit of the university, its tie to familial hospitality -- a process where host and guest eat and learn together -- became tenuous, and science came to stand as an amoral, neutral body of facts.

In these paragraphs Abdu'l-Baha is introducing this principle of generosity further still, into the spirit of science as well as religion. "... if attraction did not exist between the atoms, the composite substance of matter would not be possible." This changes forever our understanding of science and nature by distinguishing the need that even rocks and stones have for coherence and unity. This has lately been backed up, by the way, by studies whose calculations find that a large proportion of the more "advanced" minerals on the earth's surface are produced by biological processes, and in turn support the existence of higher forms of life.

"This power of attraction in the mineral world is love, the only expression of love the stone can manifest."

This viewpoint makes even materials science into a truly liberal study with far reaching ethical implications for society. Ditto in subsequent paragraphs for biology and the social sciences. All these adhere to a dry, life-denying, overly competitive caricature of the processes of evolution. This misunderstanding makes science toxic to both religion and ethics. In Abdu'l-Baha's view, the human world, as a superior entity, must intensify an attractive force of love, which is already vital in lower, simpler levels of creation,

"...man is the possessor of a degree of attraction which is conscious and spiritual. Here is an immeasurable advance. In the human kingdom spiritual susceptibilities come into view, love exercises its superlative degree, and this is the cause of human life."

Next time we will examine what the Master proposes that we make of this love dictum written into the very fabric of material and human existence.

::