To bring about human potentials is the true purpose of creation

Seeking to understand the mysteries of universe always brings me joy and being a Baha'i is specially fun for me because within the Baha'i teachings many mysteries about our existence are explained clearly and logically. The following is one of these mysteries about human being and human progress that I learned lately*.

There is objective existence which we call the reality and within the framework of the overall wholeness of reality, there are four distinct levels of being (see the attached picture):

1. The first and the highest level is that of the essence of God, our Creator;
2. The second level is that of the Manifestations of God, who perfectly manifest all of the attributes of God;
3. The third level is that of the human soul, which has consciousness and endowed with capacity to reflect progressively (potentially) all of the attributes of God;
4. The lowest level is that of the material world, which is totally devoid of consciousness and will.

It is worth noticing that the third level, that of the human soul, is the only level of being that is capable of true irreversible progress. God and the Manifestations are already in perfect states of existence on Their respective levels and therefore have no need of progression. On the other side, the material world only exhibits continual movement within fixed limits. All material systems are composite and temporary. They have a finite life span and progress only to a fixed degree and then decomposition sets in and death is inevitable. Thus there is no real progress in material world, or in purely material sense.

However, the human soul, while created in an imperfect state, has or is endowed with the potential for perfection. From the picture we can see that human beings occupy an unique position among all creations. If we say the material world is the world of imperfection and spiritual world is the world of perfection, and then we may also say that human being is the end of imperfection (highest level in material world) and beginning of perfection (lowest level of spiritual world). Thus to bring about human potentials to reflect all perfections latent within him is not only the purpose of individual's life, but also the business of whole creation. It is not for human being to find his purpose in the universe, but for the creation to find its purpose in helping bringing about human potentials. God has ordained for the training of human beings "every atom in existence and the essence of all created things."

Human capacity is God's given. No one can ever change it and no circumstances of life can destroy it. But this human capacity is latent and needs to be developed. And the development is not automatic. As Baha'u'llah stated in this quote:

"Know thou that all men have been created in the nature made by God... Unto each one hath been prescribed a pre-ordained measure, as decreed in God's mighty and guarded Tablets. All that which ye potentially possess can, however, be manifested only as a result of your own volition."

Effort is needed from our part for our own development. Our soul is threaten by and only by undevelopment. Another day, a friend of mine asked "What is good?" while talking about "Do well by doing good". From Baha'i perspective we may say: that which fosters and advances the process of human spiritual development is good and that which tends to inhibit this development is bad.

How then, one may ask, do we go about to develop our soul?

From the point view of human spiritual development, the material world serves as the womb of preparation for birth into the spiritual world. Let's first take a look at the development of a fetus in a mother's womb. There are two prerequisites for a fetus to effectively progress from one-celled organism to a mature human form which if left out in the physical world could take five hundred million years of evolution. These two conditions are: the special environment of mother's womb and the encoded human DNA information within the cell. The same is true for the development of a human soul . The material world serves as that special environment, but this is not enough for a human soul to progress, just as mother's womb alone will not enable a rock to develop into a human baby. The knowledge brought by the Manifestations of God serve as the second condition for human development. Their teachings may be thought of as the spiritual counterpart of the genetic code. These teachings are recorded (encoded) in the holy writings of the great religions and when the knowledge they contain is implemented, genuine spiritual growth is the result.

Thus, striving to understand and implement the laws that govern the process of spiritual growth is the fundamental task of our earthly lives. In doing so we may generate the appropriate, growth-inducing responses to the circumstances of our lives and thereby profit from the unique opportunities for our spiritual growth with which God has endowed this life.

*Ref.: "The Law of love enshrined" by Hatchers

Our seeking mind and our yearning heart

“True loss is for him whose days have been spent in utter ignorance of his self.”

Sometime ago, I read a book titled “Portals to Freedom” by Howard Colby Ives and found this paragraph incredibly beautiful. So I’d like to share it with you here:

“Men are wandering in the wilderness of Time and Space, caught in the net of circumstances, befooled by the illusions of sense. They are not aware of this, and that ignorance constitutes the tragedy of life.

Nevertheless, they long above all else to escape that wilderness in which they wander so forlorn. Under the pressure of this instinctive yearning they experiment with every path which offers the slightest hope of freedom. To the vast majority, that escape seems easiest along the path of what they call pleasure. To others fame and power beckon, saying: “follow me and I will give you in the adulation of the world that respite from self for which you long.”

To still others the refuge lies in the realms of intellect. In extending the barriers of nature; in probing into the microscopic universe; in breaking down the atom and bombarding the electron; in sweeping inter-stellar space with powerful and ever more powerful telescopes, -- all are seeking, though they know it not, for Him who is in their very heart of hearts, “closer than their own identity.” Inherently, fundamentally, essentially, inescapably dissatisfied with all the contingent world can offer, they yet seek to find within its scope that answer to their questing soul and mind without which they can never find rest. They know instinctively that they must escape the self and so they seek, in flying from it to the world around them, the refuge from its grasp for which they yearn. Their longing is for an eternal Home, for the knowledge and love of God, but they know this not.”

What a tragedy, I often think, if we live our whole life without ever knowing who we truly are, and why we live, why we die.

Science and Religion: Nature of the conflict (V)

Scientific Method
We now turn to a more substantive task of elaborating just how the basic unity of science, and of science and religion, is viewed in the light of the Bahá’í teachings. Our theses are, quite simply: (1) that the basic unity of science lies in its method of inquiry or epistemology, and (2) that the Bahá’í Faith consciously accepts this epistemology as its own, accepting in its wake whatever redefinitions of the terms “religion” and “faith” are consequent to it.
…
Science is, first of all, knowledge. Moreover, it is human knowledge because it is humans who do the knowing, and the nature of human knowledge will be determined by the nature of human mental faculties. Of course every human being on earth knows things and uses his mental faculties in order to attain this knowledge. What distinguishes the scientific method of knowing, it seems to me, is the systematic, organized, directed, and conscious nature of the process. However much we may refine and elaborate our description of the application of scientific method in some particular domain such as mathematics, logic, or physics, this description remains essentially an attempt on our part to bring to ourselves a fuller consciousness of exactly how we apply our mental faculties in the course of the epistemological act within the given domain. I offer therefore this heuristic definition of scientific method: Scientific method is the systematic, organized, directed, and conscious use of our various mental faculties in an effort to arrive at a coherent model of whatever phenomenon is being investigated.

In a word, science is self-conscious common sense. Instead of relying on chance happenings or occasional experiences, one systematically invokes certain types of experiences. This is experimentation (the conscious use of experience). Instead of relying on naive reasoning, one formalizes hypotheses explicitly and formalizes the reasoning leading from hypothesis to conclusion. This is mathematics and logic (the conscious use of reason). Instead of relying on occasional flashes of insight, one systematically meditates on problems. This is reflection (the conscious use of intuition).

The practice of this method is not linked to the study of any particular phenomenon. It can be applied to the study of unseen forces and mysterious phenomena as well as to everyday occurrences. Failure to appreciate the universality of scientific method has led some to feel that science is really only the study of matter or of material phenomena. This narrow philosophical outlook, plus the historical fact that physics was the first science to develop a high degree of mathematical objectivity, has led to a common misconception that scientific knowledge is inherently limited only to physical reality.

It should be stressed also that the scientific study even of material and concretely accessible phenomena involves a heavily theoretical and subjective component. Far from just “reading the facts from the book of nature,” the scientist must bring an essential aspect of creative hypothesis and imagination to his work. Science as a whole is underdetermined by experience, and there are often many different possible models to explain a given phenomenon. The scientist therefore must not only find out how things are but must also imagine how things might be. Developments in all branches of science during this century have led to an increasing awareness among scientists and philosophers of the vastness of this subjective input into science.

Another feature of scientific knowledge is its relativity. Because science is the self-conscious use of our faculties we become aware that man has no absolute measure of the truth. The conclusions of scientific investigations are always more or less probable. They are never absolute proofs. Of course if a conclusion is highly probable and its negation highly improbable we may feel very confident in the results, especially if we have been very thorough in our investigation. But realization and acceptance of this essential uncertainty and relativity of our knowledge are important, for the exigencies of the human situation are often such that we are forced to act in some instances before we have had time to make such a thorough investigation. It therefore behooves us to remain constantly alert to the possibility that in fact we may be wrong.

In sum, human knowledge is the truth which is accessible to man, and this truth is relative because man the knower is relative, finite, and limited. There is an absolute reality underlying the multifaceted qualities and experiences accessible to man, but direct access to this reality or direct perception of it is forever beyond man's capabilities. His knowledge is therefore relative and limited only to the knowledge of the various effects produced by this absolute reality (the Manifestations being one of the most important of these effects). However, if man uses systematically all of the various modes of knowledge available to him, he is assured that his knowledge and understanding, such as they are on their level, will increase.

(All above are excerpts from an article “The Science of Religion” by Dr. William Hatcher which I liked very much so to share it here with you.)

(To be continued…)
"Science and Religion:Nature of the Conflict(VIII)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the Conflict(VII)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the conflict(VI)"

"Science and Religion:Nature of the conflict(IV)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the conflict(III)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the conflict(II)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the conflict(I)"
Ref.: The William Hatcher Library

The out climate change is an indicator of the change of inner climate

Today is "Blog Action Day" and the topic is on Climate Change.

As we have discussed in a previous blog that social progress or civilization starts with a set of moral values as its core. When people begin to believe in these core moral values and try to translate them into their daily life, the society will see a pattern of behaviors slowly taking shape. In turn, this totality of behaviors will guide us on how to construct our material development and environmental usage.

So according to this model, any environment or climate change is not purely material. There is always human factor or human contribution to the outer environmental change. And since man lives intimately within a given environment, thus his life and inner development are inevitably affected by the conditions of the environment in which he lives. Shoghi Effendi has described this reciprocal relationship beautifully in the following quote:

"We cannot segregate the human heart from the environment outside us and say that once one of these is reformed everything will be improved. Man is organic with the world. His inner life moulds the environment and is itself also deeply affected by it. The one acts upon the other and every abiding change in the life of man is the result of these mutual reactions."

Thus the outer environmental condition (good or bad) is actually a reflection of the state of inner climate that human beings collectively possess. It is then not far fetch to say that the issue of climate change is essentially a spiritual issue.

Furthermore, the issue is not only spiritual in its nature, but also global in its scope. The climate change is not limited to any particular region. Its impact, if let continue and unchecked, will affect every corner of the world. It is therefore natural that the solution thus considered must not only include spiritual aspect but also require unified efforts from all of the inhabitants of the earth. This, as Baha’u’llah has pointed out more than 160 years ago, is not possible until and unless the oneness of human race is universally recognized and its unity is firmly established:

“The central spiritual issue facing all people, Bahá'u'lláh says, whatever their nation, religion, or ethnic origin, is that of laying the foundations of a global society that can reflect the oneness of human nature. The unification of the earth's inhabitants is neither a remote utopian vision nor, ultimately, a matter of choice. It constitutes the next, inescapable stage in the process of social evolution, a stage toward which all the experience of past and present is impelling us. Until this issue is acknowledged and addressed, none of the ills afflicting our planet will find solutions, because all the essential challenges of the age we have entered are global and universal, not particular or regional.” (From “Who is writing the future” by Baha’i International Community)

Improvement of environment not only needs the help of technological tools, but also requires changing of human hearts.

Science and Religion: Nature of the conflict (IV)

(All below are excerpts from an article “The Science of Religion” by Dr. William Hatcher which I liked very much so to share it here with you.)

At the heart of the conflict between science and religion is that two essentially different views of man are associated respectively with each, at least in the popular view. In the one instance man is seen as a super evolved animal, a chance product of a material thermodynamic system. In the other he is seen as a spiritual being, created by God with a spiritual purpose given by God. Of course conflicting views of the nature of man are as old as thought itself and certainly predate the period of modern science. However, it is only in the modem period that the materialistic view has become linked to a prestigious and highly efficient natural science. This prestige of science forces people to take seriously any pronouncement that is put forth in its name.

All of this contrasts sharply with the pre-modern period in which the materialistic view was just one among many competing views and had no particular natural or obvious superiority over others. People simply could discredit or disregard the materialistic viewpoint without feeling any pangs of conscience or without feeling threatened.

In sum then I am suggesting that the conflict between religion and science is due essentially to the two qualitatively different views of man which are associated respectively with them, that the force of the materialistic view associated with modem science is due not to any inherent philosophical superiority of that view but rather to the immense prestige of the science in the name of which the materialistic view is put forth and that this prestige of science is due essentially to its evident technological productivity and efficiency.

One may ask in turn to what the efficiency and productiveness of modem science is due, and I believe that here there is one basic answer: scientific method. It is the method of science which has led to such remarkable results and thus to the present situation. Although some thinkers have tried to attribute the success of scientific method to one aspect or another of Western culture or religion, it is now abundantly clear that modem scientific method can be practiced with success independently of any particular religious or cultural orientation.

Indeed we can say that science as an activity is characterized by its method, for the immense diversity of domains which are now the object of scientific study defies any intrinsic characterization in terms of unity of content. The unity of science is its method.

The importance of religion on the other hand derives precisely from its goal and its contents rather than its method. Religion treats of questions which are so fundamental for us that every human being is obliged to realize the importance of answering them. Some of these questions concern the purpose of man's existence, the possibility of life after death, the possibility of self-transcendence, the possibility of contacting and living in harmony with a higher spiritual consciousness, the meaning of suffering, and the existence of good and evil.

Once we realize that the basis of science is its method and that the basis of religion is its object of study, the essential move toward resolving the religion-science controversy seems obvious and logical: Apply scientific method within religion. But, as I already have noted, there is widespread feeling that this is not truly possible. Thus each side remains with its view of the nature of man and with a feeling that reconciliation is not possible.

It seems to me, however, that the conviction of the impossibility of applying scientific method to religion rests on several misconceptions both of the nature of scientific method and of the nature of religion.

(To be continued…)

"Science and Religion:Nature of the Conflict(VIII)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the Conflict(VII)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the conflict(VI)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the conflict(V)"

"Science and Religion:Nature of the conflict(III)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the conflict(II)"
"Science and Religion:Nature of the conflict(I)"
Ref.: The William Hatcher Library

Ref.: The William Hatcher Library