A prayer

"Please God, that we avoid the land of denial, and advance into the ocean of acceptance, so that we may perceive, with an eye purged from all conflicting elements, the worlds of unity and diversity, of variation and oneness, of limitation and detachment, and wing our flight unto the highest and innermost sanctuary of the inner meaning of the Word of God. "

-- Baha'u'llah, The Book of Certitude

God's revelation in all created things

"Behold how within all things the portals of the Ridván* of God are opened, that seekers may attain the cities of understanding and wisdom, and enter the gardens of knowledge and power. Within every garden they will behold the mystic bride of inner meaning enshrined within the chambers of utterance in the utmost grace and fullest adornment."

-- Baha'u'llah, Book of Certitude

* Ridván - The name of the custodian of Paradise. Baha'u'llah uses it to denote Paradise itself.

Riches beyond compare

...it is related that on a certain day, one of the companions of Sádiq complained of his poverty before him. Whereupon, Sádiq*, that immortal beauty, made reply: “Verily thou art rich, and hast drunk the draught of wealth.” That poverty-stricken soul was perplexed at the words uttered by that luminous countenance, and said: “Where are my riches, I who stand in need of a single coin?” Sádiq thereupon observed: “Dost thou not possess our love?” He replied: “Yea, I possess it, O thou scion of the Prophet of God!” And Sádiq asked him saying: “Exchangest thou this love for one thousand dinars?” He answered: “Nay, never will I exchange it, though the world and all that is therein be given me!” Then Sádiq remarked: “How can he who possesses such a treasure be called poor?”

-- Baha'u'llah, Book of Certitude

* Sádiq was the sixth of the Shi'ih Imams, known also as Abu-'Abdi'llah

Miracles

Often the claim is made that the prophets/manifestations/incarnations of God performed great miracles that would be physically impossible for normal human beings. This then is taken as proof that these souls were therefore heavenly, not of this earth, and qualitatively different from us. Personally the question of miracles has always bothered me a little, and so it was heartening when I first read what Abdu'l Baha said about them. I found this again today while searching another reference, and so thought I'd share it with all of you.

"Question.—It is recorded that miracles were performed by Christ. Are the reports of these miracles really to be accepted literally, or have they another meaning? It has been proved by exact science that the essence of things does not change, and that all beings are under one universal law and organization from which they cannot deviate; and, therefore, that which is contrary to universal law is impossible.

Answer.—The Holy Manifestations are the sources of miracles and the originators of wonderful signs. For Them, any difficult and impracticable thing is possible and easy. For through a supernatural power wonders appear from Them; and by this power, which is beyond nature, They influence the world of nature. From all the Manifestations marvelous things have appeared.

But in the Holy Books an especial terminology is employed, and for the Manifestations these miracles and wonderful signs have no importance. They do not even wish to mention them. For if we consider miracles a great proof, they are still only proofs and arguments for those who are present when they are performed, and not for those who are absent.

For example, if we relate to a seeker, a stranger to Moses and Christ, marvelous signs, he will deny them and will say: “Wonderful signs are also continually related of false gods by the testimony of many people, and they are affirmed in the Books. The Brahmans have written a book about wonderful prodigies from Brahma.” He will also say: “How can we know that the Jews and the Christians speak the truth, and that the Brahmans tell a lie? For both are generally admitted traditions, which are collected in books, and may be supposed to be true or false.” The same may be said of other religions: if one is true, all are true; if one is accepted, all must be accepted. Therefore, miracles are not a proof. For if they are proofs for those who are present, they fail as proofs to those who are absent.

But in the day of the Manifestation the people with insight see that all the conditions of the Manifestation are miracles, for They are superior to all others, and this alone is an absolute miracle. Recollect that Christ, solitary and alone, without a helper or protector, without armies and legions, and under the greatest oppression, uplifted the standard of God before all the people of the world, and withstood them, and finally conquered all, although outwardly He was crucified. Now this is a veritable miracle which can never be denied. There is no need of any other proof of the truth of Christ.

The outward miracles have no importance for the people of Reality. If a blind man receives sight, for example, he will finally again become sightless, for he will die and be deprived of all his senses and powers. Therefore, causing the blind man to see is comparatively of little importance, for this faculty of sight will at last disappear. If the body of a dead person be resuscitated, of what use is it since the body will die again? But it is important to give perception and eternal life—that is, the spiritual and divine life. For this physical life is not immortal, and its existence is equivalent to nonexistence. So it is that Christ said to one of His disciples: “Let the dead bury their dead;” for “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”

Observe: those who in appearance were physically alive, Christ considered dead; for life is the eternal life, and existence is the real existence. Wherever in the Holy Books they speak of raising the dead, the meaning is that the dead were blessed by eternal life; where it is said that the blind received sight, the signification is that he obtained the true perception; where it is said a deaf man received hearing, the meaning is that he acquired spiritual and heavenly hearing. This is ascertained from the text of the Gospel where Christ said: “These are like those of whom Isaiah said, They have eyes and see not, they have ears and hear not; and I healed them.”

The meaning is not that the Manifestations are unable to perform miracles, for They have all power. But for Them inner sight, spiritual healing and eternal life are the valuable and important things. Consequently, whenever it is recorded in the Holy Books that such a one was blind and recovered his sight, the meaning is that he was inwardly blind, and that he obtained spiritual vision, or that he was ignorant and became wise, or that he was negligent and became heedful, or that he was worldly and became heavenly.

As this inner sight, hearing, life and healing are eternal, they are of importance. What, comparatively, is the importance, the value and the worth of this animal life with its powers? In a few days it will cease like fleeting thoughts. For example, if one relights an extinguished lamp, it will again become extinguished; but the light of the sun is always luminous. This is of importance."

A prophecy of unity

"For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.

And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying.

There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.

And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them.

They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands.

They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the Lord, and their offspring with them.

And it shall come to pass, that before they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear.

The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the Lord."

-- Isaiah, 65:17-25

Remembrance of God

"And be ye not like those who forget God, and whom He hath therefore caused to forget their own selves."

-- Qur'an, 59:19

Fast reflections

As some of us have been discussing the notion of fasting, and its effect on the soul, I'd encourage you to read the thoughts of a fellow blogger's thoughts on fasting here. Definitely resonated with me! :)

Free from doubt

"Examine the wondrous behaviour of the Prophets, and recall the defamations and denials uttered by the children of negation and falsehood, perchance you may cause the bird of the human heart to wing its flight away from the abodes of heedlessness and doubt unto the nest of faith and certainty, and drink deep from the pure waters of ancient wisdom, and partake of the fruit of the tree of divine knowledge. Such is the share of the pure in heart of the bread that hath descended from the realms of eternity and holiness."

-- Baha'u'llah, The Book of Certitude

The practice of nobility

"It is possible to so adjust one's self to the practice of nobility that its atmosphere surrounds and colors every act. When actions are habitually and conscientiously adjusted to noble standards, with no thought of the words that might herald them, then nobility becomes the accent of life. At such a degree of evolution one scarcely needs try any longer to be good - all our deeds are the distinctive expression of nobility."

-- Abdu'l Baha

Proof of God's existence

Reproduced below is an interesting - and fairly simple - logical proof of God's existence. The argument was originally developed by a Muslim philosopher, Avicenna in the 10th century AD, and has been reformulated cogently by William Hatcher. Should be interesting to chew on for all you logicians out there...

We begin with a basic proposition.

P0. Something exists (there is not nothing).

This seems pretty true, I'm sure you'd all agree... :)

We now define reality as the totality of actual existence = everything there is (or was or will be). A phenomenon is some nonempty portion of reality. Let us designate reality as the set V.

Next, we consider a binary relationship → called causality which may hold between any two phenomena A and B. If the relationship A→B does indeed hold, then we say that A causes B. Also, causality need not be direct - A→B is an indirect causality if A→C→B where C is distinct from A and B.

Now we define three kinds of phenomena based on the above notion of causality.

D0. A phenomenon B is without a cause if, for no A, does A→B hold.
D1. B is caused (other-caused) if for some A≠B, A→B holds
D2. B is uncaused (self-caused) if B→B and never A→B for A≠B.

We now introduce a second binary relationship ∈ which may hold between two phenomena A and B. If A∈B holds, we say "A is a component of B". Given B, if A∈B for at least one A, then we say that B is composite. Otherwise, B is simple (noncomposite). Composites are phenomena which have parts. All known physical phenomena are composites except, possibly, the elementary particles of quantum mechanics. A composite phenomenon can also be called a system.

Based on these definitions, Hatcher goes on to state three propositions he calls empirically grounded.

P1. The principle of sufficient reason: All phenomena are either self-caused (i.e. A→A) or other-caused (B→A; B is not equal to A) but not both. Put another way, this principle says that the question "why?" is always meaningful. Everything happens for a reason. It also means that situation D0 can never occur - a phenomenon cannot be without cause.

P2. The potency principle: If A→B then for all C∈B, A→C. In other words if A is the cause of B then A is the cause of every part of B.

P3. The principle of limitation: For all A, where B∈A, A→B does not hold. This says a system (which Hatcher represents as a set) cannot be the cause of its own components. A car, for example, (the system) cannot be the cause of its own steering wheel (a part), because the car does not even logically exist until the steering wheel exists. Thus the car's existence cannot precede the steering wheel's existence.

P3 also implies that a composite or system (that has several elements) cannot be self-caused - because if it were self-caused, then such a composite system would be the cause of its own elements, which contradicts P3. Therefore all self-caused phenomena are noncomposite.

Notice that nothing excludes that a component may be the cause of a whole of which it is a part. Also, P1, P2 and P3 are all empirically grounded. P1 says that if we ask "why B?" the answer "there is no reason that’s just way it is" is not acceptable. P1 is thus the fundament and basis of (scientific) rationality. It is the essential logical precondition for all of science. P2 is virtually a definition of the notion of complete cause and P3 is, essentially, a special case of the second law of thermodynamics, which negates the possibility of purely "holistic" causality, i.e., the transfer of order from a whole to a proper part, without any input of organizing energy from outside the system.

Finally, one more definition :)

D3. By God, symbolized G, we mean a unique, self-caused (uncaused), noncomposite, universal cause, if such a phenomenon exists (which is the thing to be proved).

Now every phenomenon B is a part of V (all of reality). This allows us to state P0 more compactly:

P0. V is composite

Now that we have this foundation, here's the meat of the proof of the existence of G.

By P1, V is either self-caused or other-caused. Suppose V→V. By P0, V is composite. Thus, E∈V for some E. But then, by P2, V→E∈V, which contradicts P3. Hence, by P1, G→V for some phenomenon G≠V. Like every phenomenon, G is a part of V.

Thus by P2, G→G. G is therefore self-caused. But this means that G is noncomposite (else P3 would be contradicted). G is also universal because every phenomenon B is a part of V by definition. Thus, by P2 and G→V, it follows that, for every phenomenon B, G→B.

Finally, G is the unique uncaused phenomenon, for suppose that, for some phenomenon G1, G1→G1. Now we have already established that G is universal. Thus G→G1. By P1, G1 cannot be both self-caused and other-caused. But G is a cause of G1. Thus, G is not "other", i.e., G=G1 as claimed.

We have thus proved the existence of a unique uncaused, noncomposite, universal cause, which we can call God. Note that being the universal cause does not imply G is the direct cause of all phenomena - but directly or indirectly, the chain of causation leads back to G eventually. I've omitted a couple of other definitions/assumptions, but the crux of the argument is given above. If one accepts P0, P1, P2 and P3, then it logically leads to the existence of G as defined above. Rejecting the existence of G therefore requires one to reject one of P0, P1, P2 or P3 on some reasonable grounds.

Which one would you pick? :)

Unity = Love + Justice

"The knowledge and implementation of what is appropriate for the development of human potential is justice. Justice and love go together: love provides the motivation to serve the other, and justice provides the knowledge necessary for the proper and efficient implementation of this motivation.

Thus, authentic relationships involve not only sincere love for the spiritual reality of others, but also valid knowledge of that reality. When love and justice express themselves in action, then we have all that is necessary for successful dialogue, ie, for unity...

Unity = love + justice"

-- William Hatcher, Love, Power and Justice

Free will

The question of free will/destiny was brought up in this post by 8&20 today. I originally started responding to it as a comment, but had so much to say that I figured it would be easier as a post in and of itself - so here goes. Btw, I encourage you to read the text of the post, as well as the comments, as I refer to it below a couple of times. And pardon me if you find this a repetition of past conversations/posts/comments - I've probably discussed some of these ideas before!

There are three possible hypotheses when it comes to free will. These are:

1. We have complete free will over everything in our lives.
2. We have absolutely no free will, and choice is an illusion.
3. We have some free will.

First lets talk about the idea of a "circle of influence" (which, btw, I like), as brought up by PeeVee in her comment on that post. Clearly if we look at the world around us it should be manifestly clear that certain things are within out control, and certain things not. So anyone who says he has complete free will to do anything is of course wrong - because we are constrained by the laws of this world, as well as by myriad forces (natural, human, animal...) working their way in this world. Likewise, I do have some control over things - I can choose to type "asdasdgdhdfxv" right now instead of an intelligible word. So understanding my "circle of influence" is key to living peacefully in life! :)

So it seems clear that we don't have complete free will. And so I think we can safely reject hypothesis 1. Now the next question is whether we have any free will at all - or whether even when I think i have control, I really don't - as 8&20 asked, is everything written? So how do we choose between hypotheses 2 and 3? And btw, hypothesis 2 is a pretty commonly held view, that choice is but an illusion, and in reality we're just fulfilling some previously laid out plan. This view of course needs to be reconciled with the fact that we seem to have choice - so it is rationalized by stating that though we really have no free will, we should always act like we do.

Now in my understanding - and this is just my opinion - this is not how things are. We really do have free will to make choices. Destiny, I believe, should be understood as true intended purpose - that which something is intended for. To explain this further, I believe that God has created everything with a destiny in mind for it. That destiny is fundamentally for it to grow until it becomes the fullest possible expression of its latent capacities. The destiny of a tree, therefore, is to grow and bear fruit. The destiny of an animal is to grow, bear offspring, and utilize its senses to their fullest capacities. The destiny of man is not just to fulfill the needs of his material existence, but to transcend that and to recognize his essential spiritual nature, and to know God. Every man, however, can choose not to do this. The quote below summarizes all of the above.

"Some things are subject to the free will of man, such as justice, equity, tyranny and injustice, in other words, good and evil actions; it is evident and clear that these actions are, for the most part, left to the will of man. But there are certain things to which man is forced and compelled, such as sleep, death, sickness, decline of power, injuries and misfortunes; these are not subject to the will of man, and he is not responsible for them, for he is compelled to endure them. But in the choice of good and bad actions he is free, and he commits them according to his own will."

-- Abdu'l Baha

So in some sense, it is "written", that ideally we, as humans, should develop our spiritual capacities/virtues. But the choice of doing this is entirely ours.

One subtlety to this notion of free will, I believe, comes about when we consider the dependence of man's actions/will on the independently existing entity that is God. This relationship is beautifully expressed through this analogy - imagine we are in a sailboat in an ocean. As the sailor, I have control over the rudder, and so I can choose which direction to steer by boat in. However, irrespective of what I do with the rudder, unless the wind blows, I can go nowhere. The blowing of the wind (analogous to God's grace) is out of my "circle of influence" (and in fact, out of the circle of influence of every other sailboat on this ocean), and without it, I can achieve nothing. So the choice of good or evil belongs to me, though neither action would be possible without "help" from God. Again, this is summarized in another analogy given below:

"So if a king should appoint someone to be the governor of a city, and should grant him the power of authority, and should show him the paths of justice and injustice according to the laws—if then this governor should commit injustice, although he should act by the authority and power of the king, the latter would be absolved from injustice. But if he should act with justice, he would do it also through the authority of the king, who would be pleased and satisfied."

and

"...the inaction or the movement of man depend upon the assistance of God. If he is not aided, he is not able to do either good or evil. But when the help of existence comes from the Generous Lord, he is able to do both good and evil; but if the help is cut off, he remains absolutely helpless."

-- Abdu'l Baha

All these seem to point at hypotheses 3 being closer to the truth than 2, and hint at a subtle relationship between our free will, and an all-powerful, independently existing being we call God. Another way of thinking about this notion is to consider that just as our physical actions are subject to physical laws, our choices/moral actions are also subject to spiritual laws - only, these aren't as obviously apparent as physical laws are.

Before, we completely accept hypothesis 3, the other question often raised, when reconciling God and free will, is the notion of God as an Omniscient being - so the question is, if we think of God as all-knowing, then does God have knowledge of an action which will be performed by someone? And if yes, what does that mean for our free will?

I believe there are several ways to understand this from our finite perspective (which means we can never understand it completely anyway). Here are three thoughts on this matter:

1. One analogy is to think of a bird flying thousands of feet above the ground so it can see everything below it. Now it sees a car moving along a road, and sees that as it is moving, the road curves to the right and then to the left. Now from the point of view of the person driving the car, he believes he is choosing to turn right, then left, which he is. Does the fact that the bird can see the entire road (which he cannot see) negate the fact that he is making that choice? The bird is removed from the temporal sequence of events that the driver in the car is going through - and so it has a view that is outside of time (in this situation). Take this idea to the limit, and include everything in creation in it - and God is possibly somewhat like the bird that is entirely outside everything, and has a bird's eye view of things.

2. Here's another analogy. My father knows me very well - maybe more than most people. So given a situation, he can predict accurately, more often than not, what I am likely to do in that situation. Does this mean that in the situations where he could say what I would do, I had no choice in the matter? Obviously not. It was only because he understood my nature, that he was able to make that prediction. Now lets take this analogy to the limit, and imagine a being that is intimately and completely familiar with every atom of my being - could that being not then accurately know everything I would choose to do in every situation? And extend this even further to a being that is intimately knowledgeable about the nature of every atom in this universe - would this being then not know what would happen to each and every one of those atoms over time? Again, would this negate my own free will?

3. Finally, another quote to make all of this clear:

"The foreknowledge of a thing is not the cause of its realization; for the essential knowledge of God surrounds, in the same way, the realities of things, before as well as after their existence, and it does not become the cause of their existence. It is a perfection of God... For example, tonight everyone knows that after seven hours the sun will rise, but this general foreknowledge does not cause the rising and appearance of the sun.

Therefore, the knowledge of God in the realm of contingency does not produce the forms of the things. On the contrary, it is purified from the past, present and future. It is identical with the reality of the things; it is not the cause of their occurrence...

The mathematicians by astronomical calculations know that at a certain time an eclipse of the moon or the sun will occur. Surely this discovery does not cause the eclipse to take place. This is, of course, only an analogy and not an exact image."

-- Abdu'l Baha

Hopefully with the above 3 points, we have a (slightly) better understanding of the interaction between our free will, and the concept of God's omniscience.

So to summarize, it appears that by meditating on our existence in this world, we can safely reject hypothesis 1 which claims we have complete free will. Further thought leads us to question the notion of choice being an illusion, and apart from the complete apathy such a situation would lead to, it seems to be to be logically shaky, and completely negating personal experience. And so by the principle of Occam's razor, one would have to reject hypothesis 2 - after all, why should I come up with a convoluted theory of illusion to explain away the free will that every moment of my life clearly testifies I have? The only reason to do so is if I cannot somehow reconcile free will with the concept of God.

Finally coming to hypothesis 3, this to me seems to be closest to the truth - and the discussion above points towards some of the characteristics of this state of being, things over which we have free will and things over which we don't, and the interactions between finite beings with some free will and an infinite being that is the source of all things.

Disclaimer: Though I freely use the word "being" for God, and though some of my statements might seem to anthropomorphize God, I should make clear that this is purely a result of the inability of understanding God through our finite minds and imperfect language.

"To every discerning and illumined heart it is evident that God, the unknowable Essence, the Divine Being, is immeasurably exalted beyond every human attribute such as corporeal existence, ascent and descent, egress and regress… He is, and hath ever been, veiled in the ancient eternity of His Essence, and will remain in His Reality everlastingly hidden from the sight of men…"

-- Baha'u'llah

We are but instruments of His...

Oh, so beautiful....

"Thine eye is My trust, suffer not the dust of vain desires to becloud its luster. Thine ear is a sign of My bounty, let not the tumult of unseemly motives turn it away from My Word that encompasseth all creation. Thine heart is My treasury, allow not the treacherous hand of self to rob thee of the pearls which I have treasured therein. Thine hand is a symbol of My loving-kindness, hinder it not from holding fast unto My guarded and hidden Tablets…. Unasked, I have showered upon thee My grace. Unpetitioned, I have fulfilled thy wish. In spite of thy undeserving, I have singled thee out for My richest, My incalculable favors…. O My servants! Be as resigned and submissive as the earth, that from the soil of your being there may blossom the fragrant, the holy and multicolored hyacinths of My knowledge. Be ablaze as the fire, that ye may burn away the veils of heedlessness and set aglow, through the quickening energies of the love of God, the chilled and wayward heart. Be light and untrammeled as the breeze, that ye may obtain admittance into the precincts of My court, My inviolable Sanctuary."

-- Baha'u'llah, Gleanings

How I should be

I've posted this verse from the Gleanings before, but reading it again today, I was infused with a sense of how noble we all are, and how each and every one of us is endowed with the most amazing capacities. In this month of sacrifice, I was also able to view this verse in new light, for each and every line here talks about some kind of sacrifice - of self, of material property, of time, of the heart, of ego... And I love that the very last line, after it talks about all these wonderful things we should do, is a reminder that as we give to the world around us, we should hold the virtue of humility always dear to us. And so as we appreciate the nobility in us, and develop our capacities, and serve the world in every way possible, may we never forget to be "fruits upon the tree of humility."

There is much more that could be said about all the beautiful metaphors in this verse (such as "pillar of the temple of righteousness", "ornament to the countenance of truth", "lamp unto them that walk in darkness"...). But I'll leave the reader to reflect on each of these lines for himself/herself... And would of course love to hear of any particular lines that struck you?

"Be generous in prosperity, and thankful in adversity. Be worthy of the trust of thy neighbor, and look upon him with a bright and friendly face. Be a treasure to the poor, an admonisher to the rich, an answerer of the cry of the needy, a preserver of the sanctity of thy pledge. Be fair in thy judgment, and guarded in thy speech. Be unjust to no man, and show all meekness to all men. Be as a lamp unto them that walk in darkness, a joy to the sorrowful, a sea for the thirsty, a haven for the distressed, an upholder and defender of the victim of oppression. Let integrity and uprightness distinguish all thine acts. Be a home for the stranger, a balm to the suffering, a tower of strength for the fugitive. Be eyes to the blind, and a guiding light unto the feet of the erring. Be an ornament to the countenance of truth, a crown to the brow of fidelity, a pillar of the temple of righteousness, a breath of life to the body of mankind, an ensign of the hosts of justice, a luminary above the horizon of virtue, a dew to the soil of the human heart, an ark on the ocean of knowledge, a sun in the heaven of bounty, a gem on the diadem of wisdom, a shining light in the firmament of thy generation, a fruit upon the tree of humility."

-- Baha'u'llah

Happiness

This was a month of happiness and joy.

Of understanding the virtue of happiness
Of understanding why we often don't express our joy
Of trying to be more expressive
Of delighting in the simple pleasures of life
Of wonder at the beautiful world God has created for us
Of cherishing friendships
Of trying to be a source of happiness for others
Of sacrificing for others
Of being happy for others
Of overcoming jealousy and envy
Of new beginnings
Of gratitude
Of acceptance
Of savoring the ecstasy of true love
Of learning to love God
Of prayer
Of realizing the ethereal joy that spiritual bonds can bring
Of moments where everything just fits and makes sense
Of discovering beauty and poetry, music and dance
Of surprises
Of gifts and blessings
Of detachment from things contrary to my wishes
Of choosing to be happy and joyful

This was a month of happiness and joy.

Humility

"Every man of discernment, while walking upon the earth, feeleth indeed abashed, inasmuch as he is fully aware that the thing which is the source of his prosperity, his wealth, his might, his exaltation, his advancement and power is, as ordained by God, the very earth which is trodden beneath the feet of all men. There can be no doubt that whoever is cognizant of this truth, is cleansed and sanctified from all pride, arrogance, and vainglory."

-- Baha'u'llah, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf