Source: Bahá'í Library Online (bahai-library.com), curated by Jonah Winters. Used by permission of the curator. Original citation: Roland Faber, Laozi: A Lost Prophet?, bahai-library.com.
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Laozi, A Lost Prophet?

The Challenge of the Dao De Jing for the
Bahá’í Universe of Discourse

Roland Faber

1. Why Daoism, Laozi and the Dao De Jing ?

Daoism is one of the oldest religions.1 Its roots are lost in pre-
history. We find it arise amidst the fog of human awakening to
historical consciousness when it begins to manifest itself in old
mythological and symbolic archetypes of existence and impresses on
us patterns of human wisdom and insight into the nature of existence
that immediately strike a cord on various levels of human thought
and modes of feeling. It grew from a primordial and pre-confessional
mode of religion in the form of incarnations of a worldwide religious
consciousness of earlier times (although it has never disappeared
completely to this day),2 housed in shamanistic rhythms of living.3 As
a spiritual philosophy it arose and developed (at lest in their effect)
preeminently from the genius of one person and the medium of one
book4 to become a well-established worldview and way of life,
religion and cultural self-definition, expressive of the Chinese mind
and spirit: Meet the legendary sage Laozi and his incomparable book
of ancient, yet in its context novel and unexpected wisdom, the Laozi
or Dao De Jing!5

As the Bahá’í Faith recognizes all religions and wisdom traditions
to be the expression of one divine origin,6 the acknowledgement of
38 Lights of Irfán vol. 19

Daoism, Laozi and the Dao De Jing must be of preeminent
importance. They demand attention not only for the reconstruction
of one of the most influential streams of religious history of
humanity7 — as all religious streams are considered to be flowing into
the universal openness of the Bahá’í revelation, which receives them
as moments of one history of religious awakening and as past
expressions of it own pre-history.8 What is more, they command to
be heard in their own contributions to the future of humanity, as all
religions contribute their specific uniqueness to the unity of
religions,9 a unity which in the image of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá must be
understood as a unification by differentiation, where the manifold
highlights the beauty of this confluence.10

The coming considerations set out to frame this task in three
related facets: First, they want to demonstrate the uniqueness of the
contributions of Daoism especially as mediated through Laozi and
the Dao De Jing to a future universal religious consciousness that the
Bahá’í revelation is said to have instigated, although we might not yet
be able to see its future contours clearly or at all.11 Second, they want
to explicate resonances with and differences from the Bahá’í
universe, less in principles, as both traditions are overwhelmingly
compatible,12 but rather taking the(philosophical and religious)
emphases into account that renders Daoism enlightening beyond its
historical situatedness because of the genius of Laozi and the Laozi
and their reception throughout history.13 Third, such considerations
cannot avoid the question whether or not, if such a religion is one of
the major expressions of the one source that has also animated
Bahá’u’lláh, Daoism should be considered a genuine dispensation of a
divine Manifestation; whether or not, then, the Laozi must be read as
scripture, expressing the one revelation in a unique (historical) body;
and whether or not the figure of Laozi and the book of the Dao De
Jing should be considered a temple (haykal) of revelation14 in the
sense that we would accept for the so-called “Big Five” (Judaism,
Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism)15 with the addition of
Zoroastrianism, all of which Bahá’u’lláh, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá and Shoghi
Effendi recognized as genuine dispensations under the influence of a
Manifestation.16 In other words, are we with Laozi and the Dao De
Jing encountering a (lost) prophet and his book?17
Laozi: A Lost Prophet? 39

Why should this be challenging to the Bahá’í universe of
discourse?18 Because compared with the “Big Five” (Hinduism,
Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam) and Zoroastrianism, the
Bahá’í writings entertain only scant references to other religions,19
such as “Chinese religions,” and in particular virtually none to
Daoism nor Laozi, nor the Dao De Jing.20 This in light of the fact
that we do find at least several references of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá and Shoghi
Effendi to China, Chinese religion(s)21 and especially Confucius,
although the exact status of these in the Bahá’í universe is far from
definite beyond any doubt either.22 Yet, since the absence of evidence
should not be taken as a sign for the evidence of absence,23 the fact
that the Bahá’í writings know of Confucianism, but emphasizes it as
an ethics with Confucius as an ethical reformer (as contrasted with
the Buddha as Manifestation and Buddhism as religion)24 — although
there are indications to the contrary25 — should make us even more
inclined to investigate the status of one of the “other” original
sources of religion and philosophy, wisdom and life in China, namely,
the tacit “presence” of Daoism in the legacy of Laozi and one of its
“constitutional” texts,26 the Dao De Jing.27 After approaching
Daoism, Laozi and the Dao De Jing historically and philosophically as
well as religiously and referencing resonances with the Bahá’í universe
of discourse, its principles and worldview, I will reflect on the
fascinating and rewarding question regarding the (potential) status of
Laozi in the Bahá’í universe of discourse. By connecting the insights
gathered, and in light of only scant evidence (but with some
arguments from the Bahá’í writings), I will not answer this question
definitively, but rather consider several alternatives of how to
potentially understand Laozi from a Bahá’í perspective, altogether
developing eight alternative views for future consideration.28

2. Defining “Daoism”
We can assume that some of the Daoist texts are very old,
predating the organization of a Daoist movement or religion. While
we may find estimations that some of these texts in their original
form (not the received texts) go back to the Zhou dynasty (1000
B.C.E. – 300 B.C.E.), in any “organized” form “Daoism” appears
around the beginning of the second century B.C.E. as an established
and distinct philosophy,29 but as religious identity, Daoism was
40 Lights of Irfán vol. 19

probably not organized before the movement of the Celestial Masters
in the second century C.E.30

In the west, serious attempts of understanding Daoist texts and
Daoism as a phenomenon can be dated only to the beginning of the
20th century C.E. The Dao De Jing, the book traditionally assigned to
the ancient sage Laozi, was only translated in the 1860s and the
preceding reception of Daoism in the west was littered with
prejudices: that it is a primitive wisdom tradition, closer to
primordial forms of shamanism than any western concept of religion
and even further removed from what could possibly count as
philosophy; that it represents an irrational, chaotic, even anarchic
approach to reality far removed from the understanding of
Confucianism as a “rational” wisdom then prevalent among
intellectuals and philosophers in the west receptive to Chinese
thought; that it is really a non-philosophy falling under the ban of
Plato on poets31 since they seek imagination instead of truth; and that
it seemed to have been too much involved in esoteric Chinese folk
practices like alchemy as to be taken seriously.32

However, as soon as the philosophical side of Daoism was
discovered to be actually of considerable interest in its contrasts to
western thought patterns, unfortunately, a new division was
introduced. Insofar as we can differentiate between the religion of
Daoism (Dao Jiao) and its philosophical texts, like the Dao De Jing
(Dao Jia),33 interests shifted to the excavation of the noble ideas
from the crude folk elements salvaging the philosophy from the
primitive religion, which to the dismay of the philosophical purist
exhibits the belief in ghosts and ancestral ceremonies or alchemical
endeavors in the search for physical immortality.34 Newer research
(conscious of such biases) has, however, shown that this is a short-
sided approach as both Daoist religion and philosophy are intimately
intertwined in the life of the people that followed and still follow
their teachings.35

Then again, as this integrated gestalt becomes more and more
visible today, we are forced to step outside of the western prejudices
regarding that which it grants the title of a religion.36 This is, of
course, a reminder that the phenomenon of religion and its wisdom as
well as its relationship to philosophical thought and insight are much
more complex, intricate and fascinating than the fairly recent western
Laozi: A Lost Prophet? 41

definitions of religion would seem to suggest and (based on the Greek
antagonisms) its presumed opposition to philosophy would allow to
be discovered.37 Since one of the most profound claims of the Bahá’í
Faith is the unity of all religions and their divine origin,38 it is a good
exercise in this encounter to probe the Bahá’í universe of discourse as
it ventures outside of these pervasive western limitations whereby it
may discover a truly different way how religion can be lived and how
thought can “strangely” understand the world and its existential
grounds, how human beings can practice spiritual existence and for
what reason human beings express spiritual and religious aims socially
and intellectually.39

3. Revelation or Wisdom?
Yet another difference becomes quickly visible as long as one tries
grasping Daoism from the perspective of Abrahamic experiences and
thought patterns: there seems in early Chinese history not to have
been any claim (or concept) of revelation of a divinity or of a divine
messenger such as that which has structured the mutually related
Abrahamic traditions at least from the Hebrew’s experience of the
exodus from Egypt on.40 Hence, in her book on The Chinese
Religions and the Bahá’í Faith, Phyllis Chew leaves us with this
profound statement: “Thus, while the Baha'i Faith is established as a
revealed religion brought by a prophet-messenger, the Chinese
religion is not. The Chinese religion is a unique instance of a religion
without revelation, a religion with the sage as a central figure rather
than a prophet.”41 The sage is a holy figure or (like the early Greek
seeker of wisdom Pythagoras) a philosopher who teaches a method of
life and lives what he teaches,42 one who is versed in the mysteries of
the cosmos and how its rules influence human existence.43

Nevertheless, we must also not overlook that Daoism at certain
points in its development constructed notions that Bahá’ís
understand to be essential to their own identity — in the case of
Daoism virtually before any other religion, philosophy or cultural
pool of ideas: that the aim of society is the establishment of the Most
Great Peace, understood to include the whole of humanity, not just a
tribe or specific culture;44 that the notion of religion is not
necessarily a western invention as Daoism viewed itself self-
consciously as a religion (although just not in the western sense);45
42 Lights of Irfán vol. 19

that Daoism developed into a “state religion” — something Shoghi
Effendi expected to happen with countries of majority Bahá’í
populations;46 and most interestingly, that Daoism indeed developed
into a revealed religion revering scriptures and worshipping holy
figures such as Laozi as divine.47 Again, given such evidence we might
learn that wisdom and revelation are not necessarily opposing
categories48 even if the order of their appearance and their spiritual
relevance for the concrete life of the respective societies is not the
same as in the Abrahamic context.49

4. What is the Dao?

One important point must be mentioned before all else: all
Chinese religions (and philosophical schools) relate in one or another
way to the Dao, not only Daoism.50 Confucianism and other Chinese
schools (such as Legalism or Mohism) as well as Chinese Buddhism
also speak of and identify with the concept of the Dao even if they
perceive and conceive it differently.51 Nevertheless, in all Chinese
wisdom schools and religions (or intersecting religious streams)the
Dao presents what we could call ultimate reality. Accordingly, Alan
Watts, one of the most well known popularizers of the “strange”
imaginations and thoughts of Daoism and Buddhism in the west in
the second half of the 20th century, defines the Dao as “the mystery
that we can never understand — the unity that underlies the
opposites.”52 This “definition” gives us a first hint at the profound
nature of the concept and its importance, namely, besides any
particularities and pedantries to connect us with the world as a whole
in such a way that the most hidden secret of the inner workings of the
world is revealed: that there are no fixed oppositions or opposites;53
that all is always involved in the movement of one into the other; that
not divisive strive has the last word, but the harmony of oppositional
movements.54

Dao means the Way and the Method that the world movement is
exhibiting in everything.55 In this sense, all things are daos, actions
and activities engaged in such movements of overcoming oppositions
and creating ever-new harmonies. This world activity is what is
understood as the “natural” process of things.56 Nature (ziran) means
that which operates on it own; everything exists and proceeds by
itself, is “self-so.”57 The best one can do when one has gained this
Laozi: A Lost Prophet? 43

insight is to let the Dao work through all actions one performs, that
is, if one does not try to act against the flow of the movements of
harmonization, but acts with it. In doing so, one reaches the height
of activity in accordance with the Dao as long as one does not
(coercively) act against its all-wise movements (wu wei).58 And if one
learns to live this way, one becomes a perfect human being
(zhenren).59

The Dao is the ultimate of ultimates, the unnamable, but it is
manifest in all phenomena (without being identical with them).60
“How deep and mysterious this unity is/How profound, how
great!/It is the truth beyond the truth, /the hidden within the
hidden/It is the path to all wonder/the gate to the essence of
everything.”61 We are reminded of similar Bahá’í expressions of
ultimate reality as can be found in Bahá’u’lláh’s writings indicating
the unknowable,62 but all-pervasive divine reality beyond any name
(al-haqq)63 and the mutuality of even these “opposites”64: “O Thou
Who art the most manifest of the manifest and the most hidden of
the hidden!” [PM #155]65

5. Who is Laozi?

Laozi figures as the “founder” of (philosophical) Daoism.66 Yet,
this description is already tainted by western misperceptions. Laozi
was for all intents and purposes a sage who lived in the 6th century
B.C.E., presumably before the Buddha. He was — trusting tradition —
a scribe and scholar at the exceptional library of the court of Zhou
(an extraordinary achievement in itself). In these traditions, he
appears as the teacher of Confucius, although this is less clear as he
may instead represent a culmination or personification of the
confluence of several ancient and honored traditions and
personalities.67 Maybe he is just a literary figure identified with an
“Old Master” (Lao-Zi)68 who represents and functions as a
convergence of the old wisdom sayings of the Zhou time collected
into the Laozi or Dao De Jing. First mention of his identity as a
person is made long after he is supposed to have lived, namely, in the
Book of History (Shih Ji) around 150 B.C.E., which also makes
mention of “Daoism” as an already established philosophical school
at that time.69
44 Lights of Irfán vol. 19

Laozi is often depicted as an old man with long white beard
(westerners may immediately identify someone else with this
description), riding a bull, riding to leave his country because no one
wants to hear his wisdom, or, much later, as a divinity in ornate attire
enthroned in heaven.70 The story is passed down that Confucius asked
Laozi for advice on rituals (li) related to ghosts and ancestors still
roaming the world and haunting, in the opinion of the people, their
families and villages. Laozi is presented here as a soul-guide who
knows how to perform rituals for the save passage of the departed or
to accompany the shamanic journey of the soul into spiritual
realms.71 In any case, the importance of this development of the
figure of Laozi with his growing myth and divinization over the next
millennium in the east is only underscored by his elation to the status
of one of the rare “axial” philosophical, religious and spiritual figures
in the west by which the German philosopher Karl Jasper’s famously
identified the revolutionary and decisive axial age of human
awakening to a new universal spiritual consciousness in a timeframe
of several centuries around the mid first millennium B.C.E., a status
only rivaled by figures such as Socrates, Zoroaster, the Buddha,
Confucius and Isaiah.72

These old stories already show influences of the two other
important religions of Chinese culture, Confucianism and Buddhism,
which will, in this triangulation, drive the dynamic of Chinese
religions and culture for the centuries to come.73 In Daoist lore,
Laozi is introduced as the sage by whom Daoism or certain Daoist
schools assert its superiority over Confucianism and Buddhism and
their related schools. He is the superior wise man. He was supposedly
born from a virgin after having been sixty (!) or so years in her body,
emerging an “old baby” when he finally came into this world (one
meaning of “Laozi” is “old boy”).74 That he is imagined to be the
superior sage can also be witnessed by the belief that when he left his
country he is said to have gone to India and to have taught the
Buddha or even to have been reborn as the Buddha.75

Here, as Bahá’ís will notice, a transformation takes place that
resonates with the Bahá’í teachings of recurrent Manifestations of
the divine. And in the case of Laozi, it is even a movement across
religions.76 In other instantiations of such a cyclical recurrence, the
divine figures like that of Hindu Avatars and the infinite Buddhas of
Laozi: A Lost Prophet? 45

Mahayana generally remain within their own religious sphere to
express the uniqueness and identity of these traditions.77 An
interesting exception occurs with the Vaishnavite belief that the
Buddha is integral to the series of Avatars of Vishnu or Krishna.78 Yet
in this case, for similar reasons that Daoism taught that Laozi was
instructing or even becoming the Buddha, this crossing of religious
boundaries and integration of foreign or even hostile figures was
meant to demonstrate the superiority of the “parent” religion79 —
something Bahá’u’lláh has categorically rejected.80

6. What is the Laozi (or the Dao De Jing )?

The story of Laozi in the Book of History culminates in the
significant event of the creation of the Dao De Jing.81 In protest to
the unwise government of the Zhou, Laozi decides to from China.82
One may understand this move as spiritual retreat from political
machinations, or, by giving it a different twist, one could also view
this act as a more radical protest since it was assumed that to life in
China meant to be in the sphere of civilization while outside China
basically barbarism had the rule.83 Not only does such a political
protest in Laozi’s act of emigration, if it may be assumed, uncover
this so-called “civilization,” so held high by its powers-to-be, as itself
corrupt and barbarian.84 This highly symbolic statement also could
have implied that Laozi was forgoing the folk belief, or was
accepting the consequences of abandoning this belief, that one part
of the multilayered human soul must be buried in Chinese earth in
order for the departed person to have immortal life.85

Now, at the border, the guard, who is the silent hero of this story,
discovers that the approaching rider is Laozi (what a feat considering
the vast land that was and is China!), the famous sage, and after
hearing his story asks him, at least, before he leaves to write down his
wisdom so that future generations would not forever be bereft of his
insights and all knowledge of ultimate reality, and a life according to
its eternal laws would be lost. In one hour, so the story continues,
Laozi writes the whole wisdom of existence down in only five
thousand characters — the time dilation and brevity being the signs of
his extreme wisdom. Thus was created the Dao De Jing.86
46 Lights of Irfán vol. 19

The received text of the Laozi is a collection87 of short, poetic,
mystical, ethical and political sayings, interspersed with longer
comments of explanation.88 It is structured into eighty-one chapters.
Note that this reflects nine to the second power, nine being the
Chinese number of the Emperor, heavenly order and long
lastingness89 — somewhat in resonance with the Bahá’í understanding
of the number nine, besides being the Abjad number of the word
bahá’.90 Further, the Laozi has two parts: the Dao Jing, which
explores the nature of ultimate reality (dao), and the De Jing, which
meditates on the cultivation of the virtues (de) of the Dao necessary
to become a sage and a perfect human being, or to rule justly and to
order society according to cosmic harmony.91

Research has shone that this is a very old structure, maybe finding
together as a collection as early as 500 B.C.E.,92 which we can already
find settled in the oldest extant versions of the text from around 300
B.C.E., excavated in the 1970s and 1990s.93 The characters of the
Laozi are painted on bamboo strips, which are attached to one
another and can be rolled up so as to not lose their integrity as a
whole. While over the centuries the order of the two parts may have
been reversed in some collections, the general structure and order of
the sayings are preserved.94 The characters are of ancient complexity,
and no translation can hope to fathom the depth of the field of
reference they invoke or to establish a final correct relationship
between them.95 This fact, and the perceived depth of insight that the
Laozi conveys, has led to one of the vastest libraries of commentaries
and translations of any Chinese classic, maybe only rivaled by that of
the Bible.96

7. Understanding Philosophical Daoism ( Dao Jia )

Given all of these uncertainties, but also the astonishing integrity
of the text of the Dao De Jing, we can expect a great variety of
interpretations97 as the context changes over the course of time and
the transformations of Chinese culture, that is, as the text moves
through its use by different schools of thought98 and also begins to
serve a variety of political interests99 as well as the mutual discussions
and strives for supremacy with and between other Chinese religions,
especially Confucianism and Buddhism.100 If we try to situate the text
of the Laozi in its own process of becoming, we will, however, gain
Laozi: A Lost Prophet? 47

some valuable insight in its meaning or, at least, some layers of its
perceived importance.

Here is one such attempt. The Laozi as well as Daoism as
philosophy in general should be understood as a reaction against
Confucianism (not as its origin).101 It explores an alternative to
Confucian imperialism that in comparison exhibits the characteristics
and implementation of a highly hierarchically stratified society, a
petrified system of education (canalizing mostly the control over of
the court scribes, religious representatives and other political
officials) and the worship of the court as means of political
unification of the diverse lands and regional powers. Daoism,
instead, appeals to the equality of all people and diverse peoples of
the realm, favors small integrated communities instead of large
political entities of military and economic power that shift wealth to
the political and religious elites, and, hence, intends to function as a
model of life in which power is distributed among a vast multiplicity
of communities.102

This counter-imagination of living together is in itself obviously a
dangerous idea to entertain in a society that is based on idealized and
divinized political and religious powers, and its reservoir of
alternative ideas and ways of living has, in fact, led to occasional
political tumult and insurrections against the sanctioned
establishment.103 The concurrent Daoist ethics that grounds this
(some would say) anarchic understanding of society has left us with
one of the earliest instantiations of cultural, political and spiritual
relativism, which was based on the insistence on individual
responsibility (instead of obedience to authority), mutual dependence
of all people and institutions (instead of divinization of higher
institutions and personalities), and a life that is oriented toward
living in harmony with nature (ziran) and its cycles (instead of the
excesses if poisoning social constructions).104

The inner working of this universe of discourse is based on the
precise understanding of the Dao as the way and method of living —
or skill at living.105 The Dao, here, is not a description of reality or
ultimate reality, for that matter, but prescribes a way of acting with
the flow of nature (and the nature of things).106 The Dao does not tell
us what is or why it is, but how acts can be performed in accordance
to the rules of the natural, all-pervading movement of the Dao. If
48 Lights of Irfán vol. 19

one “follows” the Dao, one knows how to perform something the
right way.107 The Dao cannot be known (theoretically); it must be
done. One must train in the Dao’s way by learning to see the signs of
the natural movement of all things and by acting accordingly. To
follow the Dao is akin to the know-how of cutting wood the right
way, that is, not counter to its nature, its appearance, its structures
and patterns. One cuts wood without effort if one knows how to
follow these natural forms given in the pattern of a piece of wood;108
one traces the Dao if one knows how a situation has arisen and will
develop and without effort follows its development.109

Daoism’s relativistic claim is based on a divergent interpretation
from Confucianism and other (political) schools.110 For Confucian
philosophy, the Dao is a universal law that dictates the social
relationships as a norm-system one must follow in order not to lose
ones face or honor.111 Mohism embraced this approach and
understood the Dao to represent a norm of existence we must
pursue.112 Yet, Daoism critiqued this approach and instead
understood at least the universal Dao not as normative rule, because
any norm is itself a dao that needs a justification in a higher norm
(dao). This leads to an infinite regress without finding a highest norm
from which the hierarchical claim of Confucianism could be
justified.113Yet the consequence Daoism draws from this insight is not
that this regress is absurd, as western logic might have concluded, but
that the universal Dao is beyond any norm, that the ultimate is
relativistic, depriving us of any ability for the deduction of norms.114
Hence, social order is uncovered here as relative, that is, as a social
construction, not as a natural necessity; and, hence, political power
must be considered as relative, too.115

The Daoist Dao is, therefore, set against and highly critical of any
fixed norm system and in some radical sense anarchic (or based on
spontaneity).116 It proposes that there cannot be only one norm
system of society one must follow as a divine order, but suggests
many equally valid ways of living together. The natural norm is, now,
that of a nature that moves in cycles of harmonization, universally
and in the mutual relationship of all things, persons, forms and
structures.117 As nature does not force any natural norm or law, many
societies can co-exist and coinhere without force and with different
Laozi: A Lost Prophet? 49

rules according to their situatedness and internal and external
relationships in any given moment of their mutual interference.118

This Daoist interpretation of reality reveals two related
perspectives: On the one hand, the Dao is mystical as it is inaccessible
and beyond any articulation (as a norm); it is mirrored only in the
experience of the experienced master, sage and perfect human
being.119 On the other hand, the Dao is relativistic, but in the sense of
the mutual relationship of all beings in their coinherent movement of
living together; and the daos (acts, norms) do not “exist” out there,
but must be created in the flow of things and acts.120

8. Understanding the Dao De Jing
The inherent paradox that the Laozi displays in such a mystical and
relativistic understanding of the Dao is staggering, because it conveys
the counter-movement of two in themselves coherent, but mutually
seemingly excluding expressions of existence. On the one hand, the
mystical insight of someone following the Dao would indicate that
one can know how to act in accordance with the Dao; but, on the
other hand, because of the relativistic side there is no fixed anchor in
any ultimate expression of the Dao that justifies any particular
direction of acting as normative or “in the right way.” In other
words, to follow the Dao means that there is no “right” Dao to
pursue. Only if one gains the insight that there is not one “right” Dao
to follow, one actually follows the Dao.121

The ethical implications are of utmost relevance here: one should
not cling to tradition, rigid rightness and correct language if one
wants to follow the Dao. The wisdom of achieving perfection does
not appear by following preconceived virtues, but by learning to
performing “virtuosity” in living (de), the ethical impulse of the
Dao.122 The Laozi explains that it is not nature that is ambivalent, but
society; society’s constructed norms are forceful misconstructions of
the flow of the Dao in the interconnectedness of all things.123 It is
not nature, but society that with its social norms and tainted
language creates the very desires that deprives us of deeper insight
into the Dao. It is not nature, but society that is at the root of evils
as it forces us into unnatural desires and conflicts laying life’s course
50 Lights of Irfán vol. 19

out as a matter of competition and war.124 Peace comes only though
harmony with nature and the Dao that is its nature.125

The interesting insight that follows from this paradox is that only
without fixed norms and preconceived patterns of existence do we
become able to withhold from a life of conflict and war. By
becoming mutually coinherent, we lose the ability to “other” the
stranger, the other culture or religion. In not acting forcefully, we
harmonize with Harmony itself. War and strive are, in this
understanding, not an implication of nature, but of society,
tradition, blind obedience, socially awakened desires, fads,
compromises of self-interest, competition, mutual exclusion, and the
clash of force and counter-force. It is not law and order that
guaranty peace, but, on the contrary, the anarchy of moving
harmony. It is not determination of rightness, but the relativity of
living together in concrete circumstances in which the Dao becomes
the event of peace. Peace arises “self-so” (ziran) not by acting, but be
letting be (wu wei) of any presupposed concept and the division that
it would induce.126 This is the meta-theme of the Laozi; this is the way
of the Dao: “The Dao/Way that can be dao-ed/walked is not the
constant Dao/Way. The name/language that can be named/
spoken/expressed is not the constant name/language.”127

If we were to penetrate deeper into the spirit of the Chinese
relationship between the three great traditions, Daoism,
Confucianism, and Buddhism, it would be at this point that we could
find a hint enlightening the very fact that there were never religious
wars between them. While quarrels always arose were respective
representatives of these traditions were self-involved with political
interests and powers over the centuries of their coexistence and
interaction, these conflicts never amounted to the religious wars
raging between the Abrahamic religions and the various factions
within them, leaving trails and rivers of blood in the western
chronicles of history to this very day.128 It is the interconnectedness
of this relativity of the Dao in all things that resonated with the
Mahayana notion of co-origination or dependent co-arising (pratitya-
samutpada); and it is the relativism of withholding the attachment to
fixed norms that mirrors Buddhist detachment in the same way that
the Daoist insight of the constructedness and impermanence of any
social structure as well as any desire created by social interaction
Laozi: A Lost Prophet? 51

resonates deeply with the attitude of overcoming impermanence by
such detachment.129 Since this attitude is one of peace, it can only be
found in the heightening and refinement of the perception of the
harmonies in the flowing multiplicity of happenings that constitute
any situation and world, much like the coincidence of detachment
and compassion in Buddhism.130

Another Daoist insight strengthens this impression. The eternal or
constant Dao, since it follows no rule besides interconnectedness and
harmonization of opposites, is itself bare of interest or self-
existence.131 The Dao is empty (wu), like the ultimate reality in
Buddhism, nirvana, the state beyond being and non-being, or
dharmakaya, the Dharma-body of the Buddha, the transcendent
Wisdom of emptiness of all phenomena (sunyata).132 The Dao is not a
being, but nothingness (wuji), and as such it is the mother of all
things (taiji).133 “The Dao is both Named and Nameless / As Nameless,
it is the origin of all things / As Named, it is the mother of all
things.”134 In fact, all happenings (daos) are empty (wu), that is, again
correlative to Buddhism, impermanent, changing, related to all other
daos, and spontaneous (creative).135 There are infinitely many daos
and the world is their infinite movement without beginning and end.

The relativistic ethic of Daoism, then, imprints on its adherents
values of tolerance, cooperation, mutual understanding and peace. It
instills on us136 the importance of non-violence: that it is better to be
like water that collects itself at the lowest point and, in its patient
letting be, is stronger in weakness than the force of a rock, which is
formed by water.137 Furthermore, we are asked to always differentiate
into more than two daos, that is, always to escape the dualism of
opposition and strife.138 Finally, we are lured into becoming creative,
that is, self-responsible, not to (blindly) follow traditional norms, but
to always create new ways that escape oppositional thinking and
acting.139 In this sense, we are reminded of many Bahá’í principles of
non-oppositional unity and difference, mutuality and creative
responsibility140 and may marvel in the fact that these insights
appeared not late in any assumed spiritual maturation of humanity,
but were already always there to be perceived and to be activated.141
52 Lights of Irfán vol. 19

9. Resonances with the Bahá’í Faith
Of the many resonances with the Bahá’í Faith, I will only name a
few, the ones that immediately demonstrate the congruence of their
intentions even while coming from vastly different cultures and
times.142 First, the Dao, ultimate Reality, is a mystery, utterly
unapproachable, beyond any category and expression of itself while
all else is its expression — like the unknowable essence of the “(God)
Beyond” (the utter divine transcendence as understood in the Bahá’í
context) and the infinity of divine attributes that constitute the
essence of all things (divine immanence) — all together faint
expressions of the apophatic unmanifest Ultimate and the
plurisingularity of the manifest God (Primal Manifestation, Mind,
Will, Spirit, Word, Light).143 Both the Dao’s apophatic and manifest
“oneness” is like unto that of the Bahá’í understanding, while on the
vastly different background of Islamic thought, namely, not a
number, a one, and not any “form” of identity such as an self-
identical being or of any “character” of sameness.144 In this sense, the
Reality (al-haqq) of the Dao is “empty” (wu) of secondary
differentiations, abstractions and projections.145 Like the central
Islamic term for the unity of God, tawhid, the Dao is inexpressible,
beyond (any limiting notion of) oneness and multiplicity alike,146 but
— other than purely iconoclastic readings of this unity — out of its
generosity their “friend.”147 The Dao is like unto the Godhead beyond
any attributes (or indifferent from them in their infinity)148 and,
hence, beyond any “kinds” of opposites, divisions, and divides.149 Yet,
it also seeks to overcome such opposites — which is the secret of the
first message of Bahá’u’lláh at the first Ridvan: that there is only
unity if it realizes itself (or we let it realize itself) beyond strive and
war.150 And the Dao is spontaneous, without reason creating and
letting everything create their reality from the infinity of “divine”
immanence in everything.151 The Dao/ Reality is always manifesting
as and in renewal. “For if God speaks a word today that comes to be
on the lips of all the people, before and after, that word will be new,
if you only think about it.”152

Second, the Daoism of Laozi engenders in us153 the ancient
knowledge of the relativity of religious truth that the Bahá’í Faith
made its central conviction.154 “Our” dao is relative to the exigencies
of the time;155 it expresses itself differently in different minds;156 and
Laozi: A Lost Prophet? 53

it reflects the unique mixture of attributes one realizes from its
infinity in one’s “character” (of persons, times, cultures, religions)157
— much like the contextual relativity of revelations and their finite
reception by any peoples as related by Bahá’u’lláh.158 “The
conceptions of the devoutest of mystics, the attainments of the most
accomplished amongst men, the highest praise which human tongue
or pen can render are all the product of man — finite mind — and are
conditioned by its limitations” [GWB #26].
Third, in relation to the so-called principles of the Bahá’í Faith,159
we find the Laozi to inculcate similar or resonant spiritual and
ethical, social and political impulses.160 To follow the universally
harmonizing Dao, one must become empty of Self (wu) and in letting
go become a universal person receptive to the flow of things,
perceptive of the whole world at any moment.161 One must learn to
relate harmoniously one to the other and everything, and try to
engage any situation from a non-oppositional and creative
perspective that avoids, overcomes, or mitigates oppositions. In this
context, opinions only become relevant if they are mutually
justifying their differences, that is, if they employ the movement of
unity (of differences) into a peaceful future.162 Further, one should
not imitate any social norm just because of its constancy within
certain traditions or because it is held up by any social, cultural,
political, or religious authority. Rather, one should begin to think,
see, perceive and act from one’s own insight into one’s
interconnectedness with everything and everyone in every situation.
One should also avoid prejudices, as they are nothing but stabilized
oppositions locking us into our thoughts, language and habits that
again force destruction, superiority and supersession to arise.163 The
most basic impulse of the Laozi is the “ecological” unification of the
whole world, not just of humanity,164 into one movement of a
multiplicity, that is, the manifold of interrelated daos/ways in which
religions, cultures, and humanity in their diversity are related as one
movement of peace.165 One is immediately reminded of ‘Abdu’l-
Bahá’s allegory of the diverse beauty of a garden as an ecological
image of unity and interconnection. Here mutual relatedness and
peaceful differentiation, complexity and beauty become measures of
unity and peace.166 To follow the Dao means to live without any fixed
way, always anew, always engaged in an evolving mindscape of peace
that is already the ultimate reality of the movement toward itself.167
54 Lights of Irfán vol. 19

Fourth, from the aforementioned points it may have become clear
that unity is valued higher that the particular claim of truth of/for
oneself over (and against) others or the particular importance of ones
actions and thought over (and against) others. As perceiving truth is
related to different situations, limitations, and the manifold of
realizations of the attributes of reality, so is practicing truth also
always already a matter of situatedness and receptiveness.168 To seek
unity through communication or consultation is the “natural” way to
go, that is, a way that overcomes the poisonous creations of desires
in societies, as is the fact that such processes of harmonization will
emphasize the minorities among themselves since such
harmonizations can never be suppressive of differences, but must
highlight them in a manifold of togetherness by which unity is
enriched.169 Therefore, difference is essential to any deep
understanding of unity170 and has priority over “being right” — much
like Bahá’u’lláh and ‘Abdu’l-Bahá teach.171

Nevertheless, Daoism provides its challenges for a Bahá’í
understanding of religious unity and equality. The question is, for
instance, how (or even whether) we can find a space “within” the
coordinate system of a universe of discourse that has (not necessarily
originated, but) mostly developed in the western or at least
Abrahamic context, or better: how to expand and transform this
coordinate system so as to allow for unity on the basis of a more
universal equality?172 In fact, Daoism challenges us to constantly
remain aware of the limitations of such traditional molds of
understanding the depth of its intention and message.173 We note that
the vast Daoist universe of discourse in its internal diversity and
complexity, and its multiplicity of sources and dimensions, is not
bound by categories of revelation or prophetic establishment, any
necessarily personal notion of God or an ultimate Reality conceived
as God at all.174

Although Daoist explications of existence can occasionally
approximate some of the Abrahamic categories with the implied
worldview of a history of divine interaction with the world and
humanity and a soteriology that wants to liberate humanity from its
predicament (Heilsgeschichte),175 note also that it is not primarily
interested in such a framework, but rather rests on wisdom of self-
cultivation, critical of habitual sedimentations, and living with
Laozi: A Lost Prophet? 55

“nature” (ziran, self-so) more than with any Godhead.176 And we note
also that there is the radical social criticism and (epistemological and
ontological) relativism regarding constructions of power and an
equally anarchic perspective on the movement of the world from
spontaneity, rather than any fixed order; there is no eternal law to
follow, except the apophatic movement of harmonization.177 The
Daoist watchword is creativity (or spontaneity) in which everything
else is enfolded.178 Hence, we, from a receptive Bahá’í context of
listening, will only make progress in appreciating even this seeming
“strangeness” (of non-theism, non-controlling and –controlled order
of creativity, of spontaneous happenings, of radical immanence of
ultimate reality in the cosmic movements) as expression of
philosophical communication and religious oneness179 when we learn
to understand all of these terms in a different way, namely, on their
own background: that of the eternal becoming of harmonies.180 In
this context, historical progress is nothing compared with the insights
of the cyclical workings of the universe.181 And this approach shows
itself even in the fact that ancient sages could develop notions of a
universal civilization of peace that defies any simple understanding
of progression.182

The implications for a fruitful (interreligious) conversation will be
far-reaching, beyond any specific engagement with a specific wisdom
tradition, but we may learn a great deal from the unique feature of
the Daoist universe of discourse and spirituality. If we, for instance,
recognize and acknowledge that the Dao De Jing indicates a major
milestone in (and for) the development of a world civilization,183 the
fact that it has (yet) to become a consciously perceived, even if
unconsciously already permeating, part of the universal unity of
religions projected in the Bahá’í universe of discourse will lead to the
question, how this (compared with other religious traditions) relative
absence of sustained reflections and dialogues, acknowledging,
engaging, and even integrating its contributions, maybe transformed
into the structuring of a future, developed Bahá’í self-consciousness
of having fulfilled and sublimated (or even subsumed) all such earlier
endeavors as their culmination?184 Hopefully, future realizations of
unity and difference in the spirit of receptivity and mutuality,
especially from the Bahá’í perspective, will show.185 The profound
challenge that the contrasted differences and resonances, especially in
the reception of the Dao De Jing, provide if they are engaged in a
56 Lights of Irfán vol. 19

spirit of unity may be that we will want to accept, or even love,186 the
insight that the unity of religions can never be understood, or merely
achieved, as a fixed state, but must always (anew) be performed in
processes of profound mutual contrasting.187 We shall (and will want
to) seek mutuality with the “other” and one another,
contemporaneously and diachronically, allowing for surprising
supplementations of the known by the unknown; and we must (and
will always want to) be ready to be enriched by future and past
contributions,188 from wherever they arise.189 Mutual respect and
learning are not just practical virtues, then, but divine characteristics
of a “unity in multiplicity”190 that the Bahá’í reading of its own
tradition and of the signs of the world, its predicaments, pressing
issues, and diagnoses of illness needs to unfold as it unfolds itself.
Maybe the contributions of the Dao De Jing (among other classics of
Chinese philosophical, and wisdom, and religious traditions), as it
speaks surprisingly with a fresh and current voice today, may not
only contribute to the colors of the garden of truth and a future
civilization of peace, but also, with its holistic, yet processual view
of all spheres of human life, from individual and social virtues to
ecological and cosmic integrity, uniquely color their realization.

10. Is Laozi a “Lost Prophet”?
After these short approximations to and glimpses in to the nature
and relevance of Daoism, Laozi and the Dao De Jing in their
contributions for the foundation of Chinese civilization,191 if not
human civilization, their importance for the Bahá’í universe of
discourse, and from a current global consciousness of interreligious
conversations for a future civilization of peace, I can now address a
question that has lingered beneath these considerations all along.
Given everything mentioned above, of resonance between one of the
oldest living religions and wisdoms on this earth and the Bahá’í Faith,
one of the youngest religions: what should we think of Laozi and the
Laozi in a Bahá’í universe? How can this sage and this book be related
to the scheme of cyclical revelation throughout the history and
becoming of humanity as embraced and expounded by the Bahá’í
universe?192 Could we think of Laozi in terms of, or at least similar
to, a Manifestation, such as (or much like) the Buddha and Jesus? And
if not, how do we understand the fascinating congruencies between
Laozi: A Lost Prophet? 57

these profound religious traditions, bridging several thousands of
years, if one of them were not to be considered to be authorized by
“divine inspiration” or “revelation,” but derives from “nature” the
common essential ingredients of a divine, human, religious and
universal unity and a peace for which the Bahá’í Faith stands?193 The
Bahá’í writings give us very few hints as to the station of Laozi and
his namesake book. Of course, as already mentioned, the general rule
of Bahá’u’lláh that all religions reflect one apophatic divine source,
would imply that Daoism is (and has itself proven to be) a true
religion so that we would be justified to spiritually understand and
revere its scriptures,194 especially the Laozi, and consider them in
some meaningful sense as a “revelation” of the mystery beyond
names.195 But even if so, we are in a more precarious situation as the
Bahá’í writings seem, at the same time, to deny Laozi the status of a
Manifestation or Prophet, minor or major. “Regarding Lao-Tse,”
Shoghi Effendi writes, “The Bahá’ís do not consider him a prophet, or
even a secondary prophet or messenger, unlike Buddha or Zoroaster,
both of whom were divinely-appointed and fully independent
Manifestations of God.”196 Conversely, it is interesting to note that
both the Muslim Ahmediyyah community and the Vietnamese Cao
Dai religion (originating in the same general timeframe) accept Laozi
as divine Manifestation, much like the Buddha.197

However, despite Shoghi Effendi’s statement that Bahá’ís don’t
know of Laozi as a Manifestation, we cannot (on its own and by its
singular status) be sure what this statement actually includes or
excludes. Considering the stunning synergies between Daoism and the
Bahá’í Faith — not forgetting that Daoism is a valuable and important
dialogue partner in the interreligious dialogues worldwide today, but
also that such a dialogue is what Bahá’u’lláh has asked us to pursue198
— we seem at least to owe ourselves, and for the purpose of the
imperative to pursue universal religious dialogue, the effort to
understand as much as possible the coordinates that would allow us
to explore the relationship the Bahá’í writings can invite us to
establish with Laozi and his book, the Dao De Jing. I understand this
situation as an appeal to create a tentative and open framework in
which it becomes possible and fitting actually to pursue such
relationships, practically, in spiritual community, but also in
reflection on the potentials of mutual consciousness and insight
inherent in such a universal religious community.199 Such an approach
58 Lights of Irfán vol. 19

could maybe begin with ‘Abdu'l-Bahá’s wise instruction to engage
with the Chinese religious, spiritual and philosophical mind and heart,
and its sages and scriptures: “imbued with their spirit; know their
sacred literature; …and speak to them from their own standpoint, and
their own terminologies.”200 So, here are, from my understanding of
the potentials such an approach could have for the Bahá’í universe of
discourse, eight theses for an open framework of mutual
interreligious communication, pondering on why maybe, or maybe
why not, and in what sense the sage Laozi (and his book) might be
considered a mirror of the Sun of Truth. Yet, as such a space of
potential differentiations is not meant to define a specific outcome,
a definitive answer, it rather wants to envision and tentatively walk
through a field of perceptivity in which the concept of
Manifestations (and its relation to religious communities and their
truth claims) can shine in its fascinating complexity for further
interreligious investigations in general.

Thesis 1: Laozi was a holy soul, influenced by the
Buddha

According to this thesis, which is occasionally ventilated in Bahá’í
reflections on the matter, Laozi is not a Manifestation or Prophet in
the Bahá’í sense, but a holy and pure soul who, like Confucius,201 was
under the influence of another (acceptable) Manifestation, namely
the historical Shakyamuni Buddha. This view is partly based on the
understanding of the reflectivity of the Logos/Will/Mind of God,
the primordial Manifestation of Divinity, in creation and through the
pure and stainless souls of the Prophets, the Manifestations proper,202
who again reflect their reality in holy souls that would always rise in
the wake of the revelation of a new Manifestation, either
contemporarily or in the span of their dispensational force field.203
Like the apostles of Christ, Laozi would be a reflection of the Sun of
Truth that appeared “in” the (wake of the) Manifestation of the
Buddha, who again is the primordial reflection of the Self of God
(which again is the primordial Manifestation of the apophatic
ultimate “Reality Beyond”).204

While such a solution allows us to recognize connections between
the accepted (known) Manifestations in the Bahá’í context and many
holy figures or sages during the centuries, appearing in relation or in
Laozi: A Lost Prophet? 59

parallel to these prophetic figures,205 much like the prophetic figures
of the Mosaic dispensation (after and under the umbrella of Moses),
it is also fraught with several serious problems. First of all, Daoism is
older than Buddhism. It cannot without grave limitations be
understood to have arisen in the wake of Buddhism.206 At least
traditionally, Laozi lived before the Buddha — a problem that this
solution shares with the question whether or not Confucius was a
Manifestation, who also lived before the Buddha and who
traditionally was thought to have visited Laozi and accepted him as
his teacher.207 Even if the traditional chronology may not hold up to
historical scrutiny, as we may assume that the legendary sage Erh
(Laozi) might have lived in the 5th century B.C.E. while the Laozi was
created or compiled between the 4th and the 2nd century B.C.E., the
main counter argument still remains, namely, that Daoism is older
than Buddhism. However, even if this was not the case, we must not
forget that Buddhism entered China only at the time of the Han
dynasty between the late 3rd and the 1st century B.C.E., long after
both the alleged lifetime of Laozi and the creation of the Dao De
Jing.208 We must also take into consideration that it was the Daoist
substrate that facilitated the survival of Buddhism in China while it
was disappearing in India over the next centuries either by being
reappropriated into Hinduism or by being eradicated by Islamic
occupation.209 Moreover, it was mediated through Daoism and
especially through Laozi and the Laozi that Buddhism developed into
new and important branches, which became influential and are still
with us today, not only in East Asia, but also in America and Europe
(for instance, Chan, Hua Yen, Tian Tai, and other forms of Mahayana
Buddhism); and so was Zen enfolding a synthesis with Daoist streams,
perpetuating its inherent influence worldwide to this day.210 Hence,
the assumption of a movement of influence opposite to the proposed
thesis is not only more probable regarding origins and historical
development, but also on the symbolic level as Laozi in later Daoism
was understood to have been the teacher of the Buddha, and the
Buddha was even proclaimed the return of Laozi.211
60 Lights of Irfán vol. 19

Thesis 2: Laozi was a sage, transmitting an older
Chinese “revelation”

There are, in fact, in Chinese cultural memory indications of
mythical figures who have been considered the founders of Chinese
culture or even humanity such as the divine Yellow Emperor and the
figure of Fu Xi, a legendary emperor and mythological author of the
ancient Yi Jing who is considered somewhat similar to the
mythological Adam of biblical heritage (which to mythological
consciousness also appeared to be historical).212 The reason to think
in this way in a Bahá’í perspective would be that, if we rule out thesis
1, namely, that the Buddha is the “origin” and overarching force field
for the emergence of Laozi, we might think of Laozi as the mirror or
companion of an older Chinese Manifestation of which we have lost
record.213 The Bahá’í writings expect that every culture would have
had their Manifestations even before the ones known today. In fact,
Shoghi Effendi partly justifies his reluctance to widen speculation to
other than the recorded figures named in the scriptural Bahá’í
writings on this basis: that we have lost knowledge of older
dispensations distributed throughout humanity and human pre-
history.214 They could, as Bahá’u’lláh says, have been the instigators
of humanity’s cultural development in these older times, but were
living, for instance, before writing could have preserved their
memory.215 Hence, it would make sense to postulate such a prophetic
figure, which then would be the force field of revelation “in” which
Laozi represents another mirror of rejuvenation or exploration.

What may count against this thesis, however, is the overwhelming
evidence that it was not such an ancient figure of the unremembered
past, but Laozi himself who was seen as the initiator of
(philosophical) Daoism (Dao Jia), and who, in the further
development of Daoism as a religion (Dao Jiao) in the first
millennium C.E., began prominently to feature as divinity, even as
one aspect of the highest Manifestations of ultimate reality in the
Daoist understanding.216 This development should give us pause: It is
in the figure of Laozi and his book that it is at least questionable that
China had not developed any idea of Manifestations of divine
“revelation” and produced scriptures of such revelations, because it
was precisely with Laozi and the Laozi that, over the coming
centuries, the idea of apophatic divinity, divine Manifestations of
Laozi: A Lost Prophet? 61

ultimate reality and scriptural revelation, have developed.217 In fact,
Laozi became the “face,” that is, literally the Manifestation of the
highest mystery of ultimate reality expressed in the conception of the
“Three Pure Ones.” Of them, he is the “face” of mystery, himself
often represented as holding “the book” (the Laozi) — uncannily
mirroring the Bahá’í understanding of the High Prophets or
Manifestations as being the “face” of the unknowable Godhead and
the ones bringing “the book,” that is, not only a new scripture, but
the “Law” of the dispensation that decides its pattern of living.218
Not only can the origin of the “Three Pure Ones” be traced back to
the Dao De Jing, as it understands the origin of all things to proceed
from the apophatic One that becomes Two (Yin, Yang) and then
Three (The Three Pure Ones) from which, consequently, all things
flow.219 Moreover, within this logic of the Three-One, together with
the apophatic One (Yuanshi Tianzun) and the Divine Treasure
(Lingbao Tienzun), Laozi appears as “its” third aspect, the
quintessence of the Way and Virtue (Daode Tienzun). The “face” of
ultimate reality is none other than the divine Spirit of Laozi who,
then, is nothing else but the human Manifestation of the Way (the
universal Dao, ultimate reality) and all of “its” divine attributes or
virtues.220

At this juncture, we may ask: What more and what other
(additional) characteristics can we expect a Manifestation to exhibit
to be called a Manifestation in a Bahá’í sense than being the very
expression of ultimate Reality “in person” and bringing (revealing)
“the book,” and being considered to have a human and a divine
station and nature (rather similar to the development in
Christianity,221 maybe even under influence of its Chinese expansion)?
But then, contrarily, we can also ask whether there is any evidence
that Laozi, or Confucius, for that matter, considered himself, or
claimed to be, a Manifestation?222 As a final similarity we may also
remember that this divine figure of Laozi, Lord Lao, was considered
to undergo a rhythm of human appearances in a progression of
revelations and Manifestations. Like the Reality of Bahá’u’lláh,
Krishna and the Buddha, Laozi’s Reality (in Daoist scriptures) is
understood to have come time and again into the world of humanity,
even as the figure of the Buddha (but not confined to it) whom
Bahá’ís consider as a genuine Manifestation.223 But then, again, as this
cyclical scheme of the divine reality of Lord Lao, appearing in a
62 Lights of Irfán vol. 19

figure of another religions, was created under the pressure resisting
Buddhist expansionism, it might not create a reliable argument for
the cyclicity and return of Manifestations in a Bahá’í understanding
either.224 What is more, despite the high station of Lord Lao, later
developments in religious Daoism have not confirmed, or rather,
shaded, the seeming importance of the divine figure.225

Thesis 3: Laozi was a “possible, but unknowable”
Manifestation

Shoghi Effendi’s statement that Laozi is “not considered” a
Manifestation in the Bahá’í context leaves space for an interpretation
that takes into account the seeming conviction of the Guardian to
not expand his interpretations of Bahá’í revelation beyond the
boundaries of that which the texts actually say or give evidence for in
his considerations when answering questions (thesis 2). It is quite
often the case that we find in the corpus of Shoghi Effendi’s letters
(or letters written on his behalf) that he cautions the questioner about
that which on any specific issue can actually be known if one takes
the Bahá’í scriptural texts as a basis: sometimes nothing can be
known, because nothing can be found or inferred regarding a specific
question or matter; sometimes the evidence is scarce and caution is
necessary not to overstep the boundaries of interpretation into
fantasy.226

If we can understand Shoghi Effendi’s statement regarding Laozi
in this way, it would not mean a denial in principle, but it would
rather indicate a factual impossibility to know whether Laozi was or
was not a Manifestation since the Bahá’í scriptural sources do not
indicate anything in either direction. On this view, all we can say is
that the Bahá’í writings do not (as far as we know) mention Laozi
either way. But given all the other criteria for discerning a
Manifestation, as they eerily apply to Laozi and the Laozi (thesis 2),
even if neither is mentioned in the canonical accounts, but since there
is virtually no limitation to divine theophanies in the Bahá’í
writings,227 Laozi may possibly be a Manifestation or be a “possible”
Manifestation. Yet this estimation must remain an open question in
the current context, not only because of the silence of Bahá’í
scriptures, but rather since we cannot exclude that later
Laozi: A Lost Prophet? 63

Manifestations could clarify this matter and possibly refer to Laozi
as such a Manifestation (thesis 6).

There is not much to say against such a thesis, except that we
could ask the question what sense it would make to ponder the
existence of a “possible” Manifestation of whom we cannot know
factually whether s/he is one or not. I will come back to this question
in thesis 5.

Thesis 4: Laozi was no Manifestation, because Laozi
did not exist

Shoghi Effendi’s statement that Laozi should not be considered a
Manifestation could also be understood as one in principle, that is, if
it indicates a definitive knowledge that he was not a Manifestation.
This would make sense if Laozi did never exist. In fact, more recent
research has raised doubts regarding the historical existence of a
singular figure named Laozi and, hence, of him being the author of
the Dao De Jing. It is rather assumed that he was a “composite
figure,” crystallizing a whole group of learned scholars of classical
Chinese wisdom.228 We know that the Zhou dynasty under which
Laozi is assumed to have lived was cultured enough to entertain an
imperial library and to employ scholars and scribes, collectors of
literature, philosophy, art and law, and who were advisors and
guardians of traditional wisdom.229 Like many other anonymous texts,
for instance of the Jewish wisdom literature (even the scriptural texts
accepted in either the Hebrew Bible or diverse canonical versions of
the Christian Old Testament), which are expected to be either
collective endeavors of a group or received redactions over time,230
we can reasonably assume a group of scribes, scholars and sages to
have collected the ancient Chinese wisdom sayings in a book(or what,
over time, became a condensed book) and by attaching it to one of
the mythological or faintly historical figures, or still revered
notables, remembered in Chinese history and named Laozi (as there
are, in fact, more than one such figures related to our composite
person Laozi).231 And we know of at least one such school to have
been entertained for some time during the fourth century B.C.E. that
was capable to either collect the Dao De Jing (or one of its early
versions) or hold high its memory without knowing its origins, but
accepting some traditional ascription to a mythical sage named Laozi
64 Lights of Irfán vol. 19

who in the old sources was assumed to have been the one that
Confucius had encountered in the search for some answers regarding
the correct performance of ancestral rituals. In this case, we must
still accept the acute relevance of the Laozi as a scriptural text of
religious Daoism (in which the text unfolded) that Bahá’í should
admire or revere, but without any knowable figure as its author. This
would not be without precedence in the Bahá’í universe as it also
accepts a Sabean/Sabian “revelation” of which we cannot even say
exactly what group it represents (as different groups are indicated in
different scriptural contexts), but of which we can definitely say that
we have no idea of any founder, mythological or historical.232

Thesis 5: Laozi was an “incognito” Manifestation

Although it is a somewhat strange assumption, at first, that a
Manifestation, which should be considered an educator of humanity,
could be unknown to his or her contemporaries, there are indications
in the Bábi-Bahá’í literatures that such a possibility is not a priori
excluded or under all conditions meaningless. A Manifestation might
decide not to be known by anyone. This assumption can be traced
back to an intriguing Shi‘i theological speculation that there are not
only known, but more often even unknown perfectly holy
representatives of the Twelfth Imam or the Qa’im in the world233 —
almost like the “hidden” (prachanna) Buddhas in Theravada
Buddhism.234 In any case, the Báb did assume that it is a
Manifestation’s decision if, when, and how to reveal him- or herself
to the world, depending on the situation.235 What would happen if
such a Manifestation decided not to reveal him- or herself? Would it
not imply that this human figure was nevertheless a “hidden”
Manifestation236 — because Bahá’í scriptures would not accept any
mere assumption scheme such as could also be witnessed in a group
of Christian (Ebonite) views that holds that Jesus “became” the Son
of God by adoption and exultation?237 And wasn’t any Manifestation
before his or her declaration a hidden Manifestation?238

But what could be the meaning of such hiddenness, as it seems to
contradict the very reason why a messenger of divine enlightenment,
revelation, and education of humanity is sent to appear?239 One
reason may be found deeply embedded in the Báb’s and Bahá’u’lláh’s
understanding of the nature of a Manifestation. In the words of the
Laozi: A Lost Prophet? 65

sixth Imam, both the Báb and Bahá’u’lláh repeat in their writings that
the essence of divinity consists in (the substance that is) servitude.240
Bahá’u’lláh also describes the divine “station” of the Manifestation in
terms of such servitude, not only “in the court” (the presence) of God
in which the Manifestation shows no self (ego) except the Self of
God, but even more so in the world in which s/he appears.241 In other
words, a Manifestation is a Manifestation regardless of whether s/he
appears in the face of witnesses and can be experienced as a divine
figure, a messenger or a prophet, or just as a mere human being, in
his or her servitude as “merely” human being expressing his or her
divinity as perfectly as would appear in any other (super-natural)
impressions s/he might leave in the perception and understanding of
humanity.242 Laozi might have been such a Manifestation, then, one
of absolute servitude, being anonymous, even incognito.243 However,
what counts against such a thesis in the case of Laozi is the fact that
his anonymity could not have been absolute since Laozi, in fact, was
known not only as a holy figure and sage, but even as a divinity,
similar to the Christian development following the experience of
Jesus’s exultation, explicating itself in the apotheosis of Christ (thesis
2).244

Thesis 6: Laozi was a “Manifestation” of Wisdom

The content of that which Bahá’ís may or may not consider a
Manifestation is not as clear-cut as one might think at first glance.
The first impression is that Manifestations are identical with the
founders of religions, but limited to certain known figures of
specific religions, such as the “nine” religions, which Bahá’í writers
sometimes assume as “canonical” for the Bahá’í universe,245 namely,
that of Sabianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism,
Christianity, Islam, Bábism and the Bahá’í Faith.246 While it is true
that Shoghi Effendi mentions those “nine” religions as the “only ones
still existing,” he also avoids three possible reductionisms: first, that
the number “nine” has a literal significance; second, that these are the
only (true) religions associated with Manifestations, these
Manifestations being the only ones; and, third, that this list is
exhaustive of “true” religions.247 In particular, first, the “nine”
represents the symbolic number of fullness for the Bahá’í Faith, the
Abjad number of the name of Bahá’u’lláh (BHA’), reflecting the
66 Lights of Irfán vol. 19

essence of all Manifestations as mirrors of the one Splendor or Glory
of God (thesis 7).248 Second, the often (in some combination)
together and in association with some of the “nine” religions
mentioned Manifestations, such as Krishna, Abraham, Moses,
Zoroaster, the Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, the Báb, and Bahá’u’lláh249
do in no way exhaust the Manifestations mentioned and assumed in
the Bahá’í writings.250 Rather, as Shoghi Effendi immediately adds,
there have always been Prophets and Messengers.251 In fact, the Báb,
Bahá’u’lláh, and ‘Abdu'l-Bahá consistently assume an indefinite
number of Manifestations.252 Third, as Shoghi Effendi emphasizes,
the mentioned religions do not represent the only true religions,253
but — maybe similar to the methodological restraints mentioned
thesis 3 — could be understood as the ones existing as mentioned in
the Bahá’í writings.254 This also derives from the fact that Bahá’u’lláh
understands all religions to be divine in origin and nature.255

Yet, if one was tempted to assume any of these reductionisms — if
the “nine” religions were to be taken literally — the “list” itself would
demonstrates several grave flaws. To name just a few anomalies
visible even from this reductionist outset: it would fail by suggesting
that these different religious historical organisms were one (linear)
chain of progressive revelations. These “nine” don’t form a simple
timeline of progression, but imply parallel developments and
crossings. Further, some of these religions are not named after a
founder, actually have a founder, or attach to a figure that is the
founder of the respective religion; they are religions in very different
senses of the word.256 Finally, such a literalism would also miss the
symbolic and spiritual character of the named religions as “the only
ones existing” and begin to resemble an exclusivist determination of
“true” religions. Shoghi Effendi avoids this danger, first, by
clarifying that the “nine” should not be used to create the impression
“of being all tied up with peculiar religious theories” and, second, by
advising Bahá’ís “not … to be rigid in these matters,”257 but rather to
take into account the historical and scholarly discussion on the
number and identity of (what should be called) “existing” religions.
These are all also important insights in the conversation with Daoism.

Another complication arises if we take a closer look at other
figures related to Manifestations, such as the Hebrew prophets, or
holy figures in other religions, such as the apostles in Christianity or
Laozi: A Lost Prophet? 67

the Imams in Shi‘i Islam, as reflected in the Bábi-Bahá’í writings.258 As
not all accepted (known) Manifestations are founders of religions,259
so do not all holy figures appear automatically in a lesser rank than
that of Manifestations. It is well known that the Báb began his
revelatory writings connected to his declaration as the Gate of the
Qa’im, eternalized in his mighty book, the Qayyum al-Asma, by
identifying himself symbolically with the figure of the Hebrew
patriarch Joseph who according to the Qur’an was considered a High
Prophet and one of the most important figures of the Jewish
dispensation in Islamic understanding.260 It is also well know that
Bahá’u’lláh has, on occasion, identified the Báb with John the
Baptizer who as Yahya was also a Qur’anic High Prophet with a
book, that is, given Bahá’í criteria, a Manifestation.261 Bahá’u’lláh
also identifies the Joseph of the Báb with himself and with the third
Shi‘i Imam Husayn ibn ‘Ali, both offering their lives in the wake of
divine demonstration of unconditional love (at least in Bahá’u’lláh
understanding).262 On occasion, both Joseph and Imam Husayn
appear in the same lineup with accepted Manifestations as if they
were participating in this elevated station, but maybe only were
anonymously manifest as such (Thesis 5).263 In other words, the Bábi-
Bahá’í writings know of a host of other (maybe in some sense
anonymous) “Manifestations” of the divine besides Manifestations in
a technical sense, often named the “holy ones,” appearing in the series
of Imams or the holy family, or in series of Manifestations, or with
all their attributes in place of them, or even as identified with a
named (known) Manifestation,264 or occasionally name them as
Manifestations.265

In this context, it is also remarkable that the Báb in his Tafsir
Hadith al-Haqiqat (and other tablets) names Fatimah, the daughter of
the Prophet Muhammad and the wife of the first Shi‘i Imam ‘Ali ibn
Abu Talib, the generative principle of all prophets — a function that
seems to indicate a “station” that is in some sense even higher than
that of the prophets.266 If we take also into account, as Henry Corbin
has demonstrated, that the Shaykhi movement, which preceded the
Báb and from which he recruited almost all of his early followers and
“apostles,” the Letters of the Living, has considered Fatimah as the
representation of divine Wisdom, we are in a whole new world of
religious and philosophical as well as spiritual connotations.267
Wisdom, hokmah in biblical understanding, indicates not just one
68 Lights of Irfán vol. 19

divine attribute among infinitely many others, but is singled out as
one of the divine modes of immanence of the transcendent God in
the world of creation. In the Hebrew Bible she appears in an elevated
position in her function to indicate the presence of God’s Self in the
world in the company of similarly elevated terms such as the Name
(haShem), the Word (dabar), the Spirit (ruah), the Angel (malek), and
Glory (kabod)268 — many of them, individually and collectively, also
being used to indicate divine Manifestations in the Bahá’í writings.269
In the biblical context, Wisdom represents, among other things, the
aspect of the presence of the unfathomable God as the plan of
creation, the wise order and reasonability of creation in the mind of
God; God’s luring power, instead of coercive force, in the education
of humanity in divine virtues; and the glory of God as she contracts
herself in the tent of the covenant and wanders with the people as
shekinah.270 It is this Wisdom that the Gospel of John refers to in its
famous prologue as the Word (logos) that was in the beginning of all
creation, is in all creation, and is God.271 It is the same Wisdom
(hikmat) in which Bahá’u’lláh understands the world to be created;
that in many of his tablets appears to indicate the nature of the
Manifestations; and that allows us to understand creation as divine
order and to penetrate its secrets with our mind (as its mirror).272

Nor does divine Wisdom figure only as the inspiration of
prophets, but also of the sages and lovers of wisdom, that is,
philosophers.273 It is not without merit to point to the fact that in
light of Wisdom both of these categories — that of the prophet and
of the sage — appear at times fused in past scriptures and the Bahá’í
writings. A strong witness to this fusion presents itself in the biblical
and intertestamentary Wisdom literature, which is itself not only
viewed as inspired scripture, but highlights Wisdom as divine Spirit
and plays the role of inspiration of prophets274 as well as that of the
divine dimension, as identified in the figure of Christ.275 Moreover,
as part of the Wisdom section of Hebrew Scriptures, the Book of
Daniel features one of the most influential Jewish prophets as a
sage.276 And Bahá’u’lláh identifies the symbolic figure of Hermes
Trismegistus as the primordial exponent of philosophy, who was
already traditionally thought to be the Jewish patriarch Enoch, the
one exalted to God while alive,277 while also being identified with the
Islamic prophet Idris.278 This will be further explored in thesis 7.
Laozi: A Lost Prophet? 69

So, while one could hold that eastern religions tend to not
entertain the concept of revelation and prophethood, but rather view
their holy figures as sages and their insights as wisdom, one could also
make a case that such sages live from the same Wisdom that generates
the prophets as divine representatives. In this sense, Laozi could be
understood as personification of this same Wisdom that flows
through all prophets and holy figures regardless of their station as
primal mirrors (thesis 3 and 5) or as mirrors of these mirrors (thesis 1
and 2).279 In this perspective, it would be secondary to what the exact
station of Laozi amounts if we accept that the Laozi is such a
scripture of wisdom, shining with divine Wisdom (thesis 4); and even
more so if we take into account the later Daoist interpretation of
both the person and the book as Manifestations of ultimate reality
(thesis 2). Yet, perhaps one may counter (and limit this thesis) by the
fact that, in the Chinese context, if one does not follow the
divinization of Lord Lao, Laozi is more naturally considered as a
wisdom teacher than an “incarnation” of Wisdom.

Thesis 7: Laozi is a “symbolic” Manifestation

This thesis is based on the observation, already hinted at, that not
all of the Manifestations, named in the Bahá’í writings, are either
founders of religions (thesis 6) or, for that matter, even historical
figures (thesis 4). This is especially true for Krishna, who is accepted
as a genuine Manifestation in the Bahá’í context,280 but is neither a
founder of Hinduism nor a historical figure, but probably similar to
Laozi (thesis 4) a composite personality.281 There are as many
“Krishnas” in the Indian records of old as there are “Laozis” in the
Chinese records. Similarly, we find series of Manifestations in Bábi-
Bahá’í literatures that include figures such as the biblical Adam and
Noah besides the already mentioned ones, and they were already
included in the Qur’anic series of prophets leading up to
Muhammad.282 Similar to Fu Xi in the Chinese context (thesis 2), it is
not difficult to agree that both Adam and Noah are not historical
figures, but symbolic representations of the archetypical human
condition in relation to (ultimate) reality at earlier stages of human
development and consciousness.283 Nevertheless, if such figures are
included in valid lists of Manifestations, we must either conclude
that Manifestations do not necessarily have to be historical figures or
70 Lights of Irfán vol. 19

that they will always at least have to indicate a great existential
symbolism of divine revolution in the history of evolution and
civilization.284 In either case, history becomes not obsolete — such as
in docetic renderings of the Christ event (recognizing only the
archetype, but denying the scandal of particularity, embodiment and
historicity)285 — but remains the very intention of this symbolic
reality as it emanates from the spiritual realms into their
materializations, and repeatedly so.286 In fact, with the return of one
Manifestation “in” another one, the whole cyclical and progressive
understanding of the symbolic “identity” of all Manifestations as
expressions of the one Word, Wisdom, Glory, Mind, Will and Spirit
of God becomes only intelligible if we assume such a symbolic reality
as a profoundly spiritual Reality, as the very basis for any singular or
cyclical or progressive materialization in history.287

Considering the symbolic character of the Manifestation as basis
for any historization is not the same as making a mythological
statement or transforming the concept of the Manifestation into a
mythopoeic statement extracted from past religions. A mythological
statement was meant to be (or was factually often misunderstood as)
a literal rendering of an event of sacred history within the bounds of
the causal connections of this material universe — something we
would today consider literalism (thesis 6)288 — even if it looks from a
current perspective like a paradigmatic rendering of deep realities.
The symbolic character of Reality, however, is related to the fact that
the spiritual nature of its meaning cannot be exhausted by material,
causal, space-time relations without, in this collapse, in its very
meaning becoming irrelevant to them (that is, the literal facts created
in such a way have already lost the spiritual meaning). ‘Abdu’l-Bahá,
with the Sufi tradition, speaks of the higher spiritual realm of the
Kingdom (malakut) sometimes in terms of the realm of similitudes
(alam al-mithal), the realm of symbols, meanings, similarities, images,
and significances, which are aspects of a higher reality than the
fleeing causal realm of impermanence, but which are mutually
immanent with and must be materialized and historicized at the plane
of the physical, historical, temporal, spatial and bodily world.289 He
also relates many doctrines of past religions to have been
misunderstood as “mythological” truths, that is, as literal renderings
of spiritual realities by confounding them with happenings of this
causal realm of the physical universe. Instead, these stories of sacred
Laozi: A Lost Prophet? 71

history were, so ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, always meant to convey symbolic
patterns of spiritual realities in the midst, but not of the stuff, of
physical realities.290 It is their symbolism, not their mythopoetic
confusion, which transports religious truths through symbols, myths,
tales, which, in their spiritual nature, have the power to connect us
with the divine revelation of Reality, or rather are the emanations of
this Reality into the world of creation.

A good example of this difference between mythic illusion and
symbolic meaning, or spiritual reality, in the Bahá’í writings is the
appearance of Hermes Trismegistus and “his” writings, the Corpus
Hermeticum, in Bahá’u’lláh’s Tablet of Wisdom (Lawh-i-Hikmat).
Hermes is, according to contemporary historical readings, (like Laozi)
considered a composite figure, not a historical person (thesis 4) —
although sometimes (mythopoetic, literalist) historicity was assumed,
as in the Renaissance. Like Krishna and Laozi, he “manifests” at
different times in history, collecting himself to, and collectively
emanating, characteristics of an archetypical figure of (philosophic)
wisdom and of divine revelation. He represents the Egyptian God
Thoth, the originator of scripture and language, and the Greek
Hermes, the messenger of the revelations of the Greece pantheon, but
also the Hebrew and Jewish figure of Enoch, who was supposed to
have been assumed into the divine realm while alive. Hermes/Thoth/
Enoch later also lent “their” name to this culminating Corpus, of
scriptural and para-scriptural texts of apocalyptic nature,291 carrying
“his” name, and advanced par excellence to the figure through whose
mystical ascent into the presence of God its secrets were
authorized.292 And, finally, in Islamic lore “he” became identified
with the mysterious Qur’anic prophet Idris who was also already
equated with the biblical Enoch (thesis 6).293 The Corpus Hermeticum
is, of course, not an ancient text of those pre-historical figures, but
was probably accumulated not earlier than the 1st century C.E.,
although the ascription to Hermes and Enoch lets it appear to have
been created at the beginning of human civilization. Its enormous
impact was not only due to its assumed old age and the authorship of
this presumably exceptional holy figure of divine origin or touch, but
can also be explained by the variability with which the presumed
authorship (and authority) could be identified with figures from
different cultures, embracing a divinity, a prophet, a philosopher,
and a revealer of divine truth in its sphere.294
72 Lights of Irfán vol. 19

Comparing Laozi with Hermes, at this point, we can decide to
dissolve Laozi like Hermes/Enoch/Idris into irrelevant clouds of
mythological confusion or view them as actual philosophers, or
actual prophets of old, or, conversely, in the contemporary climate
of “demythologization,” as imaginations based on a fraud of a later
generation ascribing an old name with authority to a respective
corpus of writings that, nevertheless, stun us even today because of
their beauty and depth of insight. Over against all of these potential
solutions, we could also decide to follow Bahá’u’lláh’s view of
Hermes and understand Laozi, like Hermes/Enoch/Idris, as such a
symbolic “Manifestation” of an ideal prophet-philosopher, educator,
and revealer of Wisdom — conveying spiritual archetypical Reality
regardless of the folds that formed the cooperate identity of the
figure through which this reality shines as Sun of Truth (thesis 3 and
6).

Furthermore, the fused figure of a prophet-philosopher (thesis 6),
whether symbolic or historical (or at least as perceived in sacred
history), is not an unusual category of human societies to understand
their extraordinary figures to be relevant across diverse cultures.
Historical figures like Pythagoras were considered not only
philosophers (and scientists), but spiritual giants, gathering religious
communities among themselves, being quintessential human beings,
incarnations of Wisdom and knowledge, and even divine figures. So
could the Roman poet Ovid divinize Pythagoras as all-knowing sage
of universal, super-mundane wisdom.295 Insofar as other philosophers
are understood — traditionally in Islam and also by Bahá’u’lláh —
spiritually to have gained their wisdom from the prophets, such as
Pythagoras from disciples of Salomon, for instance,296 and vive versa,
and insofar as such philosophers can be understood as being inspired,
as Bahá’u’lláh suggests for Socrates,297 we can discern the same
pattern: Wisdom flows from divine Wisdom that/who in all prophets
constitutes their “person,” who, therefore, are her highest
incarnations, but of a Wisdom that/who also distributes herself
among (or is being mirrored in) other extraordinary figures of
holiness, mystical insight (irfan), philosophical reason and spiritual
wisdom. Laozi, considered as divine personification of Wisdom, is no
exception — whether he was a composite personality, a (symbolic or
historical) divine mirror, a holy sage or Wisdom’s “Manifestation.”
Laozi: A Lost Prophet? 73

Thesis 8: Laozi’s station is (now) irrelevant

As with every Manifestation in the context of Bahá’u’lláh’s
revelation we can, on this view, assume that they all have been
integrated in their greatness into the greatness of Bahá’u’lláh who is
called a “universal Manifestation,” unprecedented in human history
on earth until now (and maybe never seen before even in unrecorded
human pre-history).298 Consequently, whatever the exact station of
anyone of any dispensation — even if such a station seem to lower
from one dispensation to another, as in the case of John the Baptizer,
or changes into divinity over time, as in the case of Krishna, the
Buddha, Jesus, and Laozi (thesis 6)299 — has become irrelevant in light
of the newest Manifestation; the past has been made new.300 It is in
line with this pattern of thought that the Báb, the more he gradually
revealed his claim to that of a Manifestation, also granted
outrageously grades of divinity to his disciples,301 while Bahá’u’lláh,
conversely, by his declaration to be the coming of the One God Shell
Make Manifest (man yaziruhu’llah) — whom the Báb expected being
even greater as the Bab himself,302 the Manifestation in which all
religions flow together (again) — resumed all distributed divinity back
into the singular universal event of his appearance. It is in this event
that the whole world was created anew by a divine infusion with all
the divine attributes, with grace, mercy, forgiveness, and renewal.303
Symbolically, that is, considered as spiritual reality (thesis 7), with the
coming of a new Manifestation all creatures expire, are inhaled, as it
were, and are, out of this moment of divine inhalation of the Spirit
and into silence, exhaled again, recreated. Through this event, all
reality is being born again into a new process that erases all ancient
stations and recreates them anew in unexpected ways into
unprecedented forms.304 If in the new revelation on the spiritual level
only the “face” of God remains, that is, the primordial Manifestation
resuming all reality, then its symbolic re-presentation is always such
that it does not matter what anyone’s station was before its new
appearance, except it is newly defined by its relation to this novel
event by which all is recreated.305 All stations, even of all past
Manifestations, are, therefore, in a sense redefined by the new event
of a universal Manifestation. On this view, it does not really matter
what station Laozi has had.306 It is in the connection that one finds to
Bahá’u’lláh in which one may also find Laozi’s relevance today,
reverberating through his Dao De Jing in new splendor. “Now is the
74 Lights of Irfán vol. 19

time,” says ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, “when we restrict our discussion to the
Most Great Luminary of Peace and Salvation in the Age, to talk of
the Blessed Perfection and to voice His exhortations, behests and
teachings. … [The] sovereignty [of former Manifestation] in this
world is ended and their cycle is completed” [SWAB 469].

11. The Dao of Bahá
In conclusion, what is the challenge of Laozi and the Dao De Jing
for the Bahá’í universe of discourse? Sure, we might have enough to
work through with the host of diverse correspondences and
differences in detail as developed up to this point — such as the
resonances in the understanding of the unmanifest and hidden as well
as the manifest and creative ultimate divine reality; the relativity of
(religious) truths; the striving for education and perfection of human
potential in light of this ultimate reality and its exemplars; the effort
to liberate us from empty repetition of traditions and manipulations
of social and psychological dependences; the mutual resonances of
the respective Manifestations of Reality/ Dao in wise and prophetic
figures; and the effort to reform human society in light of the whole
of humanity and with universal peace as aim, among others. Yet, a
maybe even deeper dimension of fruitful cross-pollination may come
to light only if we reformulate the assumption regarding the unity of
religions, which was underlying the whole conversation all along,
namely: in form of a reflection on the one universal Dao of all
religions as the Dao of bahá, of the latest Manifestation of the Dao,
of ultimate Reality in “person.”

If the many books and reflections beginning with “the Dao of…”307
have brought something to light, then it is the insistence on a certain
shift of our perception of reality as a whole, a shift of the worldview,
the cosmology that is more often than not tacitly presupposed in our
day by day evaluation of our lives and in some sense or another
underlies any philosophical and religious discourse, and so also the
ones reflected on here. The mathematician and philosopher Alfred
North Whitehead has made this insight the basis of his philosophical
investigations308 so that by knitting together the major spheres of
thought (science, religion and philosophy)309 he could
programmatically proclaim: “Science suggested a cosmology; and
whatever suggests a cosmology, suggest a religion.”310 The emphasis in
Laozi: A Lost Prophet? 75

such a correlation and mutual induction of these spheres on the level
of a cosmology, whether implicit or as a reflected worldview of any
scientific and religious discourse and their mutual integrations, is to
recognize not only the unity of humanity and religions (with its/their
Manifestations) in the unity of God. The true nature of unity as
envisioned by the Dao of Laozi and the Dao De Jing is of
encompassing cosmological breadth that intends nothing less than the
unity of the whole “body of the world”311 as pervaded by the one
divine Spirit that vivifies the universe in a process of the emergence
of mind and the various evolutionary harmonizations of its members
throughout all of its spheres and layers of existence.312 The Dao, then,
translated in Bahá’í terms, is this all-embracing and all-pervading
Reality of the Spirit, the working of its essence in all of nature,
including elementary particles, living beings and humanity.313 This
one Spirit pervades the All of cosmic reality.314 To see in the diversity
of cosmic existence this unity of beauty and the evolving force of
unification315 is to feel or see or experience or perceive or inherit the
unseen and unnamed Dao/Reality, and is to become a mirror of its
all-pervasive working.316 Human perfection, then, lies not in the
flight from the world of nature, but in the realization of all divine
attributes, which are seeking realization in all of existence,317 not
only among humanity and society, but also in all of nature, our
precious Earth and the cosmos as a whole. The Dao is this inner
nature (ziran) that unites all of existence, physical and mental,
subjective and objective, individual and collective, personal and
social, visible and invisible, sacred and profane, material and
spiritual, and is always already present and at work in the process of
becoming, the becoming of new worlds and new spiritual beings,
even beyond humanity.318 Yet, of course, as practitioners of Daoism
can and will claim their own understanding of these matter,
historically, philosophically, and religiously — and especially in the
context of Chinese self-identity, which does not so much discern
between the “Three Traditions” than identify with them — these
references for a contemporary Bahá’í perception, reception and
dialogue will remain in flux.319

It is, then, in this wide view of cosmic unity in which the Dao of
Laozi reclaims a “face” in the “Dao” of Bahá’u’lláh. In this universal,
evolutionary, ecological Dao, universal Reality (the primal
Manifestation of the apophatic Reality/God/Truth) becomes, indeed,
76 Lights of Irfán vol. 19

relative in all of its happenings and truths/daos far beyond particular
religions, even particular spiritual beings, such as humanity; it
becomes relative to all sentient beings beyond humanity (as in
Buddhism); and it becomes implicitly always already related to the
whole of existence as one process of divine Reality or Realization.320
In this universal ecological model of unity, the Dao speaks for all
beings and in all beings with one voice, a univocity of infinitely many
voices.321 In a pluralism of all beings on their respective levels of
intensity of the flow of the one Most Great Spirit,322 “its”
Manifestations give voice to this univocity “in person.”323

N OTES
Cf. Ninian Smart, The World’s Religions. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1998, chs. 1, 3.
Cf. Arvind Sharma, A Primal Perspective on the Philosophy of Religion.
Dordrecht, NL: Springer 2006, 1-32.
Cf. Eva Wong, Taoism: An Essential Guide. Boston: Shambala, 1997, ch. 1.
As we will see later, in section 10, this claim must be relativized in relation
to its historical accuracy, as it the circumstances for the identity the
person and the becoming of the book are quote complicated.
Cf. Alan Watts, What is Dao? Novato, CA: New World Library, 2000, 36.
Cf. Dann May, “The Bahá’í Principle of Religious Unity,” in Jack McLean,
ed., Revisioning the Sacred: New Perspectives in Bahá’í Theology. Los
Angeles: Kalimat Press, 1997, 1-36.
Although a wider shamanic religiosity may have been pervasive throughout
the different pre-historic cultural areas, the emergence of Chinese
religions or Daoic religiosity is not in any direct way dependent on the
Indian and South Asian or Dharmic traditions and in its origins and
further developments always demonstrates its own unique characteristics.
Nevertheless, in the later confluence of these streams of religious
universes diverse daoic schools and religious expressions, Daoism among
them, with Indian Buddhism has led to transferences of categories and
mutual synergies such as have contributed to the appearance of Chan and
Zen Buddhism and other confluences of the Dao with philosophical and
religious connotations in these encounters. Cf. Ray Grigg, The Tao of
Zen. Edison, NJ: Alva Press, 1994. More will be said in sections 8 and 10.
Laozi: A Lost Prophet? 77

Cf. Moojan Momen, “A Bahá’í Approach to Other Religions: The Example
of Buddhism,” in Moojan Momen, ed., The Bahá’í Faith and the World’s
Religions. Oxford: George Ronald, 2003, 167-188.
Cf. Seena Fazel, “Interreligious Dialogue and the Bahá’í Faith: Some
Preliminary Observations,” in Jack McLean, ed., Revisioning the Sacred:
New Perspectives on a Bahá’í Theology. Los Angeles: Kalimat Press, 1997,
137-152. This integration must, as all other unifications in the context of
the understanding of “unity” in the Bahá’í writings, be seen in the tension
between indelible uniqueness (‘ahad) and inclusiveness (wahid); cf. Rhett
Diessner, Psyche and Eros: Bahá’í Studies in a Spiritual Psychology.
Oxford: George Ronald, 2007, ch. 1. This oscillation between uniqueness
and embracing unification is also enshrined in Shoghi Effendi’s two
formulations: first, “unity in diversity,” which must not ever be mis-
understood as uniformity, and second, the “complementarity” of religions
in their contribution to the one history of religions; but even more so in
the fact that the one religion, of which the Bahá’í Faith understands itself
as a part, is an ongoing, always self-transcending process beyond any
religion, even the Bahá’í Faith. Cf. Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of
Bahá’u’lláh. Wilmette: IL, Bahá’í Publishing, 1993, sections “Unity in
Diversity” and “Fundamental Principle of Religious Truth.” For the
philosophical and transreligious implications, cf. Roland Faber, The
Divine Manifold. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2014, passim.
Cf. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Paris Talks: Addresses Given by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá in 1911.
Wilmette, IL: Bahá’í Publishing, 2011, #14.
This will have a great deal to do with the mystical consciousness that
unites us with the unknowable mystery beyond; cf. Bahá’u’lláh, The Seven
Valleys and the Four Valleys. Translated by Marzieh Gail. Wilmette, IL:
Bahá’í Publishing, 1991, 91. In the Fourth Valley (of the Four Valleys) we
read: “If the mystic knowers be of those who have reached to the beauty
of the Beloved One (Maḥbúb), this station is the apex
of consciousness and the secret of divine guidance.” This consciousness
will also lead us into the heart of the Dao De Jing.
Cf. Phyllis Chew, The Chinese Religion and the Bahá’í Faith. Oxford:
George Ronald, 1993.
Cf. Wing-Tsit Chan, A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1963. While this influence of the Dao de Jing
has created worldwide presence, this article will, of course, not claim to
understand the historical situation of its becoming and transmission,
especially in China and throughout Chinese culture and the “Chinese
religions,” but will especially take into account the scholarly engagement
with it, its history and becoming, as well as its contemporary
interpretations in light of interreligious and cross-cultural philosophical
discourses, which have taken place after its western academic reception,
78 Lights of Irfán vol. 19

but also the contemporary interreligious interest accompanying the
interest in its content and meaning.
Bahá’u’lláh uses the term haykal as embodiment of divine presence, which
can assume the form of a literal or symbolic temple, the human body; or it
indicates the heart, which is the place of divine revelation and presence in
creatures. Revelation can, therefore, take the form of an embodied person
or/and a “book,” that is, the prophet and his or her book. Cf. Bahá’u’lláh,
Days of Remembrance: Selections from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh for
the Bahá’í Holy Days. Haifa: Bahá’í World Center, 2016, #40:6: “O night
of the All-Bountiful! In thee do We verily behold the Mother Book. Is it
a Book, in truth, or rather a child begotten?”
Regarding such a transreligious notion of “revelation,” cf. Keith Ward,
Religion and Revelation. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994, parts 2 and 3.
The term “Big Five” has come into use as many introductions of religion
or investigations into specific religious matters related to “world
religions” have often reduced their view, or concentrated on, these five
religions, often to the exception of other traditions. While the Bahá’í
writings firmly add Zoroastrianism and the mysterious Sabian/Sabaean
religion(s), some introductions widen their horizon to Jainism and
Sikhism or, in rare cases, even to the Bahá’í Faith. Cf. George Chryssides
and Ron Geaves, The Study of Religion: An Introduction to Key Ideas
and Methods. London: Bloomsbury, 2007, ch. 3.
Cf. Shoghi Effendi, God Passes By. Wilmette: Bahá’í Publishing, 1970, 94-
96; Christopher Buck, “A Unique Eschatological Interface: Bahá’u’lláh and
Cross-Cultural Messianism,” in Peter Smith, ed., In Iran: Studies in Bábí
and Bahá’í History. Vol. 3. Los Angeles: Kalimat Press, 1986, 157-180.
While section 10 of this article will wrestle with this questions, it should
be clear from the outset that answering this question either in the
affirmative or negative would not have any influence on the value of
Daoism, Laozi, and the Dao De Jing as philosophical and religious
entities, or better, a living organism and its importance for the future of
religions in their philosophical and religious expressions. However, as will
be seen later, I will not even intend to “answer” this question in any
simple way, but rather take the uniqueness of their contributions to
world-philosophies and –religions as a mirror for differentiating the
question and harvesting the insights gained by doing so for the Bahá’í
universe of discourse. Hence, my title-question, whether Laozi is a “lost
prophet” must not be misunderstood as presupposing that he necessarily
is a prophet (in anyone’s eyes), but as a question that addresses the
interest of the Bahá’í concept of the Manifestation of God in the context
of another religion. While it may be true that such a claim—to
prophethood—is not an inherent necessity or even a real possibility in the
context of eastern religions, it should, therefore, not be summed that the
Laozi: A Lost Prophet? 79

Abrahamic institution and notion of “prophethood” is merely applied by
asking this question. Rather, if we substitute, as the reverse is sometimes
the case in Bahá’í parlor, the word “prophet” with Manifestation (mazhar-
i ilahi), we immediately have left this limitation.
Of course, in the first place, the engagement with Daoism, as with any
other religion, in the Bahá’í context is a fascinating and rewarding quest
and an imperative, given the presupposition of the Bahá’í axiom of the
unity of all religions. Yet, as imperative, it is always also a challenge as the
details of such a “unity” will be of revealing and enriching nature, even if
we might not immediately “see” how differences and unison are to be
understood or (in an intellectually satisfying and spiritually gratifying
way) achieved. It is in this sense, that the Bahá’í imperative of unity is an
even stronger impulse to reflection than the usual interreligious
engagements of comparative religion, comparative theology, or
interreligious dialogues; cf. Perry Schmidt-Leukel, Religious Pluralism and
Interreligious Theology: The Gifford Lectures—An Extended Version.
New York: Orbis Books, 2016.
In general, the different magnitudes of the presence of diverse religions in
the Bahá’í writings must be understood from the historical fact and
hermeneutical principle of the (historical and geographical) “location” of
any event, such as a new religion, like the Bábi-Bahá’í religions, as it will
harbor inherent limitations of access and understanding of hearers and
listeners to its new revelation in any given context. As Bahá’u’lláh and
‘Abdu'l-Bahá explain, their references to divers religions were not only
related to the ability of their audience to understand, but also by the
religious adherence and context of questions and questioners present and
inquiring, which/whom they often answered with their books, tablets and
letters. This is also a liberating insight, as it is not the limitations of the
Manifestations that define the language and references they use to explain
their revelations, but the limitations of the time and place in which they
appear; hence, the meaning of their teachings and the categories they use
must not be reduced to these contexts either, but can and must be
translated into new contexts; cf. Momen, “Bahá’í Approach,” in Momen,
Bahá’í Faith, 167-188.
The one specific reference of Shoghi Effendi to Laozi and how to
understand him in the Bahá’í context will become the driving impulse of
section 10 where it is quoted, and the analysis of which will take up all of
the latter third of this article.
It should be mentioned at this point that the references of ‘Abdu'l-Bahá to
Chinese religion or religions (such as Buddhism and Confucianism) can
and should also be understood as signifying and, hence, implying Daoism
so that they are relevant to its discussion. This is even more so of
importance as in the Chinese context, as we will see later, the
80 Lights of Irfán vol. 19

differentiation between the religious traditions, especially Daoism,
Confucianism, Chinese forms of Buddhism, and the so called “folk
religion,” are less of importance than the Chinese identity that they
together express in their relation to China as unified, or confluent,
spiritual heritage.
With the sparse sources in this regard, we are in a similar situation as with
considerations regarding the possibility of Native American “prophets” or
Manifestations; cf. Christopher Buck, “Native Messengers of God in
Canada? A test case for Bahá’í universalism,” in The Bahá’í Studies Review
6 (1996): 97-133; C. Buck, “Bahá’í Universalism and Native Prophets,” in
Seena Fazel and John Danesh, eds., Reason and Revelation: New
Directions in Bahá’í Thought. Los Angeles: Kalimat Press, 2002, 173-201.
This caveat holds all the more in light of Bahá’u’lláh’s statement that all
religions are not just creatures of human imagination, but of divine
revelation; cf. Bahá’u’lláh, Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh.
Wilmette, IL: Bahá’í Publishing, 1976, #111. One might also think of the
religion of the Sabians/Sabeans, of which we do not only not know any
founder, but of which we also cannot even be sure what group it
identifies (many are suggested in historical research). What is even more,
in Islamic interreligious discourses, their name functions often as means
to integrate other religions, such as Buddhism, into the sphere of divine
guidance. Cf. Christopher Buck, “The Identity of the Sabi’un: An
Historical Quest,” in The Muslim World 74:3-4 (1984): 172-186.
Cf. SAQ #43.
Shoghi Effendi has clarified that Confucius is not signified a
Manifestation by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá; cf. Helen Bassett Hornby, Lights of
Guidance: A Bahá’í Reference File. New Deli: Bahá’í Publishing, 2010,
#1685. Yet, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Questions, #43, in the same section, states
Confucius together with the Buddha as claimed by “worshipers,” which
would suggest a religion, not an ethics. And in another context, ‘Abdu’l-
Bahá mentions Confucius in one series of names together with only other
founders of religions such that Confucius would be the only one captured
by the term “blessed souls,” which binds all of them together, to be
(grammatically oddly) excluded from the series. Besides, although not
authoritative, pilgrim notes exist in which ‘Abdu’l-Bahá answers the
question whether Confucius was a Manifestation affirmatively. But the
point, here, is not to decide whether there are conflictual statements or to
establish a hermeneutics that would resolve such questions on a chain of
authority, but to hint at the fact that these questions need not necessarily
be answered with the most simple explanations; rather, they are worth to
be thought through in their ambivalences, complexities, and hidden folds,
as section 10 will attempt.
Laozi: A Lost Prophet? 81

The other equally important person and text being (the) Zhuhangzi (the
person and the book) to which I will not refer here further, but
who/which would be important to add to complete the picture or, at
least, to see the development of (philosophical) Daoism more clearly and
fully. Cf. Burton Watson, The Complete Works of Chuang Tzu. New
York: Columbia University Press, 1968; Victor Mair, Wandering on the
Way: Early Taoist Tales and Parables of Chuang Tzu. Honolulu:
University of Hawai’i Press, 1994. Resent research also indicates that
there may be even older texts on which both the Dao De Jing on which
might depend; cf. Harold Roth, Inward Training (Nei-yeh) and the
Foundations of Taoist Mysticism. NY: Columbia University Press, 2004.
The textual history of Daoism is more complicated, as it comprises a
whole universe of texts that, later, were understood as scriptural basis of
religious Daoist identity. And it cannot be claimed that any of the early
texts has already settled into a fixed identity by which it would be
possible anachronistically to differentiate diverse religions as mutually
stable identities. They are rather differentiating “schools” of thought,
spirituality, and ceremonials, more than (independent or mutually
exclusive) religions; cf. Livia Kohn, The God of Dao: Lord Lao in History
and Myth. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 2000, chs. 1-2.
This approach, one of possibilities, or a multiplicity of potential answers,
is not only meant to address the question directed toward Laozi alone, but
rather to open a space in which complex considerations regarding the
Bahá’í concept of the Manifestations of God in relation to all religions
can be raised and pondered, but, here, as triggered by the unique profile
of Daoism, especially in the mirror of the Dao De Jing and the figure of
Laozi, that otherwise might not easily come to the surface or could go
unreflected. For a similar, but much wider field of considerations
regarding the concept of Manifestation in light of a multiplicity of
religions, cf. R. Faber, The Garden of Reality: Transreligious Relativity in
a World of Becoming. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2018, ch. 7-8.
Cf. Wong, Taoism, chs. 1-3. For early forms and groups, cf. Gil Raz, The
Emergence of Daoism: Creation of Tradition, New York: Routledge,
2011.
Cf. Terry Kleeman, Celestial Masters: History and Ritual in Early Daoist
Communities, Cambridge: Harvard University Asia Center, 2016.
Cf. Pierre Destrée and Fritz-Georg Herrmann, eds., Plato and the Poets.
Leiden: Brill, 2011.
Cf. J. J. Clarke, The Tao of the West: Western Transformation of Taoist
Thought. New York: Routledge, 2000, ch. 3.
Cf. Ingrid Fischer-Schreiber, The Shambala Dictionary of Taoism.
Translated by Werner Wünsche. Boston, MA: Shambala, 1996, 176.
82 Lights of Irfán vol. 19

Cf. John Blofeld, Taoism: The Road to Immortality. Boston, MA:
Shambala, 2000, chs. 5-7.
Cf. Isabelle Robinet, Taoism: Growth of a Religion. Stanford: Stanford
University Press, 1997, 1-24. As we will se later, the same is true for the
entanglement of Daoist schools and strains with that of Confucian and
Buddhist provenience, philosophically as well as religiously, which created
a fascinating rhizome of interactions and mutual coinherences.
Cf. Wilfred C. Smith, The Meaning and End of Religion. Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1991, chs. 2-3. Smith has demonstrated that for the study of
religion the term religion is a fairly new and late term, used to categorize
mostly western sensitivities on the basis of the Enlightenment and modern
secular differentiations of spheres of living such as culture, society,
economy, and so on. It was also used to imperialistically capture other
spiritual paths either for missionary reasons or subordination under a
specific tradition, preeminently Christianity, as the peak and essence of
religion. Many scholars have, therefore, tried to avoid this term as
description of spiritual ways in order to withhold its prejudicial
prescriptive implications as well as the unspoken presupposition that
there is an already defined essence of religion(s) that needs only to be
applied while, in fact, it was gathered from a specific tradition and
projected onto others. Cf. John Cobb, “Some Whiteheadian Assumptions
about Religion and Pluralism,” in David Griffin, ed., Deep Religious
Pluralism. Louisville, Westminster John Knox, 2005, ch. 12. Exceptions,
however, arise historically with Manichaeism and Islam, as both of them
use the term religion (din) self-reflectively; cf. Smith, Meaning, ch. 4. For
Bahá’u’lláh’s reconceptualization of “religion” in light of this Islamic and
pre-Islamic stream from its much more spiritual origin in Zoroastrian
texts, cf. Kamran Ekbal, “Daéna-Dén-Dín: The Zoroastrian Heritage of
the ‘Maid of Heaven’ in the Tablets of Bahá’u’lláh,” in Moojan Momen,
ed.,Scripture and Revelation: Papers presented at the First Irfan
Colloquium, Oxford: George Ronald, 1997.
The relation between religion and philosophy is an ancient problem and
widely discussed where “revelation” becomes the discerning mark of
religions. But if we change our perspective and seek the transformative
character of a teaching, as ancient Greek philosophy did (versus a purely
intellectual endeavor), we will find the difference harder to establish.
Ancient philosophers were sages, as sages were often religious figures, as
for instance evidenced by Pythagoras. Hence Laozi was not considered
merely an intellectual figure, but a transformative force of living a
spiritual life. Cf. Yu-Lan Fung, A Short History of Chinese Philosophy: A
Systematic Account of Chinese Thought from its Origins to the Present
Day. NY: Free Press, 1948, chs. 1-2. For further discussion, cf. section 10.
Laozi: A Lost Prophet? 83

Cf. Bahá’u’lláh, Gleanings, #132; Seena Fazel, “Religious Pluralism and the
Bahá’í Faith,” in Interreligious Insight 1:3 (2003): 42- 49.
It would seem that this approach is a natural implication and extension of
Shoghi Effendi’s insight that the oneness of religions does not hinder their
differences in the sense of a relational complementarity; Cf. Shoghi
Effendi, The Promised Day is Come. Wilmette, IL: Bahá’í Publishing,
1996, #I. For such a complementarity to be actually of some value, it can
only evoke insights if the content brought into complimentary
conversation is not already a priori known and included in one’s own
horizon, such that even the assumed “completeness” of one’s own
scriptures and wisdom path does not reveal such insights if they are not
accepted as a gift of that particular tradition—as an aspect of truth that in
fact adds to insight; cf. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Paris Talks, #15. This is a major
problem in interreligious discourses, related to the differentiation
between certain forms of inclusivism (that my truth supersedes and fulfills
all others) and pluralism (that there is mutual enrichment); cf. Raimon
Panikkar, The Intra-Religious Dialogue. New York: Paulist Press, 1999.
The later development of Daoism, however, will in some sense open up to
the idea of “revelation,” for instance, in the movement of Zhang Daoling
of the second century C.E., who claimed to have received revelations
from Laozi, and on which revelations the important sect of the Celestial
Masters is based; cf. Clarke, Tao, 33; Fischer-Schreiber, Dictionary, 9-10;
Robinet, Taoism, ch. 3.
Chew, Religions, 196.
Yet, it is in no way clear that these categories, that of the philosopher, the
sage, the holy figure, and the prophet, cannot also intersect in a west-
Asian (Abrahamic) context. Pythagoras, for instance, was, in his time,
rather a religious leader than a philosopher in the modern sense. Note that
Bahá’u’lláh in his Tablet of Wisdom considers Apollonius of Tyana, who
seem to have been received as a holy figure in his time, even as a counter-
example to Jesus, as a Greek messiah of sort, rather than a philosopher;
cf. Keven Brown, “Hermes Trismegistos and Apollonius of Tyana in the
Writings of Bahá’u’lláh.” In Jack McLean, ed., Revisioning the Sacred:
New Perspectives in Bahá’í Theology. Studies in the Bábi and Bahá’í
Religions. Los Angeles: Kalimat Press, 1997, 153-188. And Bahá’u’lláh
even mentions Hermes Trismegistos, who in Islamic lore was already
identified with the Qur’anic prophet Idris, and the Hebrew patriarch
Enoch, as the originator of philosophy; cf. Bahá’u’lláh, Lawh-i Hikmat
(Tablet of Wisdom), in Tablets of Bahá’u’lláh revealed after the Kitab-i
Aqdas. Wilmette, IL: Bahá’í Publishing, 1994, 148n3. And then there is
Socrates, whom Bahá’u’lláh not only mentions as an exceptional
philosopher, but as a divinely inspired holy man of Truth; ibid, 147—as
84 Lights of Irfán vol. 19

there is also a long tradition that seems to imply the worthiness of
Socrates to compared with Jesus. More is said in section 10.
Yet, in this sense, the sage is the representation of perfect humanity; cf.
Wing-Tsit Chan, Source Book, 761. Hence, the sage seems to embody
ideals of the “revelation” of ultimate rightness in the cosmos as a whole,
not unlike certain prophetic figures in the west-Asian religions of
Abrahamic flavor as well as the “Perfect Man” tradition in diverse Jewish,
Gnostic, Christian, and Islamic philosophical speculations; cf. Frederick
Borsch, The Son of Man in Myth and History. Philadelphia: The
Westminster Press, 1967, chs. 2-6; Henry Corbin, Alone with the Alone:
Creative Imagination in the Sufism of Ibn ‘Arabi. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 1997, 131-133. Here again seems to appear a
transreligious connection to the Bahá’í notion of Manifestation (mazhar-i
Ilahi); cf. Juan Ricardo Cole, “The Concept of Manifestation in the
Bahá’í Writings,” in Bahá’í Studies 9 (1982) @ http://bahai-
library.com/cole_concept_manifestation.
Cf. Chew, Religions, 82-83.
Cf. Wong, Taoism, 31-37.
Cf. Wong, Taoism, 37-41; Shoghi Effendi, God Passes By, ch. 24.
Cf. Kohn, God, passim. With the divinization of Laozi in the late Han
dynasty—Robinet, Taoism, xviv fixes the date at 166 C.E.—Laozi is
depicted as creator of the universe, and he is elevated to the highest
depiction of ultimate reality by being admitted into it in the form of the
Three Pure Ones; cf.; Clarke, Tao, 67-68; Blofeld, Taoism, 95; Taoism,
Isabelle Robinet, Taoist Meditation: The Mao-Shan Tradition of Great
Purity. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1993, ch. 6. See
further discussion in section 10.
Cf. Faber, Garden, Prologue, chs. 3, 8; John Walbridge, The Wisdom of
the Mystic East: Suhrawardi and Platonic Orientalism. Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press, 2001.
If we compare the Dao less with the particulars of the Greek, Jewish, and
Christian Logos tradition, which leans itself more to controlled order,
even if it is related to reason, as in Stoicism and Philo of Alexandria, but
with the Wisdom tradition as represented with the biblical and
intertestamentary books of Proverbs(ch. 8) or Wisdom of Salomon(ch. 7),
we may begin to understand better the existing subliminal transreligious
relations between east and west, that is, the prophetic and wisdom
oriented religions, as Wisdom operates by attraction, not by force, not
even that of logic, and as Wisdom embodies itself in the sages as well as in
the prophets; cf. Larry W. Hurtado, One God, One Lord: Early Christian
Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism. London: Bloomsbury, 2015,
ch. 2; James D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making: A New Testament
Laozi: A Lost Prophet? 85

Inquiry into the Origins of the doctrine of the Incarnation. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans Publishing, 1996, chs. 6-7. See further discussions in section 10.
Cf. Thomas Cleary, The Essential Tao: An Introduction into the Heart of
Taoism through the Authentic Tao De Ching and the Inner Teachings of
Chuang Tzu. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1991, ch. 1. This is
also in line with the fact that early Chinese religion(s) were differentiated
more in terms of schools than denominations, and important texts were
often shared between all of them, although their value in those schools
might have been different.
Cf. Wong, Taoism, ch. 6.
Alan Watts, What is Tao? Novato, CA: New World Library, 2000, 37-38.
Cf. Joseph Needham, Science and Civilization in China. Vol. 2.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996, 68-71.
Cf. Chan, Source Book, chs. 6-7. That this is not just a western
interpretation of the Dao can be witnessed by the considerations of the
Chinese scholar Meijun Wang, “Conviviality with Dao: A Chinese
Perspective,” in Roland Faber and Santiago Slabodsky, eds., Living
Traditions and Universal Conviviality: Prospects and Challenges for Peace
in Multireligious Communities. Edited by. Lanham, MD: Lexington
Books, 2016, 67-78.
Cf. Fung, History, 97; Robinet, Taoism, 26.
Cf. Chad Hansen, A Daoist Theory of Chinese Thought: A Philosophical
Interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992, ch. 6.
Cf. Blofeld, Taoism, 1-19; Watts, Tao, 41-41.
Cf. Chan, Source Book, 136-137.
Cf. Robinet, Meditation, 42-48.
Cf. Fung, Source Book, 94-97; Cf. Phyllis Chew, “The Great Tao,” in The
Journal of Bahá’í Studies 4:2 (1991): 11-39.
Jonathan Star, Tao Te Ching: The Definite Edition. New York: Jeremy P.
Tarcher/Putnam, 2001, #1.
Cf. Rob Stockman, The Bahá’í Faith: A Guide for the Perplexed. New
York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2013, ch. 3.
Cf. Stephen Lambden, Introduction to The Lawh-i haqq/Lawh al-Haqq
(Tablet of Truth/True One/Ultimately Real...) @
http://hurqalya.ucmerced.edu/node/378/.
Instead of setting up the world in opposites (in permanent conceptual
strive for superiority), the Dao categorizes everything fluently as
contrasts in mutual immanence and of a flow into one another; cf. Clarke,
Tao, ch. 8. The unknowability and essential hiddenness of the Dao, even
to the extent to call it “nothing” (wu) or “true nothingness” (zhen wu)—cf.
86 Lights of Irfán vol. 19

Robinet, Taoism, 194-195—is a great example of non-dual thinking, which
also characterizes Bahá’u’lláh’s understanding of Reality (al-haqq) beyond
differentiations of theism and monism, but also beyond even the simple
opposition between being and nothingness; cf. Roland Faber, “Baha'u'llah
and the Luminous Mind: Baha'i Gloss on a Buddhist Puzzle,” in Lights of
Irfan 18 (2017): 53-106.
For more conversation between the mystical dimension of the Dao, its
activation in the multiplicity of the world(s) and our Selves, and the
Bahá’í writings; cf. Faber, Garden, ch. 3.
In the reflection of Chinese history of thought and culture, one might
even say that without the Dao De Jing, the authorship of which is credited
to the legendary Laozi, Chinese civilization would not have been the same
or dramatically different; cf. Chan, Source Book, 136.
Cf. Olivia Kohn and Michael LaFargue, eds., Lao-Tzu and the Tao-Te-
Ching. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1999, chs. 1-3.
Laozi is a title rather than a name, meaning Old Master. It may refer to a
wise man with the name (Li) Erh and also, in Daoist and Confucian
literature, Lao Tan; cf. Chen, Tao Te Ching, 6-10.
Cf. Ellen Chen, The Tao De Ching: A New Translation with Commentary.
St. Paul, MN: Paragon House, 1989, 6-18.
Cf. Fischer-Schreiber, Dictionary, 88-90; Robinet, Taoism, 19, 26.
Cf. Chen, Tao De Ching, 16-17; Chew, Religions, 24-25; Fischer-Schreiber,
Dictionary, 89.
Cf. Jaspers, Karl, The Great Philosophers, Vol. 2: The Original Thinkers:
Anaximander, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Plotinus, Lao-tzu, Nagarjuna.
Edited by Hannah Arendt. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc.,
1966. Jaspers adds also Zhuangzi, Liezi, Elijah, Jeremiah, Deutero-Isaiah,
Homer, Parmenides, Heraclitus, Plato, among others, to the axial list,
indicating this awakening to be one especially of consciousness, not of
narrow religious (revelatory) or even only western emergences; cf. Karl
Jaspers, The Origin and Goal of History. New York: Routledge, 2010, 8,
278-279 n5 (of p. 53), ch. 5.
This mutual interference and development of Daoism, Confucianism, and
Buddhism is known as the “3 Traditions” approach; cf. Clarke, Tao, 22-28.
Cf. Diane Morgan, The Best Guide to Eastern Philosophy and Religion.
New York: renaissance Books, 2001, 223; C. Alexander and Annellen
Simpkins, Simple Taoism: A Guide to Living in Balance. North Clarendon,
VT: Tuttle Publishing, 1999, 11.
Cf. Fischer-Schreiber, Dictionary, 56-57, 90; Morgan, Guide, 225.
This extraordinary crossing of lines by Bahá’u’lláh was not totally
unknown in other religious contexts. One may think of the integration of
Laozi: A Lost Prophet? 87

the Zoroastrian king Cyrus as Jewish Messiah in Isaiah 45 into Jewish
salvation history; or the “Old Testament,” integrating the Jewish Hebrew
Bible into Christian scripture; or the critical confluence of Islam and
Hinduism in Sikhism. But the maybe closest predecessor of the idea of
multi-religious prophethood was the figure of Mani whose movement
became a “world religion” stretching from the Levant to China and Japan
for over a thousand years before Bahá’u’lláh claimed the integration of all
religions and to be the “return” of all Manifestations of the past in his
prophethood; cf. Buck, “Interface,” 157-160. I fact, Mani claimed to be
the return not only of Jesus, but also that of Zoroaster and the Buddha;
cf. Smith, Meaning, 93.
Cf. Geoffrey Parrinder, Avatar and Incarnation: The Divine in Human
Form in the World’s Religions. Oxford: Oneworld, 1997, chs. 2, 11.
Cf. Moojan Momen, Hinduism and the Bahá’í Faith. Oxford: George
Ronald, 1990, 5-11.
Cf. Arvind Sharma, “Buddhism met Hinduism: Interaction and Influence
in India,” in Arvind Sharma, ed., The World's Religions: A Contemporary
Reader. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011, 234-40; Roland Faber, ““Must
‘religion’ always remain as a synonym for ‘hatred?’”: Whiteheadian
Meditations on the Future of Togetherness,” in Faber and Slabodsky,
Living Traditions, 167-82.
Michael Sours, The Station and Claims of Bahá’u’lláh. Wilmette, IL:
Bahá’í Publishing, 1997, ch. 5.
Cf. Chen, Tao Te Ching, 10.
Cf. Chew, Religions, 24.
Cf. Chan, Source Book, 36-41, 430-431.
The Dao De Jing is situated in the time of warring local states against one
another and should be read as a profound criticism of the political
barbarism this situation implied. Hence, it lays out a political philosophy
of harmony that, if realized, would indicate the ideal of civilization that
the myth from the deliberate choice of Laozi for exile emphasizes as being
impossible to be established; cf. Wong, Taoism, ch. 2.
Joseph Needham, Science and Civilization in China. Vol 6/2. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1984, 85-93.
Cf. Chen, Tao Te Ching, 10-12; Chew, Religions, 24; Fischer-Schreiber,
Dictionary, 88.
It is an “anthology”: cf. Alan Chan, “Laozi,” in Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy (5/2/2013), ch. 4 @
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/laozi/#TexTra; Chan, Source Book,
137-138. This collection also indicates that it was prepared by a group of
authors, rather than by one person.
88 Lights of Irfán vol. 19

Cf. Star, Tao Te Ching, 7-9.
Cf. Annemarie Schimmel, The Mystery of Numbers. NY: Oxford
University Press, 1993, 164-180. Schimmel may indicate a relationship of
the (number of) 81 (chapters) of the Dao De Jing to the birth myth of
Laozi, who, in one version, was born 9x9 years after his conception (170).
Cf. Peter Smith, A Concise Encyclopedia of the Bahá’í Faith. Oxford:
Oneworld, 2008, 261; Stephen Lambden “The Word Bahá: Quintessence
of the Greatest Name,” in Bahá’í Studies Review 3:1 (1993): 19-42.
Cf. Fischer-Schreiber, Dictionary, 175.
Cf. Cleary, Tao, 2. This early estimate is of course challenged by the fact
that the Dao De Jing was already a reaction to Confucianism, imagining a
different kind of society, and, hence, must be later in origin or, as a
collection, fitting more into the time of the warring states of the third
century B.C.E.; cf. Chen, Tao Te Ching, 5, 21.
Cf. Chan, “Laozi,” ch. 3; Chen, Tao Te Ching, ch. 3
Cf. Alan Chan, “The Daode Jing and Its Tradition,” in Olivia Kohn, ed.,
Daoism Handbook, Leiden: Brill, 2000, 1-29.
Cf. Clarke, Tao, 61.
Cf. Chan, Source Book, 137.
Cf. Robinet, Taoism, 29. On the diverse traditional commentaries, cf.
Chan, “Laozi,” ch. 4.
Cf. Chad Hansen, “Daoism,” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
(Fall 2014 Edition), ch. 2 @
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2014/entries/daoism/. Dao Jia,
although it cannot ever be separated from origins in alchemical and
shamanic surroundings and the development of its central figures into
religious heroes, like Laozi, of Dao Jiao, can of course not be reduced to
Laozi and the Dao De Jing, but, nevertheless, he and his book remain the
“foundational” text together with the Zhuangzi and several other ancient
works in a tradition that from the beginning has gathered itself among
many traditions—the “thousand schools”—and among several streams of
reception and interpretation, one of which might have been a Laozi-
school. Cf. Blofeld, Taoism, chs. 1-2; Fung, History, chs. 2-3; Robinet,
Taoism, ch. 1; Chan, Source Book, chs. 2-16; Chen, Tao Te Ching, 8-9.
Cf. Wong, Taoism, ch. 2.
Cf. Grigg, Tao, 29-57; Clarke, Tao, ch. 2; Chan, Source Book, 136; Chen,
Tao Te Ching, 15-18, ch. 2; Fung, History, chs. 18-26.
Cf. Chen, Tao, 15-18; Watts, Tao, 27-31.
Cf. Needham, Science. Vol. 2, 86-100; Chad Hansen, “Daoism,” ch. 3.
Laozi: A Lost Prophet? 89

Cf. Jacques Gernet, A History of Chinese Civilization. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1999, 102; Clarke, Tao, 105.
Cf. Chad Hansen, A Daoist Theory of Chinese Thought: A Philosophical
Interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992, ch. 6; Clarke,
Tao, ch. 5. Yet, as many ideas, they may have been ideals, never to be
realized in pure form, as, in fact, under the influence of Daoist political
reign feudalism prevailed; cf. Kristofer Schipper, The Daoist Body. Trans.
by Karen Duval. Berkeley: University of California, 1993, ch. 1.
Cf. Watts, Tao, 46-50.
Cf. Hansen, “Daoism,” ch. 9.1.1. The differentiation between why and
how does not exclude the Dao to be understood in metaphysical terms of
ultimate reality—as it is mostly perceived to be: cf. Blofeld, Taoism, ch. 1;
Chew, Religion, 25-28—but it warns us to attempt understanding ultimate
reality beyond our ability to act, or to divide between mysticism and
metaphysical insight, on the one hand, and ethics, world-engagement and
social action, on the other. This might indicate a resonance of intention
between the Dao Dee Jing and Bahá’u’lláh’s explication of mystical-
ethical insights in his “prophetic” collection of the Hidden Words. Cf.
Todd Lawson, “Globalization and the Hidden Words,” in Margit
Warburg, Annika Hvithamar and Morten Warmind, eds., Baha’i and
Globalization. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 2005, ch. 2.
Cf. Dao De Jing, #37; Fung, History, 97-102.
Cf. Blofeld, Taoism, ch. 3.
Cf. Hansen, “Daoism,” chs 4, 9.1.1.
Cf. Needham, Science. Vol. 2, 74-83.
Cf. Hansen, Theory, ch. 3.
Cf. Hansen, Theory, ch. 4.
Cf. Hansen, “Daoism,” ch. 2; Clarke, Tao, 175-184.
This relativism is not to be confounded with an “anything goes”
approach, as westerners might feel to appropriate its insights, but as a
new kind of normativity, namely, that of spontaneity in the flow of
things; cf. Clarke, Tao, 98.
Cf. Fung, History, 102-103.
Cf. Hansen, Theory, 225; “Daoism,” ch. 3.
Cf. Livia Kohn, Taoist Mystical Philosophy: The Scripture of Western
Ascension. Albany: State of New York University Press, 1991, ch. 1;
Hanson, “Daoism,” ch. 3.
Cf. Hansen, “Daoism,” ch. 6: Clarke, Tao, 80-91.
Cf. Livia Kohn, Early Chinese Mysticism: Philosophy and Soteriology in
the Taoist Tradition, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992, chs. 1-
90 Lights of Irfán vol. 19

2; Clark, Tao, ch. 7. This implies that we can, in fact, live according to
“nature” if we follow the unknowable Dao, that is, as this mystical Way
implies some kind of experiential metaphysical or even religious
descriptive probabilities; cf. Hansen, “Daoism,” ch. 2. In the exemplarity
of the “perfect human being” lies also a certain connection to the notion
that the Manifestation is the mirror of the of apophatic Reality such that
Reality, which is unknowable per se, becomes accessible in this mirror at
least as the way of life implied in this knowledge, but not besides their
revelation; cf. Bahá’u’lláh, Gleanings, #30; ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Paris Talks, #5;
Questions, #27. We might even find a resonance here to the fact that to
reach this point of perfection is a rare possibility so far so that later
elevations and divinizations of certain masters, but at least of Laozi, seem
to demonstrate that such a possibility is by no means just a bottom up
achievement, but might rather be the expression of grace from above, of
divine embodiment.
Cf. Clark, Tao, ch. 8. In a more radical interpretation, this relativism
equates with a pluralism that is (metaphysically) presupposing skepticism
as to the ability to gain any insight into the nature of things; cf. Hansen,
“Daoism,” ch. 2.
Cf. Hansen, “Daoism,” ch. 9.1.1; Clarke, Tao, 101.
Cf. Chan, “Laozi,” ch. 6; Hansen, “Daoism,” 9.1.2; Clarke, Tao, 90-103.
This “virtuosity” is like learning to carve wood along its grain, rather than
against it, learning the natural way; cf. Watts, Tao, xvii.
While the ideal of the Daoist sage is, therefore, the withdrawal from
society into nature, this does not mean that Daoism was apolitical; rather
it furthered resistance against the feudal society, and the creation of
counter-societies of equality, based on agriculture, and generally with a
pacifist orientation; cf. Clarke, Tao, 103-111; Robinet, Taoism, 27;
Needham, Science. Vol. 2, 86-132.
Cf. Hansen, Theory, 212-213; Hansen, “Daoism,” chs. 3.3, 4, 8, 9.4, 9.5.
Cf. Hans-Georg Moeller. The Philosophy of the Daodejing, New York:
Columbia University Press, 2006, ch. 5. Situating the Dao De Jing
primarily as a political philosophy in the context of the warring state
period, Moeller speaks of the establishment of peace by the method of
“dehumanization” (76).
Cf. Chan, “Laozi,” ch. 7.
Dao De Jing, #1; transl. by Hansen, “Daoism,” ch. 4.
This does, however, not exclude political quarrels for supremacy of
respective groups and religious “inclusion” of the other parties; cf.
Clarke, Tao, 22-28. While exclusivism is especially haunting Abrahamic
traditions, the possibility of one person in relation to different aspects of
their life to embrace all three traditions, respectively, shows the
Laozi: A Lost Prophet? 91

fundamental different approach to religious identity in the Chinese
context.
Cf. Grigg, Tao, passim; Joseph Bracken, The Divine Matrix: Creativity as
a Link between East and West. New York: Orbis Books, 1995, 133-135.
Compassion (sanbao) is one of the three root virtues in Daoist living, one
of the “Three Treasures,” first appearing in the Dao De Jing, #67; cf. Lin
Yutang, The Wisdom of Laotse, Random House, 1948, 292; Masao Abe,
“Kenotic God and Dynamic Sunyata,” in John B. Cobb and Christopher
Ives, eds., The Emptying God: A Buddhist- Jewish-Christian
Conversation. Edited by, 3-68. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1990, 3-67.
Cf. Kohn, Mysticism, ch. 6; Hansen, “Daoism,” ch. 8.
Cf., Antonio Cua, “Opposites as complements: reflections on the
significance of Tao,” in Philosophy East and West, 31:2 (1981): 123–40;
Hansen, “Daoism,” chs. 4, 9.2.
Cf. Ellen Marie Chen, “Nothingness and the mother principle in early Chinese
Taoism,” in International Philosophical Quarterly 9 (1969): 391–405.
The identification of ultimate reality with “nothingness” is based on the
term wuji, which is itself a term of ultimate reality. It appears for the
first time in the Dao De Jing, #28 and also means the limitless infinite in
the Zhuangzi, ##1, 6, 11, 15; cf. Zhang Dainian and Edmund Ryden, Key
Concepts in Chinese Philosophy. Yale: Yale University Press, 2002, 72. For
the resonances with the “two truths” and Madhyamika cf. Friederike
Assandri, Beyond the Daode Jing: Twofold Mystery in Tang Daoism,
Dunedin, FL: Three Pines Press, 2009; Mark Csikszentmihalyi, “Mysticism
and Apophatic Discourse in the Laozi,” in Mark Csikszentmihalyi and
Philip J. Ivanhoe, eds., Religious and Philosophical Aspects of the Laozi.
Albany: State University of New York Press, 1999, ch. 1.
Dao De Jing, #1.
For the thesis that Daoism and Buddhism in China were not two
contrasting religions, cf. Henri Maspero, Taoism and Chinese Religions.
Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1981, 412. For the deep
resonances with Zen, cf. Masao Abe, Zen and Western Thought.
Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1985, chs. 2-3.
If we think of Daoism as philosophy (dao jia), being internally touched by
the truth of its proposition (correlating it with experience) is to be
expected; cf. Bahá’u’lláh’s praise of philosophers, especially Socrates, in
his Lawh-i Hikmat (Tablet of Wisdom), 146-147. However, if we view
Daoism as religion (dao jiao) it could be said that it is the Bahá’í
conviction that all religions receive their life from the same apophatic
source of Reality/God (al-haqq) and, hence, are not a dead body of the
past, but alive in the unity of Manifestations with their eternal (time-
relative, but –invariant) effect in the world of becoming and perishing,
92 Lights of Irfán vol. 19

that is, are beyond the boundaries of the religious identities with which
they are identified universally “present.” In this sense, the Bahá’í view of
unity is not the expression of a simple supersessionism, in which all
religions of the past are “overcome,” but one in which they communicate
in an “analogy of faiths” in mutual coinherence and coinhabitation; cf.
Faber, Garden, ch. 8: section 6. Therefore, it is not a mere intellectual
interest that feeds any serious investigation into the diverse relations
from a Bahá’í perspective, but the amazing potential to be able to
spiritually understand and share (irfan) from the inside in the spiritual and
divine power or grace (fayd) in their confluence in the Bahá’í view—“with
the eye of God, ” rather than as an objective dissector. In some
meaningful sense, a Bahá’í could claim to be a believer in these religions,
sharing in their riches, as s/he does not make any difference between them
(in their origin, in their Manifestations); cf. Stephen Lambden,
“Dimensions of Abrahamic and Babi-Bahā’ī Soteriology: Some Notes on
the Bahā’ī theology of the Salvific and Redemptive role of Bahā'-Allāh,”
2017 @ https://hurqalya.ucmerced.edu/node/3451. This view is, on a
much more tentative basis, current standard understanding of
methodological access to multiple religions in comparative studies; cf.
Keith Ward, Religion and Revelation. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994,
chs. 1-2; Raymond Panikkar, “What is Comparative Philosophy
Comparing?” in Gerald Larson and Eliot Deutsch, eds., Interpreting
Across Boundaries: New Essays in Comparative Philosophy. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1988, 116-36.
Cf. Dao De Jing, #8.
D.C. Lau, “The treatment of opposites in Lao-tzu,” in Bulletin of the
Society for Oriental and African Studies 21 (1958): 344–60.
Cf. David Hall, “Process and anarchy: a Taoist vision of creativity,” in
Philosophy East and West, 28:3 (1978): 271–85. This is, of course, a
modern perception, taking into account the radical potentials of the ideas
inherent in the ideas even if they have not, at the time of their inception,
been realized in such a radical way.
Cf. Chew, Religions, chs. 5-9. For the Bahá’í context, philosophically, all
of these characteristics can be traced back to the Báb and his metaphysical
and spiritual understanding of this cosmos to be released from the Divine
Point (Will, Mind), which is in its own complex way both unity and
diversity, non-opposition and differentiation, creativeness and
receptiveness; cf. Nader Saiedi, Gate of the Heart: Understanding the
Writings of the Báb. Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press,
2010, part 2.
This is, from a Bahá’í perspective, rather a “natural” assumption, as all
Manifestations and, in extension, all religions in their true core teach the
same truths; cf. Dann May, “The Bahá’í Principle of Religious Unity,” in
Laozi: A Lost Prophet? 93

Jack McLean, ed., Revisioning the Sacred: New Perspectives in Bahá’í
Theology. Studies in the Bábi and Bahá’í Religions. LA: Kalimat Press,
1997, 1-36. “Confluence” is also always the recognition of the mutual
coinherence and coinhabitation, the translucency of religions in the new
event of gathering—for Bahá’ís, the new revelation of Bahá’u’lláh. This is
the heart of the Bahá’í conviction of the relativity of religious truth; cf.
Faber, Garden, chs. 1, 9; Juan Cole, “‘I am all the Prophets’: The Poetics
of Pluralism in Bahá’í Texts.” In Poetics Today 14:3 (Fall 1993): 447-76.
The most comprehensive comparison between Chinese Religions and the
Bahá’í Faith, that is, mostly of Daoism and Confucianism, which for many
Baha’is may feel more familiar, is still Chew, Religions. And the most
excellent comparison of Bahá’í sensitivities with the Dao De Jing can be
found in Chew, “The Great Tao,” 11-39. For the Islamic philosophical
background of the Bahá’í Faith in relation to Daoism, cf. Toshihiko
Izutsu, Sufism and Taoism: A Comparative Study of Key Philosophical
Concepts. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984.
Cf. Chew, “The Great Tao,” 17-19; Stockman, Bahá’í Faith, 31-35. As to
the apophatic nature of the Godhead and its implications as well as the
breathtaking interference with “its” manifestation as and in the world, cf.
Stephen Lambden, “The Background and Centrality of Apophatic
Theology in Bábi and Bahá’í Scripture,” in Jack McLean, ed., Revisioning
the Sacred: New Perspectives in Bahá’í Theology. Los Angeles: Kalimat
Press, 1997, 37-78; Moojan Momen, “The God of Bahá’u’lláh,” in Moojan
Momen, ed., The Bahá’í Faith and the World’s Religions: Papers presented
at the Irfan Colloquia. Oxford: George Ronald, 2003, 1-38.
Cf. Isuzu, Sufism, part 1/II and part 2/VII. It would be limiting if we
were tempted to reserve this intended “apophatic” Oneness to the
unknowable Godhead (as “formless”) by exclusion of the manifest “God”
(Primal Will) as “formed” or “determined.” Rather, the unity of
unnamable and manifest Dao is a hint to the “divine sphere” of both these
highest realms of divinity, crossing the highest realms of divine
“existence,” symbolically sometimes addressed in Bahá’u’lláh’s and
‘Abdu'l-Bahá’s writings as hahut and lahut; cf. Momen, “God of
Bahá’u’lláh,” 25. And the Primal Will in the writings of the Báb is not
“form” either, but infinite potential to be determined by form, united in
the Primal Point; cf. Saiedi, Gate, 183, 202 (and the whole of chs. 7-8).
This “emptiness” is directed against all projections on “it” of categories,
which remain always only our abstractions, not “its” reality. This, among
other things, is also addressed in the Islamic and Bahá’í universe of
discourse by the expression that God alone “exists.” For the implications,
explicated in Bahá’u’lláh’s tablet of Uncompounded Reality, cf.
Bahá’u’lláh, Tablet of the Uncompounded Reality (Law –i Basít al-
Haqíqa). Introduction and translation by Moojan Momen: “Bahá’u’lláh’s
94 Lights of Irfán vol. 19

Tablet of the Uncompounded Reality (Law –i Basít al-Haqíqa) in: Lights of
Irfan 11 (2010): 203-21; Faber, “Bahá’u’lláh,” 53-106.
Bahá’í writings follow the maxim that absolute unity excludes all
attributes; cf. Bahá’u’lláh, Valleys, 24 (Seven Valleys: Valley of
Knowledge). This “exclusion” also applies to any emphasis on unity over
and against multiplicity. We must learn to “perceive, with an eye purged
from all conflicting elements, the worlds of unity and diversity, of
variation and oneness, of limitation and detachment”; Bahá’u’lláh, Iqan,
160. For the philosophical and theological importance of this insight
against such a simplified emphasis and its unfortunate implications, cf.
Faber, Divine Manifold, part 1.
Cf. Chew, “The Great Dao,” 19-21. For the differentiation between
exclusive and inclusive unity (ahadiyyah and wahadiyyah, respectively) and
their mutual interference on all levels of existence in the Bahá’í context,
cf. Rhett Diessner, Psyche, ch. 1.
Cf. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Questions, #37.
Cf. Chew, “Great Dao,” 21-22. For the motive of creation out of love
and beauty, cf. Abdu’l Bahá, Commentary on the Islamic Tradition “I
Was a Hidden Treasure.” Translation by by Moojan Momen, in Bahá’í
Studies Bulletin, 3:4 (1995): 4-35.
Cf. Bahá’u’lláh, Days, #9; Gleanings, #131.
Spontaneity (bada‘) is the essence of creativity, be it of God or of any
creature; cf. Saiedi, Gate, chs.7-8; Idris Samawi Hamid, The Metaphysics
and Cosmology of Process According to Shaykh Ahmad al-Ahsa’i: Critical
Edition, Translation and Analysis of Observations in Wisdom. Ann
Arbor, MI: UMI, 1998.
Cf. Baha'u'llah, Gleanings, #14; Tablet of the Son (Jesus) §9 in Juan R. I.
Cole, “Baha'u'llah's ‘Tablet of the Son [Jesus]’: Translation and
Commentary. Translations of Shaykhi, Babi and Baha'i Texts, 5(2), May
2001 @ http://www.h-net.org/ bahai/trans/vol5/son/bhson.htm; ‘Abdu’l-
Bahá, The Promulgation of Universal Peace. Wilmette, IL: Bahá’í
Publishing, 2012, #93.
Again, the continuity of such religious insights is more than a distancing
statement about some “other” religion, but rather the translucency of
their internal communication in the unity of all religions and their
Manifestations; cf. Shoghi Effendi, The Promised Day Is Come. Wilmette:
Bahá’í Publishing, 1996, 108.
Cf. Phyllis Chew, “Religious Pluralism in Chinese Religion and the Bahá’í
Faith,” in World Order 34:1 (2002): 27-44; Moojan Momen, “Relativism:
A Theological and Cognitive Basis For Bahá’í Ideas,” in Lights of Irfan 12
(2010): 367-97.
Laozi: A Lost Prophet? 95

Cf. Bahá’u’lláh, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, p. 13.
Cf. Momen, “God,” 14.
Cf. Momen, “God,” 15-17; Moojan Momen, “Relativism: A Basis For
Bahá’í Metaphysics,” in Moojan Momen, ed., Studies in Honor of the
Late Hasan M. Balyuzi. Los Angeles: Kalimat Press, 1988, 185-218.
Cf. May, “Principle,” 25-27.
Cf. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Paris Talks, #40; Christopher Buck, “Fifty Bahá’í
Principles of Unity: A Paradigm of Social Salvation,” in Bahá’í Studies
Review 18 (2012): 3-44.
Cf. Chew, “Great Dao,” 24-33; Chew, Religions, chs. 8-24. Many
resonances cannot be discussed here, but can to a good extent be found in
Chew’s work, such as strategies for peace, education, priority of
agriculture (maybe ecology?), overcoming of prejudices, principles of
living as a sage, striving for perfection (as to be realized at any given
moment and in any given situation), growth of character and insight,
political strategies of non-violence and non-interference (wu wei),
organicity of living and acting, multiplicity of communities, interreligious
relationships, and so on. For mystical insight (irfan) as one of widening
perceptivity, cf. Roland Faber, God as Poet of the World: Exploring
Process Theologies. Louisville: WJK, 2008, §48.
Cf. Chew, “Great Dao,” 22-24; Julio Savi, “The Sufi Stages of the Soul in
Bahá’u’lláh’s The Seven Valleys and the Four Valleys,” in Moojan Momen,
ed., The Bahá’í Faith and the World’s Religions: Papers presented at the
Irfan Colloquia. Oxford: George Ronald, 2003, 89-106.
Cf. Bahá’u’lláh, Tablet to Jamal-i-Burujirdi (Lawh-i-Jamál-i-Burujirdí).
Translation by Khazeh Fananapazir, in Bahá’í Studies Bulletin, 5:1-2
(1991) 4-8 @ http://bahai- library.com/bahaullah_lawh_jamal_burujirdi.
Cf. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Paris Talks, #41; Promulgation, ##71, 105.
Cf. Zhihe Wang, Process and Pluralism: Chinese Thought on the Harmony
of Diversity. Frankfurt, GER: ontosverlag, 2013.
Cf. Chew, Religions, chs. 5, 7; Faber, “Religion,” 167-182; Roland Faber,
“Process, Progress, Excess: Whitehead and the Peace of Society,” in Łukasz
Lamża and Jakub Dziadkowiec, eds, Recent Advances in the Creation of a
Process-Based Worldview: Human Life in Process. Newcastle upon Tyne:
Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2016, 6-20; Roland Faber, “Becoming
Intermezzo: Eco-Theopoetics After the Anthropic Principle,” in Roland
Faber and Jeremy Fackenthal, eds., Theopoetic Folds: Philosophizing
Multifariousness. New York: Fordham Press, 2013, 212-238.
Cf. SWAB #225. This image is the basis for the reflections on the
relativity of religious truth for a future civilization of peace in my
Garden, ch. 2.
96 Lights of Irfán vol. 19

While this might sound somehow too anarchic for a Bahá’í understanding
for which the novelty of the current Manifestation is also related to a new
matrix of commandments, one should also not forget that the Kitab-i
Aqdas is not constructed and presented as a casuistic law book, but as a
“choice wine”; cf. Bahá’u’lláh, The Kitab-i-Aqdas: The Most Holy Book.
Wilmette, IL: Bahá’í Publishing, 1993, π4-5. This character challenges
humanity to implement its meanings and ordinances in highly creative
ways by sensing the necessities and predicaments of, and choices we have
in, an interrelated, ecological world—never without the originative
impulse of the individual insight and understanding in any given situation,
but always oriented toward the greater insight and understanding; cf.
Bahá’u’lláh, Tablets of Bahá’u’lláh revealed after the Kitab-i Aqdas.
Wilmette, IL: Bahá’í Publishing, 1994, 200: “Blessed are those who
meditate upon it [Aqdas]. Blessed are those who ponder its meaning.”
While Confucianism might feel as the more “natural” choice in this
context, as it relates clear social structures, the overturning of traditional
orders is a pressing motive of the novelty of this, and every, new
Manifestation; cf. Bahá’u’lláh, Gleanings, #143. This is an area where
more research and imagination will be fruitful. Cf. Roland Faber, God as
Poet, ππ44, 46; Roland Faber, The Becoming of God: Process Theology,
Philosophy and Multireligious Engagement. Portland, OR: Wipf & Stock,
2017, Sphere V.
Cf. Faber, God as Poet, §§41-42; Divine Manifold, Intermezzo 1;
Garden, Epilogue (sec. 4).
Cf. Bahá’u’lláh, Tablets, ##8, 11; ADJ 35-36.
Cf. ‘Abdu'l-Bahá, Selections, #225.
CF. John Kolstoe, Consultation: A Universal Lamp of Guidance. Oxford:
George Ronald, 1988.
This would seem to be part of the serious application of Bahá’u’lláh’s
imperative of the equality of, and non-difference between,
Manifestations; cf. Bahá’u’lláh, Gleanings, #24.
Cf. Momen, “Bahá’í Approach,” 167-188; “Learning from History,” in
Journal of Bahá’í Studies 2:2 (1989) @ https://bahai-
library.com/momen_learning_from_history.
Such complex relationships (between theism and monism) are by no means
external to the philosophical and religious becoming of the Bábi-Bahá’í
religions, as they are fluent in a vast Sufi universe of discourse and their
relationship to eastern traditions of thought and wisdoms, especially
regarding non-dual thinking; cf. Izutsu, Sufism, chs. 2, 4-5; Momen,
“God,” 1-8; Faber, “Bahá’u’lláh,” 53-106.
Cf. Kohn, God, part 2.
Laozi: A Lost Prophet? 97

This “nature” is not controlled by reason or the Logos in an Abrahamic
sense, which again has God as the ultimate point of reference, but also not
in the Stoic sense, which does avoid reference to a transcendent Godhead;
cf. Watts, Tao, 41-42; Longxi Zhang, The Tao and the Logos: Literary
Hermeneutics, East and West. Duke University Press, 1992, 22-34.
Here, questions of the status of any law of prophets, their “books,” come
into sharp relieve with the change of any such law from dispensation to
dispensation and even within any dispensation according to the changing
exigencies of the time. In light of the Daoist antinomian ultimate (the
apophatic), we may also recognize more starkly the contrast between two
imperatives: to follow the temporal recognition of a Manifestation and
its commandments, but also to always follow the indefinite
presupposition of non-imitation and independent insight into Truth/Dao.
Cf. Chung-yuan Chang and Zhao Xian Batt, Creativity and Taoism: A
Study of Chinese Philosophy, Art and Poetry. London: Julian Press, 1965.
This is the reason that process thought can be a means of mediation, not
only as it is acknowledged to present this Chinese “processual” universe in
western language—and as it is also used by Chinese scholars to translate
their thought—but even more so as the very basis of the Bábi-Bahá’í
universe of discourse lies in the process philosophy of Shaykh Ahmad al-
Ahsa’i that directly connects the process thought of the philosophical
Bahá’í background to Chinese categories of feeling and thought; cf.
Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology. ed.
by D. R. Griffin and D. W. Sherburne. New York: Free Press, 1978, 7, 21;
Hamid, Metaphysics, ch. 4; Faber, Garden, ch. 3.
Hence, mutual translation is possible, as especially the work (and the
reception of the work) of Alfred N. Whitehead has demonstrated; cf.
Needham, Science. Vol. 2, passim; David Hall and Roger Ames, Thinking
Through Confucianism. Albany, State University of New York, 1987;
Faber, Divine Manifold, chs. 7-8, 15; God as Poet, §§19, 39; Alfred North
Whitehead, Adventures of Ideas. New York: Free Press, 1967, ch. 20.
Cf. ‘Abdu'l-Bahá, Promulgation, #79.
This linear simplicity is also broken by the metaphoric of the Bahá’í
writings of cyclic becoming (of renewal and phases of revelations and
dispensations), which is not necessarily such that all that the last cycle has
produced—such as trees—are, in the new season, dead and exchanged; this
is also corroborated by the fact that a garden of many flowers is beautiful
not because all of them have become the same flower in a certain time or
area (or dispensation), but because multiplicity itself contributes to the
beauty, and only as long as it is appreciated and respected; cf. ‘Abdu’l-
Bahá, Questions, #4; Tablets of the Divine Plan. Wilmette, IL: Bahá’í
Publishing, 1991, #14.
98 Lights of Irfán vol. 19

Cf. Chew, Religions, 44, 47. Lee Sun Chen, Laozi’s Daodejing.
Bloomington: iUniverse, 2011, xvii-xviii; Albert Cheung, “The Common
Teachings from Chinese Culture and the Bahá’í Faith: From Material
Civilization to Spiritual Civilization,” in Lights of Irfan 1 (2000): 38.
While emphasis is given to Laozi, here, a full understanding would have to
explicate the role of other sages, such as Zhuangzi and, especially,
Confucius. This is also highlights by the fact that when ‘Abdu’l-Bahá
mentions Confucius as an “ethical reformer,” he seems not to suggest that
he was “only” such a reformer, but rather a reformer of profound impact
on the development of human civilization (which would meet the
historical facts), as he is still mentioned among a series in which all other
personages are considered Manifestations; cf. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá,
Promulgation, #109.
Cf. Bahá’u’lláh, Gleanings, 155. In other words, it is not enough only to
take recourse to the fact that any revelation comes to a closure (in some
profound sense, even if there may remain mechanisms of renewal) and,
hence, over the time of its further unfolding in the respective religious
community with its own history will have to live from its references
backwards, which inevitably and eventually implies that it will become out
of sync with the new times it might even have helped to instigate; cf.
‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Paris Talks, #41; Questions, #43. We must, instead, try to
seek a framework that allows these “blind spots” of every contingent
limitation of revelation in time and space as created by its recipients—that
is, this fact does not necessarily include the view of the imperfection of
the revelation in itself; cf. Bahá’u’lláh, Gleanings, #22—to be
constructively addressed. One of these frameworks is religious pluralism,
as already mentioned in other sections; another one appears in the
foundational principle of the relativity of religious truth, which must be
made to bear on this matter here, as a form of relationality or mutuality,
which, theoretically, allows for the discovery of the other not as alien, but
already as moment of one’s self and vice versa and, practically,
emphasizes the ability to listen and learn; cf. Faber, Becoming of God,
Sphere V.
This is part of a wider task, namely, to fulfill ‘Abdu'l-Bahá’s request to
study all religions—Promulgation, #121; Paris Talks, #41—in fairness and
in seeking the garden of truth in them as a means to establish the
rationality of the oneness of religions and by valuing their contributions
to it; an endeavor that has only begun to take hold becoming part of a
sustained effort in Bahá’í consciousness, but has become a general
presupposition of interreligious dialogue today. Compare only to the
works of one of the foremost thinkers of such an intellectual dialogue
over the last decades: Paul Knitter, One Earth, Many Religions: Multifaith
Dialogue and Global Responsibility. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1995;
Laozi: A Lost Prophet? 99

Introducing Theologies of Religions. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2007;
Without Buddha I Could Not Be a Christian. Oxford: Oneworld, 2009;
and as editor of: The Myth of Religious Superiority: Multifaith
Explorations of Religious Pluralism. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2015.
‘Abdu'l-Bahá admonishes Bahá’í to grow into this new consciousness that
means nothing less than to love all religions; cf. Selections, #34.
Cf. the concept of polyphilic (religious) pluralism: Faber, God as Poet,
Postscript; Divine Manifold, Intermezzo 2; Becoming of God,
Explorations 14-15; Roland Faber and Catherine Keller, “Polyphilic
Pluralism: Becoming Religious Multiplicities,” in Chris Boesel and Wesley
Ariarajah, eds., In Divine Multiplicity: Trinities, Diversities, and the
Nature of Relation. New York: Fordham University Press, 2014, 58-81.
This is also implied by Shoghi Effendi’s statements on the receptivity of
the Bahá’í universe of other religions, such as this: “The Faith standing
identified with the name of Bahá’u’lláh disclaims any intention to belittle
any of the Prophets gone before Him, to whittle down any of their
teachings, to obscure, however slightly, the radiance of their Revelations,
to oust them from the hearts of their followers, to abrogate the
fundamentals of their doctrines, to discard any of their revealed Books, or
to suppress the legitimate aspirations of their adherents,” in Shoghi
Effendi, Promised Day, 108.
Cf. ‘Abdu'l-Bahá, Paris Talks, #40: “In short, it behooves us all to be
lovers of truth. Let us seek her in every season and in every country, being
careful never to attach ourselves to personalities. Let us see the
light wherever it shines, and may we be enabled to recognize the light
of truth no matter where it may arise.”
Cf.’Abdu’l-Bahá, Promulgation, #126; Selections, #225; Shoghi Effendi,
World Order, sections “Unity in Diversity.”
Many more aspects of the whole phenomenon of the religion of Daoism,
of which Laozi and the Dao De Jing are inextricable part, cannot be
brought into conversation here: the practical life of a cultivation of
“becoming human,” the mystical, sexual and alchemical practices, the urge
to realize (physical) immortality, the vast complexity of Daoist scriptures
and history must, of course, also be part of a thorough discussion; cf.
Kohn, Taoism, chs. 2-8; Wong, Taoism, parts 2-3.
Cf. Bowers, God, ch. 13.
Cf. Chew, Religions, 49. Of course, we can always refer to the universal
revelation in all of nature as foundational basis for such an occurrence
being more than a coincidence; cf. Bahá’u’lláh, Gleanings, #125. But this
would miss the point because of the cyclicity of Manifestations revealing
themselves in human history as an inevitable additional (although in its
depth not different) movement for the advance and education of
100 Lights of Irfán vol. 19

humanity; cf. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Selections, #34; Questions, #39;
Promulgation, #106.
Cf. Michael Sours, Without Syllable and Sound: The Worlds Sacred
Scriptures in the Bahá’í Faith. Los Angeles: Kalimat Press, 2000, chs. 1, 9.
Cf. Lambden, “Background,” 1; John Hick, An Interpretation of
Religion: Human Responses to the Transcendent. New Haven: Yale
University Press, 2005, chs. 14-16.
Hornby, Lights, #1694. From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to
an individual believer, November 10, 1939.
Cf. Mirza Tahir Ahmad, Revelation, Rationality and Truth. Tilford: Islam
International Publishing, 1998, 165-170; Linda Davidson and Gitlitz,
Pilgrimage: From the Ganges to Graceland. An Encyclopedia. Santa
Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2002, 83.
Cf. Bahá’u’lláh, Tablets, 22 (Second Bisharat); Fazel, “Dialogue,” 137-152.
For preliminary considerations of what, in general, such a framework
could include, cf. Seena Fazel, “Dialogue,” 137-152.
‘Abdu’l-Bahá, in Star of the West 21 (1930): 261.
Cf. Peter Smith, An Introduction to the Bahá’í Faith. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2008, 129-131.
Cf. Momen, “God,” 23-28.
Cf. ‘Abdu'l-Bahá, Questions, #24; Sours, Syllable, 17-18.
Cf. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Questions, #25.
Tentatively, such a view is implied in certain guidance of Shoghi Effendi
when relating to Joseph Smith and Emanuel Swedenborg as religious
teachers sensitive to the revelations of the Báb and Bahá’u’lláh; cf.
Hornby, Lights, ##1719-1722, 1728.
However, as with Swedenborg and Smith, the force field of revelation
could be understood as stretching beyond chronological time and
embracing not only the future, but also the past as mode of its arising.
Cf. Wong, Taoism, chs. 1-2.
Cf. Smart, Religions, 124; Arthur Write, Buddhism in Chinese History.
Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1959, ch. 1.
Cf. Britannica Encyclopedia of World Religions. Chicago: Encyclopedia
Britannica, 2006, 155.
Cf. Smart, Religions, 124-128, 13-151; Grigg, Tao, part 1.
Cf. Christian von Dehsen, ed., Philosophers and Religious Leaders: An
Encyclopedia of People Who Changed the World. New York: Onyx Press,
1999, 113.
Laozi: A Lost Prophet? 101

Cf. Rudolf Ritsema and Stephen Karcher, I Ching: The Classical Chinese
Oracle of Change. Shaftesbury: Element, 1994, 12-13.
Cf. Chew, Religions, 49-50.
Cf. Hornby, Light, #1696.
Cf. Bahá’u’lláh, Gleanings, #87.
Cf. Kohn, God, ch. 1.
Cf. Kohn, God, 291-293; Bede Bidlack, In Good Company: The Body and
Divinization in Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, SJ and Daoist XiaoYingsou.
Leiden: Brill, 2015, 58-60.
Cf. Kohn, God, 78; Bahá’u’lláh, GL, #13. The “book” is the Qur’anic sign
of a High Prophet and is, as such, a divine sign upheld be the Báb and
Bahá’u’lláh; cf. Sours, Syllable, ch. 2.
Cf. Starr, Dao De Jing, #1.
Cf. Kohn, God, 121-129; GWB #28; SAQ #30.
One cannot simply counter that Christ was conceived as divine from the
outset. Current exegetical knowledge has confirmed that a divine self-
designation of Jesus, that is, a divine self-consciousness, is not a priori
impossible, but that the becoming-divine of Jesus in the full sense of the
Councils of the fourth and fifth century C.E. has taken that time to be
fully established and settled. That the process regarding Lord Lao took
“longer,” namely, about a five hundred year span to develop a full
understanding of his divinity, hence, cannot simply be viewed as deep a
counter-argument; cf. Bart Ehrman, How Jesus Became God: The
Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee. New York: HarperOne,
2014. Nevertheless, the consciousness to be the “Son of Man,” the most
reliable self-identification of Jesus in an exegetical context, speaks for
the extraordinary consciousness of Jesus, yet widely misunderstood even
by his closest followers, only becoming alive by their experience of his
exultation; cf. Hurtado, God, ch. 5; Chrys Caragounis, The Son of Man:
Vision and Interpretation, Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1986, ch. 4;
Andrew Loke, in The Origins of Divine Christology. Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press, 2017.
Much later deification speaks against this assumption; cf. Kohn, God,
passim.
Cf. Tan Chung, Himalaya Calling: The Origins of China and India.
Hackensack, NJ: Word Century Publishing, 2015, 71-74.
Cf. Livia Kohn, Laughing at the Dao: Debates among Buddhists and
Daoists in Medieval China, Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2009.
In fact, this argument of “immunization” may rather contribute to the
impossibility to accept a new event, such as the Manifestation of
Bahá’u’lláh, in light of the “old” master; cf. Faber, Garden, ch. 9.
102 Lights of Irfán vol. 19

Cf. Kohn, God, chs. 1, 5-6.
Cf. Horny, Lights, ##1683, 1692-1693, 1696, et alia.
In the Persian Bayan, for instance, the Báb writes of “a thousand
thousand Manifestations”; cf. The Báb, Persian Bayan, III:15, in Moojan
Momen, ed., Selections of the Writings of E. G. Browne on the Bábi and
Bahá’í Religions. Oxford: George Ronald, 1987, 348. Cf. also thesis 6.
Cf. Louis Komjathy, The Taoist Tradition: An Introduction. London:
Bloomsbury, 2013, ch. 2.
Cf. Chan, “Laozi,” ch. 2.
Cf. Craig Bartholomew, “Old Testament Wisdom Today,” in David Firth
and Lindsay Wilson, eds., Interpreting Old Testament Wisdom Literature.
Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic Publishing, 2017, ch. 1; Edward Curtis,
Interpreting the Wisdom Books: An Exegetical Handbook. Grand Rapids,
MI: Kregel Publications, 2017, ch. 1. The collective character of the
Wisdom literature is also significant in our context as it represents
scriptural texts, sometimes accumulated around personages like Job, but
also exhibiting anonymous, but prominently assigned authorship, such as
David and Solomon, while still being considered part of scripture, or, on
other cases, such as the Book of Wisdom, closely connected to it, while
not necessarily being about or transporting revelation by a prophet.
Cf. Chen, Tao De Ching, ch. 1.
Cf. Hornby, Lights, #1694; Buck, “Identity,” 172-186; Seena Fazel,
“Bahá’í Approaches to Christianity and Islam: Further Thoughts on
Developing an Inter-Religious Dialogue,” in Bahá’í Studies Review 14
(2008): 46-47.
The “perfect Shi‘a,” modeled on the “Perfect Man” of Sufism, is present
in the background of the Bábi-Bahá’í religions through the Shaykhi school
for which this belief formed the so-called “Fourth Support”; cf. Moojan
Momen, An Introduction to Shi‘i Islam. New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1985, 228.
Cf. Guang Xing, The Concept of the Buddha: Its evolution from early Buddhism
to the trikāya theory. New York: Routledge, 2010, ch. 1.
Cf. Bahá’u’lláh, The Kitab-i Iqan: The Book of Certitude. Wilmette, IL:
Bahá’í Publishing, 1974, 107. Additionally, even if the Báb would have
known that Bahá’u’lláh is the awaited Manifestation (man yazhiruhu’lla)—
and there are indications of such a knowledge in the Bábi-Bahá’í writings
as well as some speculations around a physical or spiritual meeting of
both Manifestations—he did not, besides subtle references to words and
phrases related to augmentations of the word bahá, divulge this
knowledge. In a deeper sense, this fact is related to this freedom of a
Manifestation to choose its becoming revealed to the world.
Laozi: A Lost Prophet? 103

In a certain sense, any Manifestation is a “hidden” Manifestation, as no
Manifestation just openly appears in divine attire, but always in a
“cloud”; cf. Michael Sours, The Prophesies of Jesus. Oxford: Oneworld,
1993, 114-131. Bahá’u’lláh mentions that the reason for this “hiddenness”
is the freedom of humanity to develop the sense to apprehend and believe
in the Manifestation out of spiritual effort and freedom, instead of
coercion; cf. Bahá’u’lláh, Gleanings, #29.
Cf. Romans 1:1-4. As in Christian texts, adoption-, exaltation-, divine
mission- (and incarnation-) views appear together from early biblical texts
on, but were harmonized in the later centuries by the two-nature-in-one-
person doctrine, so is the Bahá’í understanding of the eternity and
temporality of a Manifestation harmonized in the teaching of the two
stations and natures or twofold station and nature such that the
appearance of a Manifestation on the cosmic plane exhibits always
essentially both aspects, that is, is never only human, but was always
already divine, pre-eternal, pre-existent, as it were, as s/he is the Self of
God in the Primal Will of which s/he is an appearance, meta-historically
and historically; Bahá’u’lláh, Gleanings, #29; Sours, Station, ch. 4. For
refection of the Ebionite adoption view within a Bahá’í context, cf.
Christopher Buck, “Illuminator vs. Redeemer: Was Ebionite Adam/Christ
Prophetology “Original,” Anti-Pauline, or “Gnostic”? @ https://bahai-
library.com/pdf/b/buck_illuminator_redeemer.pdf.
The so-called “messianic secret” in the New Testament is, in fact, a major
player in the gradual revelation of the nature and status of the person and
identity of Jesus, documented throughout the gospels; cf. William Wrede,
The Messianic Secret. trans. by J. C. G. Creig. Cambridge: James Clarke &
Co, 1971. And there are similarities with the gradual unveiling of the
mission of the Báb and Bahá’u’lláh; cf. Christopher Buck, Symbol and
Secret: Qur’an Commentary in Bahá’u’lláh’s Kitáb-i Íqán. Los Angeles:
Kalimat Press, 2004, ch. 5. But this would be besides the point in our
context since the “hiddenness” indicated, here, would relate to the
lifetime of a Manifestation before the declaration, for instance, the “lost
years” of Jesus before his baptism.
Bahá’u’lláh, Gleanings, #27.
Cf. Saiedi, Gate, 164; Bahá’u’lláh, Epistle, 111.
Cf. Bahá’u’lláh, Gleanings, #22.
Cf. Bahá’u’lláh, Gleanings, #49. One might think of the transfiguration-
scene in the Gospels (Matthew 17:1-8; Mark 9:2-8; Luke 9:28-36) and the
universal appearance of Krishna in the Bhagavat Gita (ch. 11) compared to
which the humanity of the Manifestation normally and effectively shields
the divine impression in most encounters—resonant with Bahá’u’lláh’s
interpretation of the apocalyptic biblical and primordial Qur’anic image
104 Lights of Irfán vol. 19

of the “cloud” as veil hindering the recognition of a Manifestation; cf.
Bahá’u’lláh, Iqan, part 1. In fact, most of the efforts of Manifestations
seem to consist in providing ways to lead their surroundings the
perception of their divine inspiration or even origin.
This might be related to the biblical kenosis-scheme, found prominently
in the Deutero-Isaiah figure of the Suffering Servant, cf. Isaiah 53, and its
adoption in the Pauline Hymn of Philippians 2:9-11. It should also be
noted that Christian theology has, at times, taken this kenotic appearance
of God in this world in the human figure of Christ as an “incognito”
movement, as witnessed in Søren Kierkegaard, Karl Barth and Emil
Brunner; cf. Bernard Ramm, An Evangelical Christology: Ecumenic and
Historic. Vancouver: Regent College Publishing, 1985, 58-59.
Cf. Ehrman, Jesus, chs. 6-7.
Cf. May, “Bahá’í Principle,” xx.
Cf. Smith, Encyclopedia, 291. Although these religions, or selections
thereof, are sometimes mentioned as affirmed by the Bahá’í writings—cf.
Kenneth Bowers, God Speaks Again: An Introduction to the Bahá’í Faith.
Wilmette, IL: Bahá’í Publishing, 2004, 96—and also to indicate the
“progressiveness” of religions, the writings themselves don’t claim any
exclusivity to them as an exhaustive list.
Cf. Hornby, Lights, #1373.
Cf. Hornby, Lights, ##1373-1375; Ezekiel 1:26; Lambden, “Word Bahá,”
19-42.
In identifying religions, it is not the “religions” that the Bahá’í writings
emphasize, but the Manifestations that engendered religious movements,
who are also not necessarily identical with, or limited to, the later
established and settled forms of self-identifications of these religions with
their founders; cf. ‘Abdu'l-Bahá, Questions, #43. Conversely, because of
the complex non-identity of religions with Manifestations (as their
founders) a whole interreligious space of conversations about both
religions and Manifestations become available.
In fact, even this list of named Manifestations in the Bahá’í writings is
incomplete Cf. Stockman, Bahá’í Faith, 25-38.
Cf. Hornby, Lights, #1373.
Cf. The Báb, SWB 105; GWB #87; SAQ #50.
Cf. Hornby, Lights, #1373.
When Shoghi Effendi states that these are the great religions “of which we
have any definite historical knowledge,” and as we can assume that this is
not meant to limit historical research into what can be known at any
point in the future (from this statement), as Shoghi Effendi explicitly
denies, we could maybe understand this “knowledge” in relation to
Laozi: A Lost Prophet? 105

(limited to the appearance in) the Bahá’í writings, as Shoghi Effendi
encourages historical research, but (in our context) demonstrates restraint
regarding religious statements that would not have a foundation in the
writings themselves; cf. Hornby, Lights, #1374. This seems also to be
indicated with Shoghi Effendi’s references to Sabeanism and Hinduism,
that is, that we cannot know from the writings more about them as we
actually find in them; cf. ibid, ##1692-1694. This same hermeneutical
approach can also be assumed from the statement of Shoghi Effendi, that
“the only reason there is not more mention of the Asiatic Prophets is
because Their names seem to be lost in the mists of ancient history.
Buddha is mentioned, and Zoroaster, in our Scriptures -- both non- Jewish
Prophets or non-Semitic Prophets”; cf. Compilation of Compilations.
Vol. 1. Compiled by Research Department of the Universal House of
Justice. Mona Vale: Baha'i Publications Australia, 1991, 21 (#22).
For a differentiated reflection on “progressive revelation” without such
symbolic inaugurations, cf. Stockman, Bahá’í Faith, 35-37, 42-43. The
statement of Bahá’u’lláh that all religions are of divine origin, with some
exceptions, which he thinks to be of human invention, seems also to imply
that not only the mentioned (named) religions are intended, as do similar
statements of ‘Abdu'l-Bahá regarding the love of, and finding truth in, all
religions; cf. GWB #111; PT #41; SWAB #43.
Cf. Winfred C. Smith, What is Scripture? Minneapolis, MN: Fortress
Press, 2005.
Hornby, Lights, #1375.
In his high imamology, the Báb considered the Imams—and by extensions
the Apostles of Christ—as part of a divine pleroma, which always appears
with the Point, the Prophet or the Manifestation, and emanates from this
one Soul; cf. The Báb, Persian Bayan, Exordium and Wahid I, in: Momen,
Selections, 322-325; http://www.h-
net.org/ bahai/trans/bayan/bayan.htm.
While Krishna is named a Manifestation in the “canonical” Bahá’í
catalogue, this figure cannot be considered the “founder” of Hinduism.
Also, like Laozi, Krishna is probably a composite figure (thesis 7).
Cf. Qur’an 12; cf. Todd Lawson, “Typological Figuration and the
Meaning of ‘Spiritual’: The Qurʾanic Story of Joseph,” in Journal of the
American Oriental Society 132:2 (2012): 221-244; Lawson, “The Bahá’í
Tradition: The Return of Josef and the Peaceable Imagination,” in John
Renard, ed., Fighting Words: Religion, Violence, and the Interpretation
of Sacred Texts. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2011, 135-57.
Cf. Qur’an 19:12-15; Bahá’u’lláh, Iqan, 64-65; Epistle, 171.
Cf. Juan Cole, “Behold the Man: Baha'u'llah on the Life of Jesus,” in
Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 65:1 (1997): 62; The Báb,
106 Lights of Irfán vol. 19

Selections from the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá. Wilmette: IL, Bahá’í Pub.,
2014, 49; Bahá’u’lláh, Days, #44; Shoghi Effendi, God Passes By, 23.
Cf. Bahá’u’lláh, Iqan, 167-168, 212, 254.
Bahá’u’lláh considers the hidden twelfth Imam, the personification of
which is understood to be the Báb, as even more than all preceding
prophets; cf. Bahá’u’lláh, Iqan, 243-244.
Stephen Lambden has pointed to passages—passages in which holy figures,
such as the patriarch/prophet Josef, Son of Jacob (Israel), are named
Manifestations (mazhar-i ilahi)—in the Bahá’í writings; cf. Lambden, Some
Aspects of Isrā'īliyyāt and the Emergence of the Bābī-Bahā'ī
Interpretation of the Bible. Dissertation: Newcastle University, 2002, 51
Cf. Saiedi, Gate, 168.
Cf. Henry Corbin, Spiritual Body and Celestial Faith: From Mazdean Iran
to Shi‘ite Iran. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1977, 51-73.
Already with the Persian poet Jalal ad-Din Rumi and several Shi‘ite
“extremists,” like Ismaelis and Nusayris, Fatimah appears as divine
creatrix; cf. Corbin, Alone, 160.
Cf. Dunn, Christology, chs. 5-7.
Cf. Sours, Syllable, ch. 2; Station, ch. 7; Stephen Lambden, “The Sinaitic
Mysteries: Notes on Moses/Sinai Motifs in Bábi and Bahá’í Scripture,” in
Moojan Momen, ed., Studies in Honor of the Late Hasan M. Balyuzi. Los
Angeles: Kalimat Press, 1988, 65-184; “Word Bahá,” 19-42.
Cf. Hurtado, God, ch. 2.
Cf. Ben Witherington, Jesus the Sage: The Pilgrimage of Wisdom.
Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1994, ch. 8.
Cf. GWB #34; TB #11; SDC 97, #147;
Cf. Bahá’u’lláh, Law-i Hikmat (Tablet of Wisdom), in Tablets, ch. 9;
Prayers, ##86, 93;
Cf. Witherington, Jesus, ch. 2; cf. Curtis, Wisdom Literature, ch. 4.
Cf. John 1:1-18; Witherington, Jesus, 368-380.
Cf. Daniel 1:20; 2:13; Jacques Doukhan, Secrets of Daniel: Wisdom and
Dreams of a Jewish Prince in Exile. Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2000, 6-12.
The influence of the Book of Daniel on the Bahá’í Writings is not only
attested by their application of its apocalyptic mathematics regarding the
coming of the Son of Man/Messianic King from Jewish and Christian
writings in ‘Abdu'l-Bahá’s exegesis of it — cf. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Questions,
##10, 13 — but by figuring as the basis for Bahá’u’lláh’s exegesis of the
Olivet Discourse of Mathew 24, which underlies the whole first part of
the important Kitab-i Iqan; cf. Nader Saiedi, Logos and Civilization:
Spirit, History, and Order in the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh. Bethesda, MD:
Laozi: A Lost Prophet? 107

University Press of Maryland, 2000, chs. 4-5; Sours, Prophesies, passim. In
fact, the Kitab-i Iqan is wedded to the Book of Daniel insofar as, in
Shoghi Effendi’s interpretation, the Iqan is nothing less than the
revelation in which the apocalyptic seals of the Book of Daniel (Daniel
12:8) was broken; cf. Shoghi Effendi, God Passes By, 139.
Cf. Gen 5:22; Charles Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents
and Early Evidence. Leiden, NL: Brill, 1998, 156-158.
Cf. Bahá’u’lláh, Lawh-i Hikmat (Tablet of Wisdom), in Tablets, 148n1;
Keven Brown, “Hermes Trismegistos and Apollonius of Tyana in the
Writings of Bahá’u’lláh,” in Jack McLean, ed., Revisioning the Sacred:
New Perspectives in Bahá’í Theology. Los Angeles: Kalimat Press, 1997,
153-188.
Cf. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Promulgation, ##112, 121.
‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Paris Talks, #9; Hornby, Lights, #1696.
Cf. Guy Beck, ed., Alternative Krishnas: Regional and Vernacular
Variations on a Hindu Deity. Albany: State of New York University Press,
2005, ch. 1.
Cf. Bahá’u’lláh, Gleanings, #22; Lambden, Aspects, 42-45.
Cf. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Promulgation, #79.
Cf. Lambden, Aspects, 40: for instance, the term “the Adam of Reality.”
While it may have been the case that Docetism, which wanted to rescue
the divine from the evil creation and Christ from the defilement of bodily
existence, lived on in the Qur’anic mentioning, or at least, post-Qur’anic
interpretation, of the cross, seemingly denying the historicity of the death
of Jesus on the cross (Qur’an 4:147), Bahá’u’lláh always accepted this
historicity and, hence, was opposed to such a dualistic rendering of the
divinity of Manifestations in relation to their historical human existence,
but without taking away from their universal spiritual nature representing
the Primal Will or Mind; cf. Todd Lawson, The Crucifixion and the
Qur’an: A Study in the History of Muslim Thought. Oxford: Oneworld,
2009; Cole, “Behold the Man,” 60-64.
The question, here, is not about the exact form of such an emanation—
differentiating between incarnation or appearance, manifestation or
revelation, theophany or epiphany—but that the intention of the
emanation of the Primal Reality from the unmanifest Godhead Beyond is
to manifest its Self and realize the infinity of divine attributes that links
the transcendent and immanent divine in such way that they are one and,
hence, that the world of creation with its impermanence and physicality is
not an evil or unnecessary or irrelevant side effect of eternity, but the
explication of the whole process of revelation and emanation—something
108 Lights of Irfán vol. 19

‘Abdu’l-Bahá has fathomed with the cycle or arc of decent and ascent; cf.
‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Questions, ##53-54; Saied, Logos, ch. 2.
Cf. Juan Cole, “‘I am all the Prophets’: The Poetics of Pluralism in Bahá’í
Texts,” in Poetics Today 14:3 (1993): 447-76. Hence, ‘Abdu'l-Bahá’s often
repeated emphasis of the spiritual reality of manifestations and all
prophetic figures; cf. SAQ #23. The same could be said in this context of
other religious founders and spiritual figures throughout history—one
might think of Guru Nanak and Sikhism, Mahavira and Jainism—namely
that they are inspired by the Holy Spirit, who/that makes them what they
are in their spiritual station; cf. Stockman, Bahá’í Faith, 38.
Cf. Sours, Syllable, chs. 1-2; ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Promulgation, #87. The
symbolic meaning is the true meaning, the spiritual reality, not an
“allegorical spiritualization” of reality that is understood to be material in
nature; cf. Corbin, Alone, 105-135.
Cf. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Promulgation, #4; Julio Savi, Towards the Summit of
Reality: An Introduction to the Study of Baha'u'llah's Seven Valleys and
Four Valley. Oxford: George Ronald, 2008, 37-38.
Cf. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Promulgation, #79.
The “Sabians” of Harran seem to have used this corpus as scriptural
evidence for being “people of the book” under Islamic rule.
“Apocalyptic” as a qualification does not necessarily indicate
precognition of a divinely determined future, but also includes literatures
that claim to be able to “see” the higher spiritual realms or even travel in
them to reveal its secrets.
Cf. the 1st Book of Enoch; Chrys Caragounis, The Son of Man: Vision and
Interpretation. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 83-119.
Cf. Brown, “Hermes Trismegistos,” 153-188.
Cf. Gilles Quispel, Gnostica, Judaica, Catholica: Colleced Esseys of Gilles
Quispel. ed. by Johannes van Oort. Leiden, NL: Brill, 2008; 19-21, 33,
155, 593, et alia.
Cf. Kitty Ferguson, Pythagoras: His Lives and the Legacy of a Rational
Universe. London: Icon Books, 2010, 186.
Cf. Juan Cole, “Problems of Chronology in Baha'u'llah's Tablet of
Wisdom,” in World Order 13:3 (1979):24-39.
Cf. Bahá’u’lláh, Lawh-i Hikmat, in Tablets, 146.
Cf. ‘Abdu'l-Bahá, Promulgation, #3; Sours, Station, ch. 6. In order not to
misunderstand this in a triumphalist way, which easily can happen and, in
fact, has happen with the emphasis on the exclusivity of “lastness” in
other dispensations, Shoghi Effendi attributes the greatness of Bahá’u’lláh
not to the inherent difference in station between him and other
Laozi: A Lost Prophet? 109

Manifestations, but to the time in which a Manifestation happens and its
potentials to be harvested; cf. Fazel, “Pluralism,” 42- 43.
As a prophet who brought a book, the Qur’anic John the Baptizer would
have to be considered as a major prophet; in the Bahá’í writings however,
he appears as a minor prophet preparing the way for a mayor prophet,
Jesus; cf. Cole, “Behold the Man,” 52; yet compare with Lambden,
Aspects, 55, 58-60.
Cf. Bahá’u’lláh, Uncompounded Reality, in Momen, 203-21.
Cf. Peter Smith, The Babi and Baha’i Religions: From Messianic Shi`ism to
a World Religion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008, 24-26.
Cf. The Báb, Persian Bayan, Wahid III:3, in Momen, Selections, 339-340.
Cf. Bahá’u’lláh, Days, #42 (207), #44 (216-217).
Cf. Bahá’u’lláh, Days, #6 (27); Gleanings, #14. In most ancient religions,
the inhaling and exhaling process and symbolism appears in one way or
another as that of the Spirit-breath that binds the creation and
annihilation process of the cosmos together into one movement of
cyclical renewal. It stands behind the eastern (Hindu) and western (Stoic)
expressions of the world conflagration, but, reduced to one linear
process, is also behind the biblical creation Spirit (ruah), universally
appearing in the pre-creation verse of the Book of Genesis (Genesis 1:2)
and specifically as breath of life blown from the nostrils of God into the
bodies of living beings (Genesis 2:7, 7:22; Job 27:3), and its eschatological
resumption into God, specifically by taking back the spirit of life of
individual beings (Psalm 104:9; Ecclesiastes 12:7) and universally in the
conflagration of the world in the Psalms (Psalm 18:8) and at or after the
universal judgment in the Book of Revelation (20:4). In some meditation
technics, the movement of breathing reappears as the most basic bodily
expression of the harmonization of individual and cosmic existence. Yet,
it can also become the expression of the ultimate metaphysical movement
of unification and differentiation, addressing the ancient problem of the
one and the many; cf. Faber, God as Poet, §40.
Cf. The Báb, Persian Bayan, Wahid II, in Momen, Selections, 325-338.
It is a standard argument of Bahá’u’lláh, appearing in diverse tablets,
that, after answering questions regarding other religions and
Manifestations, the reference to them remains only relevant if the seeker
embraces the new Manifestation by the appearance of which they become
irrelevant if they cannot be related to this novelty in which they are also
embraced; cf. Juan Cole, “Bahá’u’lláh on Hinduism and Zoroastrianism:
The Tablet to Mirza Abu’l-Fadl Concerning the Questions of Manakji
Limji Hataria,” @ http://bahaistudies.net/hindu_zoro.html.
This was a trend probably set in motion by Fritjof Capra, The Tao of
Physics. Boston: Shambala, 1975.
110 Lights of Irfán vol. 19

Cf. Whitehead, Process, 3-18; Faber, Becoming of God, Sphere 2; God as
Poet, part 1.
Cf. Bonnie J. Taylor, One Reality: The Harmony of Science and Religion.
Wilmette, IL: Bahá’í Publishing, 2013, ch. 1. This is also a major concern
of Bahá’í thought as reflected in many scriptural passages, elevating this
resonance to a foundational Bahá’í principle; cf. Bahá’u’lláh, Lawh-i
Hikmat (Tablet of Wisdom), in Tablets, #9; ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Paris Talks,
#44. The independent investigation of truth, although hitherto not as
defined in the Bahá’í universe of discourse as a condition of the
cooperation between science and religion, is, in fact, the effort of
philosophy; cf. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, PT, #41.
Alfred North Whitehead, Religion in the Making. New York: Fordham
University Press, 1996, 141.
‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Promulgation, #72; Questions, #20.
Cf. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Promulgation, ##5, 69.
Cf. Taylor, One Reality, ch. 4.
Cf. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Questions, ##36, 55.
Cf. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Paris Talks, #15.
Cf. Bahá’u’lláh, Hidden Words, Wilmette, IL: Bahá’í Publishing, 2002,
Persian, #29; Gleanings, ##5, 90, 153; ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Selections, #21;
Promulgation, #4.
Cf. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Promulgation, #58.
Cf. SAQ #47; ‘Abdu’l-Bahá in Taylor, One Reality, 88-91; PUP #79.
Cf. David Palmer and Xun Liu, eds., Daoism in the Twentieth Century:
Between Eternity and Modernity, Berkeley: University of California Press,
2011; and David Palmer and Elijah Siegler, Dream Trippers: Global
Daoism and the Predicament of Modern Spirituality. Chicago: University
Press of Chicago, 2017.
Cf. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Questions, ##1, 47, 69.
Cf. Faber, “Becoming Intermezzo,” 212-238; Divine Manifold, ch. 14.
Cf. Bahá’u’lláh, Days, #10; ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Questions, #91.
Cf. Faber, Garden, chs. 7-9.

Choose a second text to read in parallel — a translation, or any other text.