# Questions on the Bayan

*Exported from [Holy-Writings.com](https://www.holy-writings.com/) on 2026-06-18 — 1 clipping.*

---

> I'm delighted that my posting of some of the early chapters of the Bayan
> has already provoked so much comment. I can't promise to answer all your
> queries (and I dread how many more may come as I post more of the text),
> but I'll do what I can. For ease of reference, I've copied your text and
> will place my answers in the appropriate place.
> 
> _Comments and Questions, Part 1_
> 
>   In the first chapter of 
> the number of All 
> Things, the decree which God -
>  praised be He and glorified - has rendered obligatory is the declaration:
>  'there is no god but God, truly, truly'. Wherefore, the whole of the Bayan
>  shall return to this declaration, and the appearance of a new creation
>  shall take place from it. 
> 
> QUESTIONS: First, regarding this obligatory declaration "There is no god
> but God, truly, truly", whatever happened to this? Did it get specifically
> revoked somewhere along the line? What replaced it and why do Bahá'ís not
> consider themselves obliged to say it? What were the parameters of when it
> was to be said, how many times, etc.? It seems to be like the "Bismillah"
> at the beginning of the Qur'an. Denis, is the first 'god' a small g on
> purpose? How many letters and syllables do these words constitute in the
> original. Is there any Abjad significance to these letters or their
> word-sums or overall sums?
> 
> ANSWERS: I really don't know. Like a lot of Babi regulations (see my book
> on ritual for more examples), this just seems never to have got off the
> ground. To be honest, no individual Babi could have kept up with all the
> obligations and requirements put on him in the Bayan and elsewhere. I think
> a lot of these were simply ignored in the Bahá'í period.
> 
> The nearest Babi equivalent to the Bismillah is *Bismi 'llah al-amna'
> al-aqdas*, which appears at the head of the Bayan and many other places.
> 
> I always translate *ilaha* in *la ilaha illa 'llah* with a small g, which
> surely gets across the idea of plurality.
> 
> As you might have guessed, it's 19 letters. Syllables don't count. I'm sure
> there Abjad significances, but if I sit down and calculate them all I'll
> never finish the translation!
> 
>   The recognition of this 
> declaration is
>  conditional on recognition of the Point of the Bayan, which God has made
>  the essence of the Letters of the Seven. 
> 
> QUESTION: We've heard about the Letters of the Living, but what are the
> Letters of the Seven?
> 
> ANSWER: The Bab (Ignoring the doubled *mim*, 'Ali Muhammad - ayn, lam, ya,
> mim, ha', mim, dal)
> 
>   Whoever realizes that 
> he is the
>  Point of the Qur'an in his end and the Point of the Bayan in his
>  beginning, and that he is the Primal Will that exists in its own self,
>  through whose decree all things are created and in whom they subsist, his
>  essence has borne witness to the singleness of his Lord. 
> 
> COMMENT: I just want to be sure here. In the first sentence, does the 'he'
> refer reflexively back to 'whoever', or does it refer back to the Bab, to
> the 'Point of the Bayan'? Are we being told to look into our own selves, or
> to the Bab? Or is the translator leaving this deliberately vague because
> the text itself is deliberately vague and the metaphysical point needs to be
> ambiguous?
> 
> If the 'he' refers back to each individual 'whoever', this would be giving
> extraordinary emphasis to the sovereignty within each individual to
> "realize that ... he [himself] is the Primal Will that exists in its own
> self." In other words, our world/self is what each of us makes of it. We
> eventually attain responsibility for creating and maintaining our own inner
> world. Our "I" is the transcendence immanent within us, the god of our
> own inner world, as God with a big G is the transcendence within and the
> "I" of, the All, the big world of which I am a part.
> 
> If it refers back exclusively to the Bab, however, then what inner richness
> is this statement supposed to carry with it by mental association in the
> reader of this passage? Is it, "Bab = Gate in Arabic, and gate means gate
> to the new world order, to the Kingdom of God on earth?"
> 
> ANSWER: It definitely refers to 'the Point of the Qur'an' etc. The Arabic
> pronoun used is 'ha', agreeing with *nuqta*. I'll leave you to work out the
> metaphysical implications.
> 
>   But whoever has not 
> believed
>  in him is rejected and shall enter the fire. What fire is further removed
>  than he who has not believed in him? 
> 
> QUESTION: Can anyone explain to me why 'belief' is so central here, either
> theologically or historically? I am sorry if this sounds dumb, but I really
> wrestle with this. I am the type of person who gags at public displays of
> "mere beliefs" and at the carnage that conflicts of "beliefs" have wrecked
> upon humanity and for whom Karl Popper's statement "I do not believe in
> beliefs" came like a lightning bolt illumination from heaven. Does it have
> anything to do with the inability of many of the Bab's followers to have
> personal contact with him at various periods because of the Bab's
> imprisonment? Or is there a more subtle, general systems sense of this,
> i.e., we have to project a feed-forward signal (a "belief") into the realm
> of our own latent powers, our own potentialities, in order to activate them
> and to get from them a feedback signal into our actuality-state?
> 
> ANSWER: This is too big a question to answer easily. If you read more of the
> Bayan, you'll find that the whole book revolves around one basic concept:
> affirmation and denial, and the division of men accordingly. I'm also very
> big on Popper, by the way.
> 
>   
> And he who has believed shall enter
>  into affirmation. 
> 
> COMMENT: This carries forward what I meant by the general systems function
> of "belief": affirmation can proceed on the basis of feedback from our own
> powers (by their signal of being 'ready and able') only after the
> feed-forward signal has gone into the realm of those powers (our
> potentiality) (or perhaps into what Bennett calls our hyparchic present)
> and has probed and activated those potentialities.
> 
> ANSWER: I didn't understand any of that.
> 
>   What paradise is more 
> exalted than the one who 
> believes in him? 
> 
> QUESTION: Here a "paradise" seems to be referred to as a "who". Is this
> correct?
> 
> ANSWER: Yup. This book gets very complicated. Paradise and hell are part of
> the affirmation/denial polarity. You'll find further unusual examples of
> both.
> 
>   It is a declaration that 
> has praised and 
> magnified and extolled and
>  sanctified and glorified its Lord at morn and eventide. 
> 
> QUESTION: Morn and eventide again being symbols of the 1 and the 9, the
> beginning and the end?
> 
> ANSWER: No idea.
> 
>   Regard not this 
> declaration except as you look 
> upon the sun in the heavens,
>  and regard not him who believes in him except as you regard the mirror. 
> 
> QUESTION: the first "him" refers to whom? The second "him" refers to whom?
> 
> ANSWER: Him one is any believer, him two is the Primal Point.
> 
> COMMENT: From the dyad of the beginning and the end, we move into a
> dynamic, triadic metaphor of sun-light-mirror.
> 
> ANSWER: Could be, but I think you've lost me again.
> 
> QUESTION: Does anyone know when the mirror first entered into human
> technology and when the "mirror" metaphor first entered into human sacred
> literature? (Of course, any culture familiar with open water would have
> experienced the phenomenon of mirror reflection.) I know the mirror
> metaphor goes back at least to Buddhism. I know the ancient Egyptians had
> mirrors, although I do not know whether it figures in their sacred
> literature.
> 
> ANSWER: There are remarks on this in the introduction to Ralph Austin's
> translation of Ibn al-'Arabi's *Fusus al-hikam*, where the mirror image is
> central. The old mirrors were polished metal (and Ralph makes the point
> that they would not have given an accurate reflection).
> 
>   Indeed, whosoever 
> believes in the essence of 
> the Letters of the Seven, his
>  inner being shall be given assistance by one of the names of God, praised
>  be He and glorified, and his outer being shall be a leaf among the leaves
>  of the Tree of Affirmation. 
> 
> QUESTION: The essence of the Letters of Seven, would, I assume, be the
> middle point? i.e.: . . . . . . . Now, are the 'names of God' in this
> context the other six Letters or points? What is the Abjad equivalent of
> "Letters of Seven"? Are there specific names of God with which the six
> "letters" are associated? Does this ring any bells with Zoroastrian
> mythology of Ahura Mazda and the six Amesha Spentas?
> 
> ANSWER: As before, the Letters of the Seven refers to the Bab. Forget about
> the rest.
> 
>   All things return to this 
> one thing,
>  and all things are created through this one thing. 
> 
> COMMENT: I am reminded of the Pythagorean enigma tradition that the "decad
> is the essence of number" (by number I would understand creation) and how
> this is represented by the Pythagorean Tetraktys, namely the symbol of the
> equilateral triangle consisting of 10 points -- 1 in the center and 9
> around the perimeter.
> 
>  * * * * * * * * * * 
> 
> This symbol, which was considered sacred by the Pythagoreans, is, to me,
> highly resonant with meaning. It combines the Exclusive One and the
> Exclusive Many into an Inclusive One. More specifically, it combines the
> Monad, the Dyad (essence and manifestation, 1/9), the Triad (the
> equilateral triangle, which is the product of the monad and the dyad
> coupled with a symmetry requirement), the tetrad (the four horizontal lines
> of dots), and the heptad (there are 7 vertical lines of dots). The nine
> dots around the perimeter remind us in themselves of the 'number of Baha'
> ('baha' meaning 'glory') and, for those who are "into" it, the nine-pointed
> configuration of the enneagram. (Notice that the only odd number up to 9
> not included here is 5, the number of the Bab.)
> 
> ANSWER: I don't think the Bab had this in mind.
> 
> 
> 
>   This one thing shall be,
>  in the next resurrection, none other than he whom God shall manifest, who,
>  in every degree, utters the words, 'Verily, I am God, no god is there
>  beside Me, the Lord of all things. All save Me is my creation. Wherefore,
>  O My Creation, worship Me!' 
> 
> COMMENT: Worship Me = attract yourselves to the Center in order to be
> whole. Bahá'ís interpret "he whom God shall manifest" as referring to
> Bahá'u'lláh ('The Glory of the Lord'). Is there any Abjad connection
> between the sums of these two phrases?
> 
> ANSWER: *man yuzhiruhu 'llah* comes out as 1276 and Baha' Allah as 75.
> Baha' on its own is 9, if you count the hamza. I can't compute anything
> significant, but no doubt somebody can.
> 
>   And know that he is the 
> mirror of God, from 
> whom the mirror of the
>  physical universe (mulk ) is rendered luminous, which is made up of the
>  Letters of the Living. 
> 
> COMMENT: In the Babi religion, there were 18 Letters of the Living (initial
> disciples of the Bab), with the Bab himself forming the 19th element to
> form the 'number of all things', correct? 18 is also twice the 'number of
> Baha' (9). Does this possibly indicate the "step-down transformer"
> arrangement by which the "light of God" is increasingly de-intensified and
> dispersed into the Creation?
> 
> ANSWER; I haven't a clue. I don't even know what a 'step-down transformer'
> is, but it's nice to know God has one all the same.
> 
>   In him none can be seen 
> except God
>  Himself. Whoever in the Bayan utters the declaration, 'there is no god but
>  God', turns towards God through him, for his creation began in him and to
>  him his creation shall return.
>  The fruit of this knowledge is that, at the time of the appearance of him
>  whom God shall manifest, you should not say, 'we say "there is no god but
>  God" and this is the basis of religion'. For what you say is but a
>  reflection from his sun, which has shone forth in his first manifestation.
>  He is more worthy of this declaration in his own self than are the
>  realities of all created things, for if the mirror should say 'the sun is
>  in me', it is evident to the sun that it is but its reflection speaking. 
> 
>  O creation of the Bayan, we have caused you to know the exaltation of your
>  existence in the declaration of your Lord, that you may not be veiled by
>  the truth from him whom God shall manifest on the Day of Resurrection.
>  That of which you speak resembles its appearance in your hearts and that
>  concerning which he speaks.
> 
> QUESTION: the "declaration of your Lord" refers specifically back to the
> phrase at the beginning of the text? Or to the Bab's prophetic
> announcement? Or to the Bab's general revelation?
> 
> I suspect it refers back to the phrase at the beginning.
> 
> In the last sentence ("That of which you speak ..."), again, what does
> "its" refer to? And who is 'he' in the next phrase: the Bab? "him whom God
> shall manifest"?
> 
> ANSWER: I have to admit that the Arabic original isn't all that clear. If
> anyone else with access to the text cares to comment, I'd be grateful.
> Something may be missing.
> 
>   That it is to which God 
> has
>  borne witness in Himself, that there is no god but He, the Preserver, the
>  Self-Subsistent. 
> 
> QUESTION: what is "That..." referring to? To the following "that there is
> no god but He..."?
> 
> ANSWER: As I understand it, yes.
> 
>   In this day, whoever in 
> the Qur'an should utter 
> this declaration, which is
>  the essence of the faith, it cannot be doubted that he shall have uttered
>  what Muhammad, the Messenger of God, uttered before this. The sun of this
>  declaration was in his (Muhammad's) heart, and its reflection shone forth
>  in those who utter (that declaration) today. Wherefore, it returns to him
>  in his second appearance, which is the appearance of the Point of the
>  Bayan, not in his first appearance, for in his first revelation the tree
>  of oneness had not been raised up in the realities of created beings. Now
>  that one thousand two hundred and seventy years have passed, this tree has
>  reached the stage of fruition. Everyone in whom there is a reflection of
>  that sun of the Point of the Qur'an, which is identical with the Point of
>  the Bayan, must needs be manifested before him. 
> 
> QUESTION: where does 1270 come from? I thought the year of the Bab's
> declaration was 1260 AH.
> 
> ANSWER: Not by the Bab's computation. He calculated all his dates from the
> year of Muhammad's Call (bi'tha), which is 10 years before the Hijra.
> 
> 
> 
>   I have used as an 
> example the highest 
> declaration, upon which the faith of
>  all men depends. The beginning of faith is confirmed through its
>  utterance, and all speak it at the moment of death and finally return to it. 
> 
> QUESTION: Does this mean that we literally should speak this phrase upon
> our death-bed, so to speak, or that our own inner being, of its own nature,
> recognizes and "utters" this truth in the face of death?
> 
> ANSWER: I defer to higher authority on this one.
> 
> 
> 
>   Wherefore, the 
> reflections of the mirrors 
> return only to that in which
>  they had their origin. If the mirror should remove that portion of the
>  sun's reflection that lies within it, it will return to it [the sun], for
>  that is where it had its inception. Both its return and its going back
>  exist in nothing but the limitation imposed upon it by being nothing more
>  than a mirror. 
> 
> COMMENT: All these "it" references are a bit confusing, and the metaphor
> itself is confusing. If I interpret correctly, the reflection of the
> mirrors (i.e., the light in the mirrors) returns to its origin, the sun. Of
> course this is not unique to the light, since *everything* returns to the
> Source. The metaphor continues, however, by saying that if the mirror,
> which is the inner being of the human being particularly in its conscious
> aspects, should "remove" the light reflected in it, i.e., if it turns itself
> away from the sun, "it" (the light) will return to "it" (the sun), Well,
> this is a bit confusing, since in the world of physics, light which is not
> reflected does not "return" to the sun physically; it just keeps on going
> outward into space. What it retains, I guess one could say, is its purity
> as original sunlight, its quality of not having been reflected. It is a bit
> stretched to say that it "returns" to the sun. I guess the deeper point is
> that not reflecting the sun is no loss to the sun but is a loss to that
> which needs the light in order to function.
> 
> ANSWER: I'm sorry about the 'it's, but I'm trying to keep close to the
> original.
> 
>   Since the exaltation of 
> the word of the Qur'an in 
> former times and the
>  elevation of the word of the Bayan after it may be considered thus when
>  face to face with the Sun of Reality, what is the state of those matters
>  that are derived from that word, matters such as the recognition of God's
>  names, or those of the Prophet, the Imams of Guidance, the Gates of
>  Guidance, as well as secondary questions without number or end? Anyone who
>  has been veiled by one of these things from the reality that is the
>  source of his existence, and unto which it returns, should he belong to
>  the Tree of Affirmation and should the sign of his oneness be a token of
>  the Sun, well and good; 
> 
> QUESTION: What does "should the sign of his oneness be a token of the Sun"
> mean? What I am reading here is that even if someone is veiled by a
> secondary reflection from recognizing the primary reflection of the Sun,
> it's OK as long as X is the case, but I do not understand what X is.
> 
> ANSWER: I can't easily elucidate this. It should mean something like
> 'should his entire being reflect the Sun of Reality', but I could well be
> wrong.
> 
> 
> 
>   but, God forbid, should 
> it not be a token of it, 
> he would be unworthy of
>  any mention.
>  For how often did those individuals who associated themselves with the
>  Qur'an issue decrees contrary to what God had revealed. This was mentioned
>  with respect to their realities, not with regard to what is connected to
>  the realities; 
> 
> QUESTION: Here "realities" means their own inner being? "What is connected
> to their realities" means secondary, outer circumstances, words, etc.?
> 
> ANSWER: Unless there's a slip of the pen here, I imagine that's broadly right.
> 
>   for whatever connects 
> itself to anything but 
> God will return to the
>  reality of that thing. And since its reality is not a token of God, it is
>  not mentioned in His presence. 
> 
> QUESTION: Again, what is "its" referring to? To "whatever" or to "that
> thing"? Why is it said here that "its reality is not a token of God"?
> 
> ANSWER: I think of 'that thing'. I don't know why it's not a token of God.
> 
>   But whatever is
>  connected to true realities will return to them. If they are signs
>  (naturally) situated within the mirrors of their own hearts and not
>  (artificially) placed there, they will return to their own seats in the
>  beginning and at the end. 
> 
> QUESTION: Is "they" in the second sentence referring to "whatever" or to
> "true realities"? I can see why a translator would have a hard time with
> this text.
> 
> ANSWER: True realities, I think. It's often a nightmare of a text for this
> sort of reason.
> 
>   Since the sun has been 
> shining from eternity, 
> those mirrors have at all
>  times been tokens of it; 
> 
> QUESTION: "those" refers to what, now?
> 
> ANSWER: I'm starting to flag here. It should say earlier in the text.
> 
>   God's grace has never
>  been interrupted under any conditions, nor shall it ever come to an end. 
> 
> QUESTION: Again, I feel I am missing something in this 'token' language. A
> token is a sign, indication, or symbol of something other than itself.
> something which may serve as a sign of genuineness. Archaically, it can
> refer to a signal. Can someone give me a concrete example of what is being
> spoken of here by the Bab?
> 
> ANSWER: Not offhand.
> 
> 
> 
>   Whosoever says: 'God, 
> God is my Lord, and I 
> associate no-one with my Lord.
>  The Essence of the Letters of the Seven is the Gate of God [bab Allah],
>  and I do not believe in any gate other than him'; (whoever says this) and
>  believes in the one God shall manifest, such a man has attained to this
>  first gate of the first unity. Blessed be they who have attained to the
>  bounty of a mighty day, the day on which all shall bring themselves into
>  the presence of God, their Lord. 
> 
> COMMENT: Here again the "shall bring themselves into the presence of God"
> is indicative of an active, self-evolving role on the part of those who are
> blessed.
> 
> I hope the above (and the preceding answers) help a little. It is a
> difficult text. Obviously deciding on an interpretation can help make the
> translation run more easily, but I'm frequently unable to make an arbitrary
> decision and prefer to leave things as vague as they are in the original.
> 
> I don't think I can keep up answering queries at this rate, however, since
> it will interfere with my plan to keep on typing out my translation and
> then moving on with more of it. But there should be other people on h-bahai
> who can do that if you're keen to keep on reading and asking questions at
> this rate. I do hope you continue to enjoy it.
>
> — *Questions on the Bayan (Used by permission of the curator)*