A new version of the Bahá’í Reference Library is now available. This ‘old version’ of the Bahá’í Reference Library will be replaced at a later date.
The new version of the Bahá’i Reference Library can be accessed here »
From the Utterances of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá 67: “There are only four accepted methods of comprehension—that is to say,…” |
The first method is by the senses—that is to say, all that the
eye, the ear, the taste, the smell, the touch perceive is understood by this
method. Today this method is considered the most perfect by all the European
philosophers: they say that the principal method of gaining knowledge is
through the senses; they consider it supreme, although it is imperfect, for
it commits errors. For example, the greatest of the senses is the power of
sight…. The sight believes the earth to be motionless and sees the sun in
motion, and in many similar cases it makes mistakes. Therefore, we cannot
trust it.
|
The second is the method of reason, which was that of the ancient
philosophers, the pillars of wisdom; this is the method of the understanding.
They proved things by reason and hold firmly to logical proofs; all their
arguments are arguments of reason. Notwithstanding this, they differed
greatly, and their opinions were contradictory. They even changed their
views—that is to say, during twenty years they would prove the existence
of a thing by logical arguments, and afterward they would deny it by logical
arguments—so much so that Plato at first logically proved the immobility of
the earth and the movement of the sun; later by logical arguments he proved
that the sun was the stationary center, and that the earth was moving….
Therefore, it is evident that the method of reason is not perfect, for the
differences of the ancient philosophers, the want of stability and the
variations of their opinions, prove this. For if it were perfect, all
ought to be united in their ideas and agreed in their opinions.
|
The third method of understanding is by tradition—that is, through the
text of the Holy Scriptures—for people say, “In the Old and New Testaments,
God spoke thus.” This method equally is not perfect, because the traditions
are understood by the reason. As the reason itself is liable to err, how can
24
it be said that in interpreting the meaning of the traditions it will not err,
for it is possible for it to make mistakes, and certainty cannot be attained.
This is the method of the religious leaders; whatever they understand and
comprehend from the text of the books is that which their reason understands
from the text, and not necessarily the real truth; for the reason is like a
balance, and the meanings contained in the text of the Holy Books are like
the thing which is weighed. If the balance is untrue, how can the weight be
ascertained?
|
Know then: that which is in the hands of people, that which they believe,
is liable to error. For, in proving or disproving a thing, if a proof is
brought forward which is taken from the evidence of our senses, this method, as
has become evident, is not perfect; if the proofs are intellectual, the same is
true; or if they are traditional, such proofs also are not perfect. Therefore,
there is no standard in the hands of people upon which we can rely.
|