Lava'ih - The Lawaih: a Treatise on Sufism

See but One, say but One, know but One.

Gulshān i Rāz, 1. 883.

The Alif of the Loved One's form is graven on my heart,
No other letter did my Shaikh ever to me impart.

ḤĀFIẒ, Ode 416 (ed. Brockhaus).

My heart inquired, “What is the heaven-sent lore?
If thou'st attained it, teach me, I implore.”
“Alif,” I said, “if there be one within,
One letter serves to name him—say no more.”

OMAR KHAYYĀM, Quatrain 109.

THE Lawā'iḥ is a treatise on Ṣūfī theology or theosophy, as distinguished from the religious emotions experienced by all Ṣūfīs, learned and unlearned alike. Catholic authorities have drawn this distinction between “experimental” and “doctrinal” mysticism,^0-7 and it is a great help towards clear thinking on this subject. The religious emotion common to all mankind is, so to speak, raised to its highest power in the mystics. They are overwhelmed by the sense of the Divine omnipresence and of their own dependence on God. They are dominated and intoxicated by their vivid sense of the close relation subsisting between the soul and God. They conceive themselves as being in touch with God, feeling His motions in their souls, and at times rising to the beatific vision and blinded by excess of light. These religious experiences were the rough material out of which the doctrinal reasoned system, set out in treatises like the Lawā'iḥ, was built up. Psychologists have advanced various theories as to the genesis of these experiences.^0-7a With these we are not at present concerned. But as to the origin of the philosophical ideas and terms employed in the Lawā'iḥ and similar works to formulate the Ṣūfī theology, there can be little doubt. The source of Ṣūfī theology was Neoplatonism.

The title of the book, Lawā'iḥ, or “Flashes of Light”, suggests the philosophy employed to systematize and give a reasoned basis for the unreasoned “experiences” of unlearned Ṣūfīs. It of course refers to the “inner light”. The Platonists were called Ishrāqīn or Illuminati, because they regarded intellectual intuition or intuitive reason (Nous) as the main source of knowledge, whereas the Peripatetics (Mashshā'īn) recognized no sources of knowledge except the senses and the discursive reason (Dianoia). The word Ishrāq, or “Lights”, is often met with in this connexion. Thus Shams-ud-dīn Muḥammad ash-Shahrazūrī is called by Haji Khalfa “a metaphysician learned in the inner lights” (Ishrāq).^0-8 Shihāb-ud-dīn as Suhrawardī, who was put to death at Aleppo in 587 A.H. by advice of that valiant defender of the Faith, Sulṭān Ṣalāḥ-ud-dīn, wrote a book entitled Ḥikmat-ul-Ishrāq, or “Philosophy of Inner Light”.^0-8a The author of the Dabistān says that the belief of the pure Ṣūfīs is the same as that of the Ishrāqīn or Platonists,^0-8b and also that Ṣūfīs were classed as orthodox (Mutasharri') and Platonists.^0-8c Haji Khalfa, in his article on Ṣūfism (Tasawwuf), says that anyone who reads Ṣūfī books cannot fail to remark that their terminology is borrowed from the Platonistṣ (Ishrāqīn), and more especially from the later ones—i.e. the Neoplatonists.^0-8d Let any reader who has even a slight acquaintance with the terms used by the Greek philosophers look over treatises like the Lawā'iḥ and the Gulshan i Rāz and on almost every page he will recognize some familiar Greek term. Schmölders in his Documenta Philosophiæ Arabum gives a list of nearly one hundred such terms employed by Avicena (Ibn Sīna) and other writers on philosophy in the fifth century of the Hijira.

It was probably at about the end of the fifth century A.H. that Neoplatonic gnōsis began to influence and modify Ṣūfī doctrine. Up to that date the doctrine had been expounded in short precepts, parables (mithāl), and similes like those in the Koran. But educated Moslems had outgrown these primitive methods of instruction. They wanted something more systematic. Jalāl-ud-dīn Rūmī tells us how his critics assailed him for dealing in trivial examples and parables instead of giving a systematic account of the stages of the soul's ascent to God.^0-9 Ibn Khaldūn mentions Muḥāsibī and the great Imām Ghazālī as among the first who wrote systematic treatises on the doctrines of the Ṣūfīs.^0-9a We have Ghazālī's own account of the way in which he was attracted to Ṣūfism,^0-9b and other passages in his writings prove that he used the forms of Greek thought to explain Ṣūfī principles.^0-9c If it be asked how Greek philosophy reached Ghazālī, who was a native of Khurāsān,^0-9d the answer is easy. When Justinian closed the schools at Athens, Damascius and his Neoplatonist brethren fled to the court of Nushirvān. They only remained there about a year, and left in 533 A.D.; but Nushirvān had some translations of Neoplatonist books made at the time, and these were followed by many others, made two centuries and a half later, under the Abbasides at Baghdad.^0-9e

Greek philosophy was expounded by the so-called Arabian, but really Persian, philosophers, Al Farābī and Avicena, and afterwards in the Ikhwān-uṣ-Ṣafā.^0-9f Shahrastānī, a contemporary of Ghazālī, gave accounts of all the chief Greek philosophers, including the “Shaikh of the Greeks” or Plotinus,^0-10 his editor Porphyry, and Proclus. The so-called “Theology of Aristotle”, which is a summary of the “Enneads” of Plotinus,^0-10a appeared probably soon afterwards. The result was that Neoplatonism, mainly in the form expounded by Plotinus, was used by all the more learned Ṣūfīs to explain and justify the simple emotional sayings of the early Ṣūfīs. Henceforward Neoplatonism pervades all systematic treatises on Ṣūfism, such as the Faṣūṣ-ul-Ḥikam, the Maqṣad-ul-Aqṣā,^0-10b the Gulshan i Rāz,^0-10c and the Lawā'iḥ. Even the poets use the Greek terminology. Thus Ḥakīm Sanā'ī, who lived at the same time as Ghazālī, introduces “Universal Reason” and “Universal Soul”, the second and third hypostases of the Trinity of Plotinus, and the principal later poets follow suit.^0-10d

The first Ṣūfīs differed from ordinary Moslems only in their quietism (taslīm) and their puritan ideal of life. They held the orthodox doctrines, with perhaps a few reservations. But when Greek influences came into play all these doctrines underwent more or less modification. Take the following samples:—

1. The central doctrine of Islām, “There is no God but Allah,” was “restated” in the form “There is no real Being and no real Agent (Fā'il i haqīqī) but the One, ‘The Truth’ (Al Haqq)”. Allah was not entirely stripped of personal attributes such as will and consciousness, but He has ceased to be conceived as a purely supramundane Deity, enthroned above the empyrean heaven, creating the world by one fiat, ruling His subjects, like some mighty monarch, by commands and prohibitions, and paying them wages according to their deserts. He has become a Being immanent and “deeply interfused” in the universe,^0-11 and giving it all the real existence it has. The Koran speaks of Allah as omniscient, but omniscience was now expanded into “omni-essence”, if one may use such a word.^0-11a It was the Plotinian doctrine of the “One” and its Emanations which furnished the Ṣūfī theologians with the material for this wider conception of “The Truth”, the ultimate divine ground of all things, the “Substance” as Spinoza called it.

2. Like all great religious teachers, Muḥammad laid chief stress on right conduct, and this consisted in implicit obedience to every one of Allah's commands, as disobedience to any one was sin. The distinction between moral laws and commands merely relating to ritual observances was not clearly laid down. It has been said that Islām means “striving after righteousness”.^0-11b That is so, but righteousness was interpreted as including the scrupulous observance of trivial rules as to ablutions, prayers, fasting, etc.^0-12 It may well be doubted if Muḥammad is responsible for some of the directions about ritual which are ascribed to him,^0-12a but, be this as it may, more and more importance came to be assigned to the scrupulous observance of these ritual forms. The early Ṣūfīs, like the Quakers, held that divine illumination and grace were imparted directly to every soul, and not through the channel of external observances. They thought that the mechanical routine of rites (taqlīd) only served to induce the spiritual torpor which Dante called “accidia”.^0-12b St. Bernard remarked this result in his monks, but he set it down to the fault of the men, not to that of the system. The Ṣūfī theologians adopted the Neoplatonist view that the ritual law is not binding upon spiritual men. In like manner St. Paul called the Jewish law a “yoke of bondage” (taqlīd). Shabistarī contrasts the mere outward Islām of ritual observances with the true piety of some heathens, much to the advantage of the latter, and Jalāl-ud-dīn Rūmī declares that “Fools exalt the Mosque while they ignore the true temple in the heart”.^0-12c

3. Greek philosophy taught the immortality of the soul, but denied the resurrection of the body. And hence the language of the Koran about Heaven and Hell ultimately came to be regarded as merely allegorical. The early Ṣūfīs held very strongly that love to God should be quite disinterested and untainted by hope of reward. They thought “other-worldliness” no better than worldliness. According to the Ṣūfī theologians there is no material heaven or hell. When the particle of real being in each soul is stripped of its mortal vesture, “of what account” (they asked) “will be Paradise and houris?”^0-13 In the case of those who have retained a perfect reasonable soul the divine particle will return intact to the One Real Being. When the soul has in life shrunk to a mere animal or vegetive soul, some remnant of the divine particle within it may still survive and return to the One Being. But if the divine spark has been utterly quenched by evil living there is nothing left which can survive. Dr. Charles in his Eschatology says that some Jewish apocalyptic writers held that there was no resurrection of the wicked.

4. Muḥammad had no taste for speculation. He said: “Think on the mercies of God, not on the essence of God.” And again: “Sit not with those who discuss predestination.” His language on predestination is merely popular. In one passage it is that of determinism, in another that of freewill. In one place Allah constrains all, guiding some aright and causing others to err.^0-13a Elsewhere man acts freely without constraint. But the theologians fastened on these obscure problems, and did their best to shift the religious centre of gravity from right conduct to right opinion on these problems. In a word they preached salvation by gnōsis. The traditionists fathered on Muḥammad various sayings to prove that he regarded orthodoxy on these “afterthoughts of theology” as all-important for salvation. Thus the saying “My people shall be split into seventy-three sects, all of whom but one shall perish in hell fire” is one which betrays theological authorship. In Muḥammad's lifetime the contest was not with sects within Islām, but with aliens who rejected Islām altogether. For these he had no mercy, but he would scarcely have been so hard on his own people for venial errors of opinion. Again, he could hardly have said “Qadarians are Magian (dualists)” at a time when (as is almost certain) no sect of that name had yet arisen.^0-14 The early Ṣūfīs did not concern themselves with the disputes of the sects. But the Ṣūfī theologians could not altogether ignore them. They took sides against the sects which leaned to anthropomorphism, and, on the other hand, fully agreed with the doctrine of the Compulsionists or extreme Predestinarians.^0-14a That sect held that God, as the One Real Agent, not only permitted evil, but of set purpose allotted evils, present or future, to the majority of mankind. This strange doctrine (which has its counterpart in Europe) forced the Ṣūfī theologians to attempt some reconciliation of Divine power, as thus interpreted, with Divine goodness, and here, like Augustine, they availed themselves of the “not-being” ('adm) of Plotinus.^0-14b

Perhaps, however, the true Ṣūfī spirit was best interpreted by Jalāl-ud-dīn Rūmī, when he declared that he agreed with all seventy-three sects as being all honest attempts to grasp the obscure truth. Errors in “naming the names of God” are of small account. According to the Ḥadīth, “He who does the works will know the doctrine.” And true love to God atones for all mistakes of doctrine.^0-14c

Jāmī is a typical Ṣūfī theologian. He works hard to construct a reasoned basis for Ṣūfism, but finally realizes that his logical definitions and syllogisms cannot express the truth as it really is, and add nothing to the grounds on which the convictions of Ṣūfīs must always rest. It is only by means of the spiritual clairvoyance generated by love that Divine knowledge (ma'rifat) can be attained.^0-15 Those who have these spiritual intuitions do not need demonstrations, and to those who have them not all demonstrations are useless.

5. Muḥammad, like Luther, rejected asceticism. Suhra-wardy quotes several of his anti-ascetic sayings, including the familar one “There is no monasticism in Islām”. He approved of poverty, it is true, and prescribed a month of fasting, but set his face firmly against the cloistered life and celibacy.^0-15a The early Ṣūfīs were, perhaps, attracted to asceticism by the example of the Christians in Syria, where the first Ṣūfī convent was built; and Neoplatonist doctrine furnished the rationale of ascetic practice. Matter was evil, and therefore all material and sensuous taint, including the natural instincts (phronēma sarkos), must be purged away and extirpated by all who claimed to be spiritual men.^0-15b Thus a double system of religious conduct was set up—the external law for ordinary men and “the counsels of perfection”, the more perfect way of asceticism and contemplation, for spiritual men. The external law of ritual observances had no longer any dominion over spiritual men.^0-15c This abrogation of the ceremonial law naturally tempted some undisciplined Ṣūfīs, as it has tempted some professing followers of St. Paul, to laxity in the observance of the moral law. The Malāmatīs, for instance, committed immoral acts in order to court reproach and humble their self-esteem. But such doctrines were always condemned by the more authoritative Ṣūfī theologians. Thus Shabistarī (Gulshan i Rāz, Answer iv) says that the true mystic who has attained “union” must not rest in that ecstatic state, but while he is in the flesh must journey down again, wearing the law as his outer garment and carrying out its obligations.

6. The Ṣūfī “Contemplation” (Mushāhadah) is closely allied to the Plotinian “deifying virtue” of Theōria explained as Theou orasis or the beatific vision. One line of scholars, led by A. von Kremer, however, traces this element of Ṣūfism to Vedantism or to Buddhism. The objections to this view are first that no Indian terms are found in Ṣūfī writings and secondly that the Buddhist Nirvāna is an end in itself; the Ṣūfī Fanā is only the preliminary to Baqā, continued existence in the One Real Being. When the One becomes the “heir of all”, or, as St. Paul says, when He is “all in all” (panta en pasin), Ṣūfīs look for an immortality of an impersonal character, concentrated in the One. Lastly, metempsychōsis is condemned by Ṣūfī theologians (Gulshan i Rāz, l. 106).

Harnack, in his History of Dogma, has shown how profoundly Christian theology has been affected by Neoplatonist ideas. The disputes about Ousia, Hypostasis, and Physis which rent Christendom asunder^0-16 mainly grew from “afterthoughts of theology” suggested by these ideas, and their influence has extended to our own days.^0-16a It is hardly too much to say that their influence on the course of events has been as considerable as that of the Roman law. In Islām their influence has been much more restricted than in Christendom, but, such as it was, it is instructive to trace it.^0-17

The manuscript of the Lawā'iḥ now reproduced is undated, but was probably written within a century of Jāmī's death in 898 A.H. It once belonged to the royal library at Delhi, and the outside pages contain notes by the librarians, one of which, dated the 24th year of Aurangzīb, states that it was worm-eaten even then. W. H. Morley, who also owned it, has noted on the fly-leaf his opinion that it is not Jāmī's work, but written by one Sayyid 'Abd ul Kāfi. This, however, is certainly a mistake. Haji Khalfa, in his notice of Jāmī's Lawā'iḥ, quotes the beginning, which agrees with the beginning of this manuscript,^0-17a and one of the quatrains gives Jāmī's name. The British Museum possesses three copies—viz., Add. 16820 (Rieu, p. 44a); Add. 16819, iv (Rieu, p. 826b); and Add. 7689, iv, fol. 150 onwards (Rieu, p. 810b). Copies are to be found in other libraries. In addition to that now reproduced, I possess one, written in an Indian hand, probably in the eighteenth century.^0-17b

The facsimile of the manuscript has been made by Messrs. Nops, of Ludgate Hill. They have been very successful in removing nearly all traces of the stains and worm-holes in the original, and I think the writer of the manuscript himself, could he see it, would find little fault with their reproduction of his handiwork.

I began the translation some years ago, but, owing to failing eyesight, had to stop after getting to the end of Flash VII. I have now been fortunate enough to secure the assistance of a very competent scholar, Mīrzā Muḥammad Ḳazvīnī, who has furnished me with a literal French version of the whole, together with some valuable notes. In his translation the Mīrzā has chiefly followed the British Museum Manuscript Add. No. 16819, which contains several passages not found in this manuscript. Most, if not all, of these seem to me to be glosses which have crept into the text, but I have given them in this translation, marking them with square brackets. Up to the end of Flash VII the accompanying translation is that made by me some years ago, with some corrections suggested by the Mīrzā's version. From the beginning of Flash VIII to the end of the book the translation is the Mīrzā's French version turned into English by me. In this part of the work I have followed the Mīrzā closely, only referring to the original to verify a word here and there. I am solely responsible for the Preface and notes. If they contain errors of fact or doctrine, these must not be imputed to the Mīrzā.

The references to the Gulshan i Rāz are to my edition of that work (Trübner, 1880); those to the Masnavī of Jalāl-ud-dīn Rūmī to my translation of that poem (second edition, published in Trübner's Oriental Series, 1898); those to Omar Khayyām to my text and translation, published in the same series, second edition, 1901.

As regards transliteration, I follow the rule laid down long since by the Inḍian Government, that when foreign words have become naturalized in English they should be spelled according to English usage. Thus I write Calcutta, Moslem, Koran, Abbasides, etc. Again, when a Persian writer has chosen to transliterate his own name in a particular way, I do not presume to interfere with his discretion. I give titles of books as they are spelled on the title-pages, and, like Rieu, I represent hamza by the “spiritus lenis” ('). With these exceptions I have in the main observed the transliteration rules of the Royal Asiatic Society.

E. H. W.

“I DO not render praises unto Thee.”¹ How is this, seeing that “all praise returns to Thee”?^1a The threshold of Thy sanctity is too high for my praises. Thou art what Thine own praises declare Thee. O Lord, we are not able to tell Thy praises or set forth Thy glories. Whatsoever is manifested on the pages of the universe is praise reflected back to the threshold of Thy most glorious Majesty. What can faculty or tongue of mine declare worthy of Thy glory and honour? Thou art such as Thou hast Thyself declared, and the pearls of Thy praise are what Thyself hast strung.

In the vast largesse of Thy Majesty
This whole world's but a drop from out the sea;
What power have we to celebrate Thy praise?
No praises save Thine own are meet for Thee!

Where the speaker of the words “I am the most eloquent [of the Arabs]”^1b lowered the flag of his eloquence, and found himself impotent to render Thee fitting praises, how shall a mere stammerer venture to open his mouth or a dullard deliver an apt discourse? Nevertheless, in this case to excuse one's self on the ground of one's incapacity and deficiencies is itself the gravest of defects, and to put one's self on a level with that prince of the world and of the faith would be a serious breach of propriety.

What am I? Can I count myself the peer
Of the poor dog that's suffered to draw near?
I may not join the caravan—enough
If from afar the camel bells I hear.

O Lord, send down Thy blessing upon Muḥammad, the standard-bearer of praise and possessor of “the glorious station”,² and upon his family, and upon his companions who through earnest endeavour have succeeded in attaining the goal of their desire, and pour upon them all Thy perfect peace!

O God, deliver us from preoccupation with worldly vanities, and show us the nature of things “as they really are”.^2b Remove from our eyes the veil of ignorance, and show us things as they really are. Show not to us nonexistence as existent, nor cast the veil of non-existence over the beauty of existence. Make this phenomenal world the mirror^2c to reflect the manifestations of Thy beauty, and not a veil to separate and repel us from Thee. Cause these unreal phenomena of the universe to be for us the sources of knowledge and insight, and not the cause of ignorance and blindness. Our alienation and severance from Thy beauty all proceed from ourselves. Deliver us from ourselves, and accord to us intimate knowledge of Thee.

Make my heart pure, my soul from error free,
Make tears and sighs my daily lot to be,
And lead me on Thy road away from self,
That lost to self I may draw near to Thee!

Set enmity between the world and me,
Make me averse from worldly company:
From other objects turn away my heart,
So that it be engrossed with love to Thee.

How were it, Lord, if Thou shouldst set me free
From error's grasp and cause me truth to see?
Guebres by scores Thou makest Musulmans,
Why, then, not make a Musulman of me?

My lust for this world and the next efface,
Grant me the crown of poverty, and grace
To be partaker in Thy mysteries,
From paths that lead not towards Thee turn my face.

This is a treatise entitled Lawā'iḥ³ (“Flashes of Light”), explanatory of the intuitions and verities displayed on the pages of the hearts and minds of men of insight and divine knowledge, and of those who enjoy spiritual raptures and ecstasies. It is written in suitable language adorned with pleasing explanations. I trust that readers will hold of no account the personality of the author of this commentary, and will refrain from taking their seats upon the carpet of cavilling and animadversion. For the author plays only the part of interpreter in the following discussions; his sole function is that of mouthpiece, and nothing else.

Believe me, I am naught—yea, less than naught.
By naught and less than naught what can be taught?
I tell the mysteries of truth, but know
Naught save the telling to this task I brought.

For poverty to make no sign is best,
On love divine to hold one's peace is best;
For him who never felt ecstatic joys
To play a mere reporter's part is best.

With men of light I sought these pearls to string,
The drift of mystics' sayings forth to bring;
Now let his trusty slaves this tribute bear
From foolish me to Hamadān's wise king.⁴

God has not made man with two hearts within him.^4b The Incomparable Majesty who has conferred the boon of existence upon thee has placed within thee but one heart, to the end that with single heart thou mayest love Him alone, and mayest turn thy back on all besides and devote thyself to Him alone, and refrain from dividing thy heart into a hundred portions, each portion devoted to a different object.

O votary of earthy idols' fane,
Why let these veils of flesh enwrap thy brain?
'Tis folly to pursue a host of loves;
A single heart can but one love contain!

Distraction or disunion (Tafriqah) consists in dividing the heart by attaching it to divers objects. Union or collectedness (Jam'iyyat)^4c consists in forsaking all else and being wholly engrossed in the contemplation of the One Unique Being. Those who fancy that collectedness results from the collecting of worldly goods remain in perpetual distraction, whilst those who are convinced that amassing wealth is the cause of distraction renounce all worldly goods.

O thou whose heart is torn by lust for all,
Yet vainly strives to burst these bonds of all,
This “all” begets distraction of the heart:
Give up thy heart to ONE and break with all.

While thou'rt distraught by hell-born vanity,
Thou'rt seen by men of union base to be;
By God, thou art a demon,⁵ and no man,
Too ignorant thy devilry to see.

O pilgrim^5a on the “path”, vain talk reject;
All roads save that to Unity neglect;
Naught but distractedness proceeds from wealth:
Collect thine heart, not store of wealth collect.

O heart, thy high-prized learning of the schools,
Geometry and metaphysic rules—
Yea, all but lore of God is devils' lore:
Fear God and leave this evil lore to fools.

The “Truth”, most glorious and most exalted, is omnipresent. He knows the outer and inner state of all men in every condition. Oh, what a loss will be thine if thou turnest thine eyes from His face to fix them on other objects, and forsakest the way that is pleasing to Him to follow other roads!

My Love stood by me at the dawn of day,
And said, “To grief you make my heart a prey;
Whilst I am casting looks of love at you
Have you no shame to turn your eyes away?”

All my life long I tread love's path of pain,
If peradventure “union” I may gain.
Better to catch one moment's glimpse of Thee
Than earthly beauties' love through life retain.

Everything other than the “Truth” (may He be glorified and exalted) is subject to decay and annihilation. Its substance is a mental figment with no objective existence, and its form is a merely imaginary entity.

Yesterday this universe neither existed nor appeared to exist, while to-day it appears to exist, but has no real existence: it is a mere semblance, and to-morrow nothing thereof will be seen. What does it profit thee to allow thyself to be guided by vain passions and desires? Why dost thou place reliance on these transitory objects that glitter with false lustre? Turn thy heart away from all of them, and firmly attach it to God. Break loose from all these, and cleave closely to Him. It is only He who always has been and always will continue to be. The countenance of His eternity is never scarred by the thorn of contingency.

The fleeting phantoms you admire to-day
Will soon at Heaven's behest be swept away.
O give your heart to Him who never fails,
Who's ever with you and will ever stay.

When to fair idols' shrines I did repair,
I vexed my heart with griefs encountered there;
Now earthly beauty has lost all its charm,
Eternal beauty is my only care.

Things that abide not to eternity
Expose thee to misfortune's battery;
In this life, then, sever thyself from all
From which thy death is bound to sever thee.

Perchance with wealth and sons endowed thou art.
Yet with all these erelong-thou'lt have to part.
Thrice happy he who gives his heart to ONE,
And sets affection on the men of heart.

The Absolute Beauty is the Divine Majesty endued with [the attributes of] power and bounty. Every beauty and perfection manifested in the theatre of the various grades of beings is a ray of His perfect beauty reflected therein. It is from these rays that exalted souls have received their impress of beauty and their quality of perfection.⁷ Whosoever is wise derives his wisdom from the Divine wisdom. Wherever intelligence is found it is the fruit of the Divine intelligence. In a word, all are attributes of Deity which have descended from the zenith of the Universal and Absolute to the nadir of the particular and relative. [They have descended] to the end that thou mayest direct thy course from the part towards the Whole, and from the relative deduce the Absolute, and not imagine the part to be distinct from the Whole, nor be so engrossed with what is merely relative as to cut thyself off from the Absolute.

The Loved One's rose-parterre I went to see,
That beauty's Torch^7a espied me, and, quoth He,
“I am the tree; these flowers My offshoots are.
Let not these offshoots hide from thee the tree.”

What profit rosy cheeks, forms full of grace,
And ringlets clustering round a lovely face?
When Beauty Absolute beams all around,
Why linger finite beauties to embrace?

Man, in regard to his corporeal nature, stands at the lowest point of degradation; nevertheless, in regard to his spiritual nature, he is at the summit of nobility. He takes the impress of everything to which he directs his attention, and assumes the colour of everything to which he approaches. Wherefore philosophers say that when the reasonable soul adorns itself with exact and faithful impressions of realities, and appropriates to itself the true character of such realities, it becomes such as if it were itself altogether essential Being. In like manner the vulgar, by the force of their conjunction with these material forms and extreme preoccupation with these corporeal liens, come to be such that they cannot distinguish themselves from these forms or perceive any difference between the two. Well says the Maulavī of Rūm (may God sanctify his secret) in the Masnavī—

O brother, thou art wholly thought,
For the rest of thee is only bone and muscle:
If thy thought be a rose, thou art a rose-bouquet;
If it be a thorn, thou art fuel for the fire.

Wherefore it behoves thee to strive and hide thy self from thy sight,⁸ and occupy thyself with Very Being, and concern thyself with the “Truth”. For the various grades of created things are theatres of His revealed beauty, and all things that exist are mirrors of his perfections.

And in this course thou must persevere until He mingles Himself with thy soul, and thine own individual existence passes out of thy sight. Then, if thou regardest thyself, it is He whom thou art regarding; if thou speakest of thyself, it is He of whom thou art speaking. The relative has become the Absolute, and “I am the Truth” is equivalent to “He is the Truth”.^8a

If love of rose or bulbul fill thine heart,
Thyself a rose or eager bulbul art.
Thou are a part; the “Truth” is all in all.
Dwell on the “Truth”, and cease to be a part.

Of my soul's union with this fleshly frame,
Of life and death Thou art the end and aim.
I pass away; Thou only dost endure.
When I say “me”, 'tis “Thee” I mean to name.^8b

When will this mortal dress be torn away,
And Beauty Absolute His face display,
Merging my soul in His resplendent light,
Blinding my heart with His o'erpowering ray?

It is necessary for thee to habituate thyself to this intimate relation in such wise that at no time and in no circumstance thou mayest be without the sense of it, whether in coming or in going, in eating or sleeping, in speaking or listening. In short, thou must ever be on the alert both when resting and when working, not to waste thy time in insensibility [to this relation]—nay, more, thou must watch every breath, and take heed that it goeth not forth in negligence.

The years roll on; Thou showest not Thy face,
Yet nothing from my breast Thy love can chase;
Thine image ever dwells before mine eyes,
And in my heart Thy love aye holds its place.

In like manner, as it behoves thee to maintain the said relation continually, so it is of the first importance to develop the quality thereof by detaching thyself from mundane relations and by emancipating thyself from attention to contingent forms; and this is possible only through hard striving and earnest endeavour to expel vain thoughts and imaginations from thy mind; the more these thoughts are cast out and these suggestions checked, the stronger and closer this relation becomes. It is, then, necessary to use every endeavour to force these thoughts to encamp outside the enclosure of thy breast, and that the “Truth” most glorious may cast His beams into thy heart, and deliver thee from thyself, and save thee from the trouble of entertaining His rivals in thy heart. Then there will abide with thee neither consciousness of thyself, nor even consciousness of such absence of consciousness¹⁰ —nay, there will abide nothing save the one God alone.

From my brute nature,^10a Lord, deliver me,
And from this life of evil set me free;
Purge me of my own sense and ignorance,
And make me lose my very self in Thee.

When poor indeed and dead to self thou'lt need
No visions, knowledge, certitude, or creed;
When self has perished naught but God remains,
For “Perfect poverty is God indeed”.^10b

Self-annihilation consists in this, that through the overpowering influence of the Very Being upon the inner man there remains no consciousness of aught beside Him. Annihilation of annihilation consists in this, that there remains no consciousness even of that unconsciousness. It is evident that annihilation of annihilation is involved in [the very notion of] annihilation. For if he who has attained annihilation should retain the least consciousness of his annihilation, he would not be in the state of annihilation, because the quality of annihilation and the person possessing such quality are both things distinct from the Very Being, the “Truth” most glorious. Therefore, to be conscious of annihilation is incompatible with annihilation.^10c

While fondness for your “self” you still retain,
You'll not reduce its bulk a single grain—
Yea, while you feel one hair's-breadth of yourself
Claims to annihilation are but vain.

Unification¹¹ consists in unifying the heart—that is to say, in purifying it and expelling from it attachment to all things other than the “Truth” most glorious, including not only desire and will, but also knowledge and intelligence. In fact, one must quench desire of all things hitherto desired, and cease to will what one has hitherto willed, and also remove from the intellectual vision all concepts and all cognitions, and turn away the mind from all things whatsoever, so that there remains no consciousness or cognition of aught save the “Truth” most glorious. Khwāja 'Abdullāh Anṣārī said: “Unification is not merely believing Him to be One, but in thyself being one with Him.”^11a

“Oneness” in pilgrims' phraseology
Is from concern with “other” to be free;
Learn, then, the highest “station” of the birds,^11b
If language of the birds be known to thee.

So long as a man remains imprisoned in the snare of passions and lusts, it is hard for him to maintain this close communion [with the “Truth”]. But from the moment that sweet influence takes effect on him, expelling from his mind the firebrand of vain imaginations and suggestions, the pleasure he experiences therefrom predominates over bodily pleasures and intellectual enjoyments. Then the painful sense of effort passes away, and the joys of contemplation take possession of his mind; he banishes from his heart all alien distractions, and with the tongue of ecstasy murmurs this canticle—

Like bulbul I'm inebriate with Thee,¹²
My sorrows grow from memories of Thee,
Yet all earth's joys are dust beneath the feet
Of those entrancing memories of Thee.

When the true aspirant perceives in himself the beginnings of this Divine attraction, which consists in experiencing pleasure whenever he thinks of the “Truth” most glorious, he ought to exert all his endeavours to develop and strengthen this experience, and simultaneously to banish whatever is incompatible therewith. He ought to know, for instance, that even though he should employ an eternity in cultivating this communion, that would count as nothing, and he would not have discharged his duty as he ought.

On my soul's lute a chord was struck by Love,
Transmuting all my being into love;
Ages would not discharge my bounden debt
Of gratitude for one short hour of love.

The essence of the “Truth” most glorious and most exalted is nothing but Being. His^12a Being is not subject to defect or diminution. He is untouched by change or variation, and is exempt from plurality and multiplicity; He transcends all manifestations, and is unknowable and invisible. Every “how” and “why” have made their appearance through Him; but in Himself He transcends every “how” and “why”. Everything is perceived by Him, while he is beyond perception. The outward eye is too dull to behold His beauty, and the eye of the heart is dimmed by the contemplation of His perfection.

Thou, for whose love I've sacrificed existence,
Art, yet art not, the sum of earth's existence;
Earth lacks true Being, yet depends thereon—
Thou art true Being: Thou art pure existence.

The Loved One is quite colourless,¹³ O heart;
Be not engrossed with colours, then, O heart:
All colours come from what is colourless,
And “who can dye so well as God”,^13a O heart?

By the word “existence”^13b is sometimes meant simply the state of being or existing, which is a generic concept or an abstract idea. Taken in this sense, “existence” is an “idea of the second intention”,^13c which has no external object corresponding with it. It is one of the accidents of the “quidity”^13d [or real nature of the thing], which exists only in thought, as has been proved by the reasonings of scholastic theologians and philosophers. But sometimes “existence” signifies the Real Being, who is Self-existent, and on whom the existence of all other beings depends; and in truth there is no real objective existence beside Him — all other beings are merely accidents accessory to Him, as is attested by the intuitive apprehension of the most famous Gnostics and “Men of Certitude”. The word [“existence”] is applicable to the “Truth” most glorious in the latter sense only.

Things that exist to men of narrow view
Appear the accidents to substance due;
To men of light substance is accident,
Which the “True Being” ever doth renew.¹⁴

The attributes are distinct from the Real Being in thought, but are identical with Him in fact and reality. For instance, the Real Being is omniscient in respect of His quality of knowledge; omnipotent in respect of His power; absolute in respect of His will. Doubtless, just as these attributes are distinct from each other in idea, according to their respective meanings, so they are distinct from the Real Being; but in fact and reality they are identical with Him. In other words, there are not in Him many existences, but only one sole existence, and his various names and attributes are merely His modes and aspects.

Pure is Thy essence from deficiency,
Expressed its “how” and “where” can never be;
Thy attributes appear distinct, but are
One with Thy essence in reality.

The Real Being, quâ Being, is above all names and attributes, and exempt from all conditions and relations. The attribution to Him of these names only holds good in respect of His aspect towards the world of phenomena. In the first manifestation, wherein He revealed Himself, of Himself, to Himself, were realized the attributes of Knowledge, Light, Existence, and Presence. Knowledge involved the power of knowing and that of being known; Light implied those of manifesting and of being manifest; Existence and Presence entailed those of causing to exist and of being existent, and those of beholding and of being beheld. And thus the manifestation which is a characteristic of Light is preceded by concealment; and concealment, by its very nature, has the priority over, and is antecedent to, manifestation; hence the concealed and the manifested are counted as first and second.

And in like manner in the case of the second and third manifestations, etc., as long as it pleases God to continue them, these conditions and relations always go on redoubling themselves. The more these are multiplied, the more complete is His manifestation, or rather His concealment. Glory be to Him who hides Himself by the manifestations of His light, and manifests Himself by drawing a veil over His face. His concealment has regard to His pure and absolute Being, while His manifestation has regard to the exhibition of the world of phenomena.

“O fairest rose,¹⁵ with rosebud mouth,” I sighed,
“Why, like coquettes, thy face for ever hide?”
He smiled, “Unlike the beauties of the earth,
Even when veiled I still may be descried.”

Thy face uncovered would be all too bright,
Without a veil none could endure the sight;
What eye is strong enough to gaze upon
The dazzling splendour of the fount of light?

When the sun's banner blazes in the sky,
Its light gives pain by its intensity,
But when 'tis tempered by a veil of cloud
That light is soft and pleasant to the eye.

The first Epiphany¹⁶ is a pure unity and a simple potentiality, which contains all potentialities, including not only that of being unconditioned by modes and qualities, but also that of being conditioned thereby. Viewed as unconditioned by modes and qualities, including even the potentiality of being thus unconditioned, it is the stage termed “Unity”; and so possesses Concealment, Priority, and Existence from eternity. On the other hand, when viewed as conditioned by modes and qualities, it is the stage termed “Singleness”, and in this aspect it is marked by Manifestation, Posteriority, and Duration to all eternity. Among these modes of the stage “Singleness”, some are such that the qualification of the One Being by them has regard to the stage called the “Whole”,^16a whether they imply the realization in the universe of things corresponding to the names “Creator” and “Sustainer”, etc., or merely attributes, such as Life, Knowledge, and Will. This is the class of attributes which pertain to the Divinity and the Sovereignty. The forms under which the One Real Being is conceived, when clothed with these names and attributes, are the “divine substances”.^16b The clothing of the outward aspect of Beings^16c with these forms does not necessitate multiplicity of beings. Other modes are such that the qualification of the One Real Being by them has relation to the various grades of “mundane existences”,¹⁷ as, for instance, Difference, Property,^17a and the phenomena which distinguish external objects from one another. The forms under which the One Real Being is conceived, when clothed with these modes, are “the mundane substances”,^17b and the clothing of the outward aspect of Being with these forms does necessitate a multiplicity of beings. Among these mundane substances, some are such that when Being, considered in the stage of the “Unity of the Whole”,^17c is interfused in them, and His effects and properties manifest themselves therein, these substances have the potentiality of being theatres exhibiting all the Divine names—save those peculiar to the Divine Essence— according to the varying strength of the manifestations, which may be powerful or feeble, irresistible or defeasible. These are the perfect individuals of the human race— to wit, prophets and saints. Others, again, are such that they have the potentiality of being theatres exhibiting only some of the Divine names, and not all of them, according to the aforesaid varying strength of the manifestation. These are the rest of the human race.

The Majesty of the One Real Being, viewed under the aspect of the “Unity of the Whole”, which comprehends all His modes, both Divine and mundane,^17d is for ever immanent in all these substances, and manifesting Himself in them. These substances are the parts of the whole Unity, whether they exist in the world of spirits or in that of “ideas”,^17e in the sensible and visible world, in the world that now is, or in that which is to come. The final Cause¹⁸ of all this process is the realization or manifestation of the perfection of the Divine names, which is termed jalā and istijlā. Jalā signifies their outward manifestation according to their various modes; and istijlā their display to the Deity Himself, according to these same modes. Jalā is a visible and intelligible manifestation or representation, just as the whole is represented by its parts. Contrariwise, the perfection of the Divine Essence is the manifestation of the One Real Being to Himself, for Himself, without relation to anything beside Himself. This is a secret and intelligible manifestation.

Absolute self-sufficiency is a quality involved in Divine Perfection. It signifies this, that in a general and universal manner all the modes, states, and aspects of the One Real Being with all their adherent properties and qualities, in all their presentations, past, present, or future, manifested in all grades of substances, Divine and mundane, are present and realized in the secret thought of that Divine Being, in such wise that the sum of them all is contained in His Unity. From this point of view He is independent of all other existences, as it is said, “God most glorious can do without the world”^18a —

The robe of Love is independent, free
From need to soil with dust its purity;
When Actor and Spectator are the same
What means this “we” and “thou”? There is
no “we”.^18b

All modes and attributes of Very Being
Are realized and present in that Being;
To see them He needs not contingent beings:¹⁹
'Tis the contingent needs the Very Being.

He needs not to see good and ill set out,
The One needs not to count its numbers out;^19a
The Truth can view all things within Himself;
What need, then, to review them all without?

When you abstract the appearances and characteristics of the individual which constitute the various species included in the genus “animal”,^19b the individuals are gathered up into their respective species. When, again, you abstract the characteristics of each species, i.e. their “differences” and “properties”, all such species are gathered up into the reality of the genus “animal”. Again, when you abstract the characteristics of the genus “animal” and those of all other genera included in the higher genus “growing body”, all such genera coalesce under that genus “growing body”. So when you abstract the characteristics of “growing body”, and all other genera included along with it under the higher genus “body”, all such genera are united in the reality of the genus “body”. Furthermore, when you abstract the characteristics of “body” and those of all other genera included therewith in the higher genus “substance”, to wit, the “intelligences” and “souls”, all such genera will be united in the reality of the higher genus “substance”; so when you abstract the characteristics distinctive of “substance” and “accident”, these two genera are united into the [reality of the genus] “contingent”. Finally, when you abstract the characteristic distinctions of “contingent” and “necessary”, these two are united in the “Absolute Existence”, which is the veritable Being, existing of Himself, and not through another being beyond Himself. “Necessity” is His external quality, and “Contingency” His internal quality—i.e. they are the “archetypal ideas”²⁰ generated by His self-revelation to Himself when assuming His “modes”.

All these distinctions, whether called “difference” and “property” or “appearances” and “characteristics”, are “Divine Modes”, contained and involved in the “Unity of the One Real Being”. First, these modes are represented under the form of the “archetypal ideas” in the stage called the “Divine Thought” (or knowledge);^20a in the next place, in the stage of the “sensible world”, when clothed with the properties and attributes of external existence—which is the theatre of manifestation, a mirror reflecting the inner Divine Being—these modes assume the forms of external objects.

It follows, therefore, that in the external world there is only One Real Being, who, by clothing Himself with different modes and attributes, appears to be endued with multiplicity and plurality to those who are confined in the narrow prison of the “stages”, and whose view is limited to visible properties and results.

Creation's book I studied from my youth,
And every page examined, but in sooth
I never found therein aught save the “Truth”,
And attributes that appertain to “Truth”.

What mean Dimension, Body, Species,
In Mineral, Plant, Animal degrees?
The “Truth” is single, but His modes beget
All these imaginary entities.

When one says that the multiplicity of things is comprehended in the Unity of the One Real Being, this does not mean that they are the parts contained in an aggregate, or as objects contained in a receptacle, but that they are as the qualities inherent in the object qualified or as consequences flowing from their cause. Take, for instance, the half, the third, the fourth, and other fractions up to infinity, which are potentially²¹ contained in the integer, one, though not actually manifested until they are exposed to view by repeating the various numbers and fractions.

It follows from this that when one says that the “Truth” most glorious comprehends all beings, the meaning is that He comprehends them as a cause comprehends its consequences, not that He is a whole containing them as His parts, or a vase containing things within it. God is too exalted above everything which is unworthy to touch the threshold of His holiness.^21a

These modes^21b are in the essence of the “Truth”,
Like qualities which qualify the “Truth”;
But part and whole, container and contained,
Exist not where God is, who is the “Truth”.

The manifestation or concealment of the modes and facets—in other words, the circumstance that the outward aspect of Being does or does not clothe Himself with them —causes no change in the “substance” of such Being or in His essential attributes, but only a change in His connexions and relations, which, in fact, necessitates no change in His essence. For instance, if 'Amr gets up from the right of Zaid and goes and sits down on his left the relation of Zaid to 'Amr in respect to position will be changed, but his essence and his inherent qualities will remain unchanged.

Thus, the One Real Being underlying all outward existence does not become more perfect by clothing Himself with noble forms, nor does He degrade Himself by manifestation in inferior theatres. Although the light of the sun illuminates at once the clean and the unclean, yet it undergoes no modifications in the purity of its light; it acquires neither the scent of musk nor the colour of the rose, the reproach of the thorn nor the disgrace of the rugged rock.

When the sun sheds his light for all to share,
It shines on foul things equally with fair;
Fair things do not augment its radiance,
Nor can foul things its purity impair

The Absolute does not exist without the relative, and the relative is not formulated without the Absolute; but the relative stands in need of the Absolute, while the Absolute has no need of the relative. Consequently, the necessary connexion of the two is mutual, but the need is on one side only, as in the case of the motion of a hand holding a key and that of the key thus held.

O Thou whose sacred precincts none may see,
Unseen Thou makest all things seen to be;
Thou and we are not separate, yet still
Thou hast no need of us, but we of Thee.

Moreover, the Absolute requires a relative of some sort, not one particular relative, but any one that may be substituted for it. Now, seeing that there is no substitute for the Absolute, it is the Absolute alone who is the “Qibla” of the needs of all relatives.

None by endeavour can behold Thy face,
Or access gain without prevenient grace;²³
For every man some substitute is found,
Thou hast no peer, and none can take Thy place.

Of accident or substance Thou hast naught,
Without constraint of cause Thy grace is wrought;
Thou canst replace what's lost, but if Thou'rt lost,
In vain a substitute for Thee is sought.

It is in regard to His essence that the Absolute has no need of the relative. In other respects the manifestation of the names of His Divinity and the realization of the relations of His Sovereignty are clearly impossible otherwise than by means of the relative.

In me Thy beauty love and longing wrought:
Did I not seek Thee how couldst Thou be sought?
My love is as a mirror in the which
Thy beauty into evidence is brought.

Nay, what is more, it is the “Truth” who is Himself at once the lover and the beloved, the seeker and the sought. He is loved and sought in His character of the “One who is all”;^23a and He is lover and seeker when viewed as the sum of all particulars and plurality.^23b

O Lord, none but Thyself can fathom Thee,
Yet every mosque and church doth harbour Thee;
I know the seekers and what 'tis they seek—
Seekers and sought are all comprised in Thee.

The substance of each individual thing may be described either as the epiphany of Very Being²⁴ in the “intelligible world”, according to the particular facet whereof such thing is the monstrance, or as Very Being Himself made manifest immediately,^24a in the same intelligible world and according to the same facets. Consequently, each existing thing is either an epiphany of Very Being with the colour imparted to its exterior by the particular properties of its substance, or the Very Being Himself immediately made manifest with the same colouring.

The real substance of everything always abides, though concealed in the inner depth of the Very Being, while its sensible properties are manifest to outward sense. For it is impossible that the Divine “Ideas”^24b in the intelligible world should be susceptible of evanescence, as that would involve atheism. [God is too exalted for such evanescence to be ascribed to His “Ideas”.]^24c

We are the facets and the modes of Being,
Evolved “Ideas”^24d —accidents of Being;
We're hidden in the cloak of non-existence,
But yet reflected in the glass of Being.^24e

^24f [Consequently, everything is in reality and in fact either Being made manifest or an accident of Being thus manifested. The manifested accident is a quality of the manifested Being, and though in idea the quality is different from the thing qualified, yet in fact it is identical with it. Notwithstanding the difference in idea, the identity in fact justifies the attribution.²⁵

In neighbour, friend, companion, Him we see,
In beggar's rags or robes of royalty;
In Union's cell or in Distraction's haunts,^25a
There's none but He—by God, there's none but He.^25b]

Although the Very Being underlying all existence communicates Himself to all beings, both those in the intelligible and those in the sensible world, yet He does so in different degrees [some superior to others]. And in each of these degrees He has certain names, attributes, and modes, applicable to that particular degree and not to the others; e.g. the names Divinity and Sovereignty [are not applicable] to the degrees called Subordination and the Creature-state. Consequently, to apply the names “Allah” and “the Merciful”, etc., to created beings is sheer infidelity and heresy. And, similarly, to apply the names suitable to grades of created things to the Deity is the height of misconception and delusion.

O you who deem yourself infallible,
In certitude a very oracle,^25c
Each grade of beings has its proper name:
Mark this, or you'll become an infidel.^25d

The Real Being is One alone, at once the true Existence and the Absolute. But He^25e possesses different degrees.

In the first degree He is unmanifested and unconditioned, and exempt from all limitation or relation. In this aspect He cannot be described by epithets or attributes, and is too holy to be designated by spoken or written words; neither does tradition furnish an expression for His Majesty, nor has reason the power to demonstrate the depth of His perfection. The greatest philosophers are baffled by the impossibility of attaining to knowledge of Him; His first characteristic is the lack of all characteristics, and the last result of the attempt to know him is stupefaction.²⁶

To you convictions and presumptions wrought
By evidence intuitive are naught;
How can one prove your own reality
To such as you who count all proofs as naught?

However great our heavenly knowledge be,
It cannot penetrate Thy sanctuary;
Saints blest with visions and with light divine
Reach no conceptions adequate to Thee.

Our love,^26a the special grace of souls devout,
To reason seems a thing past finding out;
Oh, may it bring the dawn of certitude,
And put to flight the darksome hours of doubt!

The second degree is the self-display of Very Being in an epiphany containing in itself all the active, necessary, and divine manifestations, as well as all the passive, contingent, and mundane manifestations. This degree is named the “First Emanation”,^26b because it is the first of all the manifestations of the Very Being; and above it there is no other degree than that of the “Unmanifested”.

The third degree is named the “Unity of the Whole Aggregate”,²⁷ which contains in itself all the active and efficient manifestations. It is named the degree of “Divinity”.^27a

The fourth degree is the manifestation in detail of the degree named Divinity; it is the degree of the names and the theatres wherein they are manifested. These two last-named degrees refer to the outward aspect of Being wherein “necessity”^27b is a universal condition.

The fifth degree is the “Unity of the Whole Aggregate”, which includes all the passive manifestations whose characteristic is the potentiality of receiving impressions, i.e. passivity. It is the degree of mundane existence and contingency.^27c

The sixth degree is the manifestation in detail of the preceding degree; it is the degree of the sensible world.^27d These two last degrees refer to the exterior of the intelligible world,^27e wherein contingence is one of the invariable qualities. It consists of the revelation of the Divine Mind to Himself under the forms of the substances of the contingent.

Consequently, in reality there is but One Sole Being, who is interfused in all these degrees and hierarchies which are only the details of the Unity (“Singleness”).^27f “Very Being” in these degrees is identical with them, just as these degrees when they were in the Very Being were identical therewith. [“God was, and there was not anything with Him.”]^27g

The “Truth” appears in all; wouldst thou divine
How with Himself He doth all things combine?
See the wine-froth: the wine in froth is froth,
Yet the froth on the wine is very wine.

'Tis the bright radiance of Eternity
That lights Not-being, as we men may see;
Deem not the world is severed from the “Truth”:
In the world He's the world, in Him 'tis He.

The “Truth of truths”, which is the essential, most exalted Divine Being, is the Reality in all things. He is One in Himself, and “unique” in such wise that plurality cannot enter into Him; but by His multiple revelations and numerous phenomenal displays He is sometimes presented under the form of substantial independent entities,²⁸ and at other times under the form of accidental and dependent entities.^28a Consequently, the One Essential Being appears as multiple by reason of the numerous qualities of these substances and accidents, although in point of fact He is “One”, and is in no wise susceptible of numbers or plurality.

Rase the words “this” and “that”; duality
Denotes estrangement and repugnancy;
In all this fair and faultless universe
Naught but one Substance and one Essence see.^28b

This unique Substance, viewed as absolute and void of all phenomena, all limitations, and all multiplicity, is the “Truth”. On the other hand, viewed in His aspect of multiplicity and plurality, under which He displays Himself when clothed with phenomena, He is the whole created universe. Therefore the universe is the outward visible expression of the “Truth”, and the “Truth” is the inner unseen reality of the universe. The universe before it was evolved to outward view was identical with the “Truth”; and the “Truth” after this evolution is identical with the universe. Nay, more, in reality there is but One Real Being; His concealment [in the Divine Mind] and His manifestation [in the sensible world], His priority and His posteriority [in point of time], are all merely His relations and His aspects. “It is He who is the first and the last, the exterior and the interior.”²⁹

In the fair idols, goal of ardent youth,
And in all cynosures^29a lies hid the “Truth”;
What, seen as relative, appears the world,
Viewed in its essence is the very “Truth”.

When in His partial modes Truth shone out plain,
Straightway appeared this world of loss and gain;
Were it and all who dwell there gathered back
Into the Whole, the “Truth” would still remain.^29b

The Shaikh^29c (may God be well pleased with him) says in the Faṣṣ i Shu'aibī, that the universe consists of accidents all pertaining to a single substance, which is the Reality underlying all existences. This universe is changed and renewed unceasingly at every moment and at every breath. Every instant one universe is annihilated and another resembling it takes its place, though the majority of men do not perceive this, as God most glorious has said: [“But they are in doubt regarding the new creation.”^29d]

Among Rationalists³⁰ no one has perceived this truth with the exception of the Asharians,^30a who recognize it in certain departments of the universe, to wit, “accidents,” as when they say that accidents exist not for two moments together; and also with the exception of the Idealists,^30b called also Sophists, who recognize it in all parts of the universe, whether substances or accidents. But both these sects are in error in one part of their theory. The Asharians are wrong in asserting the existence of numerous substances—other than the One Real Being underlying all existence—on which substances, they say, depend the accidents which continually change and are renewed. They have not grasped the fact that the universe, together with all its parts, is nothing but a number of accidents, ever changing and being renewed at every breath, and linked together in a single substance, and at each instant disappearing and being replaced by a similar set. In consequence of this rapid succession, the spectator is deceived into the belief that the universe is a permanent existence. The Asharians themselves declare this when expounding the succession of accidents in their substances as involving continuous substitution of accidents, in such wise that the substances are never left wholly void of accidents similar to those which have preceded them. In consequence of this the spectator is misled into thinking that the universe is something constant and unique.^30c

The ocean does not shrink or vaster grow,
Though the waves ever ebb and ever flow;
The being of the world's a wave, it lasts
One moment, and the next it has to go.

In the world, men of insight may discern
A stream whose currents swirl and surge and churn,
And from the force that works within the stream
The hidden working of the “Truth” may learn.

As regards the Sophists, though they are right in asserting the ideality of the whole universe, they are wrong in failing to recognize the Real Being underlying it, who clothes Himself with the forms and accidents of the sensible universe and appears to us under the guise of phenomena and multiplicity; likewise in denying any manifestation of Real Being in the grades of visible things under the guise of these forms and accidents, whereas in truth these accidents and forms are only manifested to outward view by the operation of that underlying Real Being.

Philosophers devoid of reason find
This world a mere idea of the mind;
'Tis an idea—but they fail to see
The great Idealist who looms behind.

But the men gifted with spiritual intuition see that the Majesty of the “Truth”, most glorious and most exalted, reveals Himself at every breath in a fresh revelation,³¹ and that He never repeats the same revelation; that is to say, He never reveals Himself during two consecutive moments under the guise of the same phenomena and modes, but every moment presents fresh phenomena and modes.

The forms which clothe existence only stay
One moment, in the next they pass away;
This subtle point is proven by the text,
“Its fashion altereth from day to day.”^31a

The root of this mystery lies in the fact that the Majesty of the “Truth” most glorious possesses “names” opposed³² to one another, some being beautiful and some terrible; and these names are all in continuous operation,^32a and no cessation of such operation is possible for any of them. Thus, when one of the contingent substances, through the concurrence of the requisite conditions, and the absence of opposing conditions, becomes capable of receiving the Very Being, the mercy of the Merciful takes possession of it, and the Very Being is infused^32b into it; and the Very Being thus externalized,^32c through being clothed with the effects and properties of such substances, presents Himself under the form of a particular phenomenon, and reveals Himself under the guise of this phenomenon. Afterwards, by the operation of the terrible Omnipotence which requires the annihilation of all phenomena and all semblance of multiplicity, this same substance is stripped of these phenomena. At the very moment that it is thus stripped this same substance is reclothed with another particular phenomenon, resembling the preceding one, through the operation of the mercy of the Merciful One. The next moment this latter phenomenon is annihilated by operation of the terrible Omnipotence, and another phenomenon is formed by the mercy of the Merciful One; and so on for as long as God wills. Thus, it never happens that the Very Being is revealed for two successive moments under the guise of the same phenomenon. At every moment one universe is annihilated and another similar to it takes its place. But he who is blinded by these veils, to wit, the constant succession of similar phenomena and like conditions, believes that the universe constantly endures in one and the same state, and never varies from time to time.

The glorious God, whose bounty, mercy, grace,
And loving-kindness all the world embrace,
At every moment brings a world to naught,
And fashions such another in its place.

All gifts soever unto God are due,
Yet special gifts from special “names” ensue;
At every breath one “name” annihilates,
And one creates all outward things anew.

The proof that the universe is nothing more than a combination of accidents united in a single essence, i.e. the “Truth” or Very Being, lies in the fact that when one comes to define the nature of existing things these definitions include nothing beyond “accidents”. For example, when one defines man as a “rational animal”; and animal as a “growing and sentient body, possessed of the faculty of voluntary movement”; and body as a “substance possessing three dimensions”; and substance as an “entity which exists per se and is not inherent in any other subject”; and entity as “an essence possessed of reality and necessary being”—all the terms used in these definitions come under the category of “accidents”, except this vague essence which is discerned behind these terms. For “rational” signifies an essence endued with reason; “that which is growing” signifies an essence endued with the faculty of growth; and so on. This vague essence is, in fact, the “Truth”, the Very Being, who is self-existent, and who causes all these accidents to exist. And when the philosophers allege that these terms do not express the differences themselves, but only the invariable marks of these differences whereby we express them, because it is impossible to express the true differences otherwise than by these invariable marks or others more recondite still, this assumption is inadmissible and undeserving of serious attention. And even if we admit it as a hypothesis, we affirm that whatever is essential in relation to special substances is accidental in relation to the Very Truth; for though this alleged essential quality is part of the essence of a particular substance, it is extraneous to the Very Truth upon whom it is dependent. And to say that there is any substantial entity other than the One Essential Being is the height of error, especially when the spiritual intuition of the men of truth, which is borrowed from the lamp of prophecy, attests the contrary,³⁴ and when their opponents cannot cite any proofs in favour of their own view. [“God saith what is true, and directeth man in the right path.”^34a]

Truth is not proved by terms and demonstrations,
Nor seen when hidden by concrete relations;^34b
The “Canon” is no “Cure” for ignorance,
Nor can “Deliv'rance” come from “Indications”.^34c

If at each “Stage” thy course diverted be
To different “Goals”, true goal thou'lt never see;
And till the veil is lifted from thine eyes
The sun of Truth will never “Rise” for thee.^34d

Strive to cast off the veil, not to augment
Book-lore: no books will further thy intent.
The germ of love to God grows not in books;
Shut up thy books, turn to God and repent.

The completest mask and the densest veils of the beauty of the One Real Being are produced by the manifold limitations which are found in the outward aspect of Being and which result from His being clothed with the properties and effects of the archetypes indwelling in the Divine Knowledge,³⁵ which is the inner side of Being. To those blinded by these veils it seems that the archetypes exist in these outward sensible objects, whereas in point of fact these outward objects never attain a particle^35a of those real archetypes, but are and will always continue in their original not-being. What exists and is manifested is the “Truth”, but this is only in regard to His being clothed with the properties and effects of the archetypes, and not in regard to His condition when bare of all these properties; for in this latter case inwardness and concealment are amongst His inherent qualities. Consequently, in reality the Very Being never ceases to abide in His Essential Unity, wherein He was from all eternity and wherein He will endure to all eternity. But to the vulgar, who are blinded by these veils, the Very Being seems to be relative and phenomenal, and wearing the form of the multiplicity of these properties and effects, and He seems manifold to such persons.

Being's a sea in constant billows rolled,^35b
'Tis but these billows that we men behold;
Sped from within, they rest upon the sea,
And like a veil its actual form enfold.

Being's the essence of the Lord of all,
All things exist in Him and He in all;
This is the meaning of the Gnostic phrase,
“All things are comprehended in the All.”

³⁶ [When one thing is manifested in another, the thing manifested is different from the thing which is the theatre of the manifestation—i.e. the thing manifested is one thing and its theatre another. Moreover, that which is manifested in the theatre is the image or form of the thing manifested, not its reality or essence. But the case of the Very Being, the Absolute, is an exception, all whose manifestations are identical with the theatres wherein they are manifested, and in all such theatres He is manifested in His own essence.

They say, How strange! This peerless beauty's face
Within the mirror's heart now holds a place;^36a
The marvel's not the face, the marvel is
That it should be at once mirror and face.

All mirrors in the universe I ween
Display Thy image with its radiant sheen—
Nay, in them all, so vast Thy effluent grace,
'Tis Thyself, not Thine image, that is seen.

The “Truth”, the Very Being, along with all His modes, His attributes, connexions, and relations, which constitute the real existence of all beings, is immanent in the real existence of each being. Hence it has been said, “The All exists in all things.” The author of the Gulshan i Rāz says:

“If you cleave the heart of one drop of water
There will issue from it a hundred pure oceans.”^36b]

Every power and every act manifested as proceeding from the theatres of manifestation proceed in reality from the “Truth” manifested in these theatres, and not from the theatres themselves. The Shaikh (may God be well pleased with him) says in the Ḥikmat i 'Aliyya:³⁷ “Outward existence ('ain) can perform no act of itself; its acts are those of its Lord immanent in it; hence this outward existence is passive, and action cannot be attributed to it.” Consequently, power and action are ascribed to the creature ('abd) because of the manifestation of the “Truth” under the form of the creature, and not because such action is really effected by the creature himself. [Read the text: “God hath created thee, both thee and the works of thy hands”],^37a and recognize the fact that thy existence, thy power, and thine actions come from the Majesty of Him who has no equal.^37b

Both power and being are denied to us,
The lack of both is what's ordained for us;
But since 'tis He who lives within our forms,
Both power and action are ascribed to us.

Your “self” is non-existent, knowing one!
Deem not your actions by yourself are done;
Make no wry faces at this wholesome truth—
“Build the wall ere the fresco is begun.”

Why vaunt thy “self” before those jealous eyes?^37c
Why seek to deal in this false merchandise?
Why feign to be existent of thyself?
Down with these vain conceits and foolish lies!

Since the qualities, states, and actions manifested in the theatres are in reality to be ascribed to the Very Being manifested in those theatres, it follows that if a certain evil or imperfection is found in any of them, it may possibly be caused by the non-existence of something else; for Being, quâ Being, is pure good; and whenever it seems to us that something existent contains evil, that is owing to the lack of something else which ought to exist, and not to the really existing Being, quâ Being.³⁸

All good and all perfection that you see
Are of the “Truth”, which from all stain is free;
Evil and pain result from some defect,
Some lack of normal receptivity.

Philosophers have alleged that the proposition “Very Being is pure good” is a necessary (self-evident) one.^38a By way of illustration, they have given some examples. Thus, they say cold, which spoils the fruit and is an evil in relation to the fruit, is not an evil [absolutely], because it is one of the qualities [of Being], and in this respect one of His perfections; but [it is evil] because it prevents the fruit attaining the perfection proper to it. Thus, too, killing, which is an evil, is not an evil by reason of the murderer's power of killing, nor by reason of the power of the instrument to cut, nor of the liability of the body of the person killed to be cut; but [it is an evil] because it deprives a person of life, which is the mere negation [of something positive];^38b and so on.

Wherever Being's ambit doth extend,
Good and nought else but good is found, O friend;
All evil comes from “not-being”, to wit,
From “other”, and on “other” must depend.^38c

Shaikh Ṣadr-ud-dīn Qūniavī (may God sanctify his secret) says in the book Nuṣūṣ:³⁹ “Knowledge is one of the qualities pertaining to Being; that is to say, that every existing substance is endued with knowledge; and the difference in the degrees of knowledge results from the differences of these substances in their reception, whether perfect or imperfect, of Being. Thus a substance capable of receiving Being in a most complete and perfect way is capable of receiving knowledge in the same way; and that which is only capable of receiving Being imperfectly is endued with knowledge in the same degree. This difference originates in the stronger or weaker influence of ‘necessity’^39a or ‘contingency’ over each substance. In every substance in which the influence of ‘necessity’ is the stronger, Being and knowledge are most perfect; in the remainder, in which the influence of ‘contingency’ is more prevalent, Being and knowledge are more imperfect.”

It would seem that what the Shaikh states as to knowledge specially being a quality appertaining to Being is meant to convey one example only, because all the other perfections which are likewise qualities pertaining to Being, such as life, power, will, etc., are in the same position as knowledge.

Certain other [Ṣūfīs] have said: “No single existent thing is without the quality of knowledge”; but knowledge is of two kinds, one ordinarily called knowledge and the other not so called. Both kinds, according to the men of truth, belong to the category of knowledge, because they recognize the immanence of the essential knowledge of the “Truth” most glorious and most exalted in all things whatsoever. It is in the second class that we must place “water”, for example, which is not ordinarily considered as possessed of knowledge. But we see that it distinguishes between up and down hill; it avoids the rise and runs downwards; again, it sinks into porous bodies, whilst it only wets the surface of dense bodies and passes over them, etc. Therefore, it is by virtue of the quality of knowledge that it runs, according to the capacity of one object to admit it, and the absence of opposing properties in such objects. But, in this degree, knowledge is manifested only under the form of nature.⁴⁰ In this manner knowledge is immanent in all other existing things; or, rather, all perfections pertaining to Being are immanent in all things without exception.

Being, with all its latent qualities,
Doth permeate all mundane entities,
Which, when they can receive them, show them forth
In the degrees of their capacities.

Just as the “Truth”, the Very Being, in virtue of His absolute purity, is immanent in the substances of all beings in such wise as to be essentially identical with these substances, as these substances are, when in Him, identical with Him; in like manner His perfect qualities are entirely and absolutely immanent in all qualities of the substances in such wise as to be identical with their qualities, even as their qualities when in those perfect qualities were identical therewith. For example, the quality of knowledge, in the knowledge of the knower of particulars,^40a is identical with this knowledge of particulars, and in the knowledge of him who knows universals^40b is identical with this knowledge of universals; in active and passive⁴¹ knowledge it is identical with such knowledge; in ecstatic and mystic^41a knowledge it is identical with that kind of knowledge—similarly down to the knowledge of those beings not ordinarily classed as having knowledge, wherein it is identical with such knowledge in a manner suitable to the character of such beings, and so on for the other Divine attributes and qualities.^41b

Thy essence permeates all entities,
As do Thy attributes all qualities;
In Thee they're absolute, but when displayed
They're only seen in relative degrees.^41c

[^41d The reality of existence is the essence^41e of the “Truth” most glorious and most exalted; the modes, relations, and aspects of existence are His attributes;^41f His manner of manifesting Himself in the vesture of these relations and aspects is His action and His impress;^41g the phenomena manifested and proceeding from this self-revelation are the products of His impress.^41h

Th' essential modes in earth and heavens present⁴¹ⁱ
Facets of Him who's veiled and immanent;
Hence, O inquirer, learn what essence is,
What attribute, what cause, what consequent.]

In some passages of the Faṣūṣ the Shaikh^41j (may God show mercy upon him) seems to point to the view that the existence of all contingent substances and of all perfections dependent on that existence [⁴² is to be ascribed to the Majesty of the “Truth” most glorious and most exalted; whilst in other passages he seems to say that what is ascribed to the Majesty of the “Truth” is merely an emanation^42a of Being; and as regards the qualities dependent on existence, they are effects produced by the substances themselves. These two statements may be thus reconciled: The Majesty of the “Truth” most glorious is revealed in two manners—the first the inward, subjective ^42b revelation, which the Ṣūfīs name “Most Holy Emanation”;^42c it consists in the self-manifestation of the “Truth” to His own consciousness from all eternity under the forms of substances,^42d their characteristics and capacities. The second revelation is the outward, objective manifestation, which is called “Holy Emanation”;^42e it consists in the manifestation of the “Truth”, with the impress of the properties and marks of the same substances.^42f This second revelation ranks after the first; it is the theatre wherein are manifested to sight the perfections which in the first revelation were contained potentially in the characteristics and capacities of the substances.

One grace a host of suppliant forms designed,
A second to each one his lot assigned;
The first had no beginning—of the last,
Which springs from it, no end can be divined.^42g

Wherefore, the ascription of existence and the perfections dependent thereon] to the “Truth” most glorious and most exalted has regard to the two revelations taken together; and the ascription to the “Truth” of existence alone, and of its dependents to the substances, has reference to the second revelation; for the only result of the second revelation is the emanation of Being into the substances, and so making visible what had already been included in them by the first revelation.

Mark well this subtle point—each quality,
Each action that in substances we see,
On one side is attributed to us,
On one to “TRUTH”, the sole Reality.

Whereas my aim and object in giving these explanations and hints has been to call attention to the essential omnipresence of the Majesty of the “Truth” most glorious, and to the immanence of His light in all the grades [of sensible existence], to the end that the pilgrims and aspirants endued with knowledge and reflection may not neglect the contemplation of His Being while preoccupied with any other being, and that they may not forget the consideration of the perfection of His attributes while paying regard solely to the qualities manifested [in the sensible universe], and whereas what has been said above is sufficient for this purpose, and satisfactorily accomplishes this end, I therefore conclude the book at this point, merely adding the following quatrains:—

Jāmī! leave polishing of phrases, cease
Writing and chanting fables, hold thy peace;
Dream not that “Truth” can be revealed by words:
From this fond dream, O dreamer, find release!^43a

Beggars in tattered clothes their rents should hide,
And lovers take discretion for their guide,
And, since words do but veil the Loved One's face,
'Tis well for us in silence to abide.

How long wilt thou keep clanging like a bell?
Be still, and learn this flood of words to quell;
Thou'lt never come to hold the pearl of “Truth”
Till thou art made all ear, as is the shell.⁴⁴

Thou who for grief hast soiled thy weeds with dust,^44a
Soil not thy lips with speech (for soil it must);
While thou canst commune silently with Him,
Rather than speak stop up thy mouth with dust!

This treatise was completed by the help of God and the favour of His grace. May He bless Muḥammad and his family and his companions!

PRAISE be to God, the Creator and Restorer of all things; who does whatsoever He pleases, who is Master of the glorious throne and mighty force, and directs His sincere servants into the right way and the straight path; who favoureth them who have once borne testimony to the Unity by preserving their confessions from the darkness of doubt and hesitation; who directs them to follow His chosen apostle, upon whom be the blessing and peace of God; and to go after his most honourable companions, to whom He hath vouchsafed His assistance and direction, which is revealed to them in His essence and operation by the excellencies of His attributes, to the knowledge whereof no man attains but he that hath been taught by hearing.^47a To these, as touching His essence, He maketh known that He is One, and hath no partner; singular, without anything like Him; uniform, having no contrary; separate, having no equal.^47b He is ancient, having no first; eternal, having no beginning; remaining for ever, having no end; continuing to eternity without any termination. He persists, never ceasing to be; remains without falling; and never did cease, nor ever shall cease, to be described by glorious attributes; nor is subject to any decree so as to be determined by any precise limits or set times, but is the First and the Last, and is within and without.

What God is not.—He, glorified be His name, is not a body endued with form,⁴⁸ nor a substance circumscribed with limits or determined by measure; neither does He resemble bodies, as they are capable of being measured and divided. Neither is He a substance, nor do substances exist in Him; nor is He an accident, nor do accidents exist in Him. Neither is He like to anything that exists, nor is anything like to Him; nor is He determinate in quantity, nor comprehended by bounds, nor circumscribed by differences of situation, nor contained in the heavens. He sits upon the throne, after that manner which He Himself hath described, and in that sense which He Himself means, which is a sitting far removed from any notion of contact, or resting upon, or local situation; but both the throne itself, and whatsoever is upon it, are sustained by the goodness of His power, and are subject to the grasp of His hand.^48a But He is above the throne and above all things, even to the utmost ends of the earth; but so above as at the same time not to be a whit nearer the throne and the heaven; since He is exalted by (infinite) degrees above the throne, no less than He is exalted above the earth, and at the same time He is near to everything that hath being—nay, “nearer to men than their jugular veins, and is witness to everything”^48b — though His nearness is not like the nearness of bodies, as neither is His essence like the essence of bodies. Neither doth He exist in anything,^48c neither doth anything exist in Him; but He is too high to be contained in any place, and too holy to be determined by time; for He was before time and place were created, and is now after the same manner as He always was. He is also distinct from the creatures in His attributes, neither is there anything besides Himself in His essence, nor is His essence in any other besides Him. He is too holy to be subject to change or any local motion; neither do any accidents dwell in Him, nor any contingencies before Him; but He abides through all generations with His glorious attributes, free from all danger of dissolution. As to the attribute of perfection, he wants no addition. As to being, He is known to exist by the apprehension of the understanding; and He is seen as He is by immediate intuition, which will be vouchsafed out of His mercy and grace to the holy in the eternal mansion, completing their joy by the vision of His glorious presence.⁴⁹

His Power.— … His is the dominion and the excellency and the creation and the command.^49a … His excellency consists in His creating and producing, and His unity in communicating existence and the beginning of being. …^49b

His Knowledge.—He knows what is secret and conceals it, and views the conceptions of minds, and the motions of thoughts, and the inmost recesses of secrets by a knowledge ancient and eternal, that never ceased to be His attribute from eternal eternity, and not by any new knowledge superadded to His essence…

His Will.—He doth will those things to be that are, and disposes of all accidents. Nothing passes in the empire or the kingdom, neither small nor great, nor good nor evil, nor profitable nor hurtful, nor faith nor infidelity, nor knowledge nor ignorance, nor prosperity nor adversity, nor increase nor decrease, nor obedience nor rebellion, but by His determinate counsel and decree and His definite sentence and will… He it is who gave all things their beginning; He is the Creator and Restorer, the sole Operator of what He pleases; there is no reversing His decree nor delaying what He hath determined; nor is there any refuge to man from his rebellion against Him but only His help and mercy; nor hath any man any power to perform any duty towards Him but through His love and will.⁵⁰

His Word.—Furthermore, He doth command, forbid, promise, and threaten by an eternal ancient Word subsisting in His essence.^50a Neither is it like to the word of the creatures, nor doth it consist in a voice arising from the commotion of the air or the collision of bodies, nor letters which are separated by the joining together of the lips or the motion of the tongue. The Koran, the Law, the Gospel, and the Psalter are books sent down by Him to His apostles, and the Koran, indeed, is read with tongues, written in books, and kept in hearts; yet as subsisting in the essence of God it doth not become liable to separation and division when it is transferred to hearts and to papers.^50b Thus, Moses also heard the word of God without voice or letter, even as the saints behold the essence of God without substance or accident…

His Works.—He exists after such a manner that nothing besides Him hath any being but what is produced by His operation, and floweth from His justice after the best, most excellent, most perfect, and most just models…^50c

All things were created by Him—genii, men, the devil, angels, heaven, earth, animals, plants, substance, accident, intelligible, sensible. He created them by His power out of mere privation, and brought them into light when as yet they were nothing at all,⁵¹ but He Himself alone existed from all eternity, neither was there any other with Him. Now, He created all things in the beginning for the manifestation of His power and His will and the confirmation of His word, which was true from all eternity. Not that He stood in need of them, nor wanted them, but He manifestly declared His glory in creating and producing and commanding, without being under any obligation nor out of necessity…

He rewards those that worship Him for their obedience on account of His promise and beneficence, not of their merit, nor of necessity, since there is nothing which He can be tied to perform; nor can any injustice be supposed in Him; nor can He be under any obligation to any person whatsoever. That His creatures, however, should be bound to serve Him ariseth from His having declared by the tongues of the prophets that it was due to Him from them. The worship of Him is not simply the dictate of the understanding, but He sent messengers to carry to men His commands and promises and threats, whose veracity He proved by manifest miracles,^51a whereby men are obliged to give credit to them in those things that they relate.^51b

FROM Anaxagoras down to the Stoics the main principle of Greek philosophy was Dualism, the opposition of the One and the many, of God and the universe of objects perceived by the senses.

Thus in an often quoted passage of the Republic Plato says “The ideal Good” (which in the Timœus he calls God) “is not existence (ousia), but is beyond existence”.

Next in the descending scale he placed the “Intelligible World” of Ideas or archetypes, conceived by intuitive reason (Nous). Then came the “Sensible World” of phenomena, which were only copies of the divine archetypes reproduced in matter.⁵² This matter was of itself non-existent (mē on); in fact, a mere potentiality of taking the imprints of the archetypes.

With the Stoics monism made its appearance, and took the place of the previous dualism. For Plato's “Ideas” they substituted Logoi, thoughts, forms, or forces immanent in the universe. And these Logoi were often spoken of as all summed up in one Logos, or divine thought realized in the universe. Most Stoics, like Chrysippus, Cleanthes (quoted by St. Paul), and Marcus Aurelius, were theistic Monists, holding—Jupiter est quodcunque vides, quo-cunque moveris. Others were materialistic Monists, holding matter to be the one real substance, and the Logoi only functions of matter.

Philo, the Alexandrian Jew, who lived at the same time as St. Paul, managed to combine this Logos doctrine with the Hebrew Scriptures.⁵³ By allegorical interpretation he identified the Stoic Logoi with the angels mentioned in the Scriptures, and at the same time he reduced the personal Yahveh of the Scriptures to the abstract Being of Greek philosophy. The Hebrew prophets had almost personified the “Word of the Lord” and “Wisdom”; and Logos, with its double meaning of thought and word (ratio and oratio), was easily identified with “Word” and “Wisdom”. As Dr. Hirschfeld has pointed out, Amr and Kalima underwent a similar process in the Koran.^53a The Logos, having been thus personified, plays a very important part in Philo's system. It becomes the Demiurge or Architect of the world. The metaphor of generation is employed to picture the mode of its operation. Sometimes it is figured as masculine, sometimes as a female agent (epistēmē), but in either case it is one of the parents of the world of phenomena.^53b On the whole it may be said that Philo's leading principles were, first, to remove the Deity far away from any contact with matter, and, secondly, to explain the existence of the world by the hypothesis of intermediate and subordinate agencies through whom the Deity worked, so as not to touch matter Himself.

Hence Philo's system was dualism. And this dualistic tendency was fostered by the growing influence of Manicheism. Manes, who formulated this old Persian dualism, did not live till the third century A.D., but many of the Gnostic sects of the second century A.D. held what were in fact Manichean opinions. And this led some, like Basileides, to emphasize the separation of the Deity from the evil material world. Basileides, for instance, though he firmly believed in God, declared in hyperbolical language that He was ouk ōn, “without existence,” in the sense of the phenomenal existence known to man.⁵⁴ Others, like Valentinus, imagined a series of Æons or intermediate Intelligences, so as to remove the transcendental God as far as possible from contact with matter. These Æons were possibly the prototypes of the Ṣūfī Ten Intelligences and of the Celestial Hierarchies of Dionysius, which supplied the frame of Dante's Paradise.

Plotinus, who lived in the third century A.D., was a mystic who busied himself with philosophy only to seek corroboration of his mystical beliefs. He started with the conviction that the One was all in all, and that all phenomena had no existence apart from it. He tried to reach a conception of the transcendental One by abstracting or stripping off all limitations and conditions incident to phenomenal existence, and by assuming that the residuum was the One. But as this residuum was void of all positive contents, it could not be conceived by common reason, and could be described only in negative terms, as “Unconditional”, “Infinite”, “Incomprehensible” (immensus), and the like. Reason could not say what it was, but only what it was not. His position thus seems to be precisely that of agnosticism, as expounded in H. Spencer's First Principles. But here the resemblance ceases. Plotinus held that the impotence of reason to conceive the Absolute proved that ordinary reason must be entirely discarded in these matters, so as to give free play to the superior faculty of spiritual intuition or intuitive reason (Nous), which alone is competent to deal with them.⁵⁵ This faculty discerns the One to be no mere negation, but a supreme energy of self-manifestation.^55a Without any diminution or decrease of itself the One ever pours forth or rays out effluences. Hence arises an image or reflection of the One in Nous or Reason, the First Emanation, comprehending all being and all thought. From this proceeded in like manner the Second Emanation, called the “World-soul”^55b (Psychē), which acted as the mediator between the supra-sensible and the sensible worlds. This, again, generated the particular souls, human, animal, and vegetive, and, lastly, all inorganic substances. The substratum of all these manifestations of the One in the sensible world was matter, which was non-existent of itself (mē on) and yet the basis of each sensible object (bathos ekastou);^55c in other words it was a mere potentiality of receiving the imprint of the Divine effluences.

The One, the Reason, and the World-soul constitute the so-called Plotinian Trinity, which is one, not of equality but of subordination. Plotinus says Reason (Nous) is the Logos of the One and Soul (Psychē) the Logos of the Reason.^55d

So much for the theory. As regards practice Plotinus held that man's duty was to return to the One.^55e The motive for this return was the love of the divine spark in his soul for its source, and its consequent craving to be reunited therewith. The One was itself unmoved, but attracted its effluents through being the object of their love and desire. The return was to be effected by retracing the downward course into the realm of matter. By what Dionysius later called the “negative way”, the mystic aspirant must abstract and strip off all the material and sensuous accretions which had overlaid his real essence. This was to be effected,⁵⁶ first, by practising civic virtues, next the purifying virtues of ascetism and self-mortification, and finally the deifying virtue of contemplation.^56a At last he would transcend all the barriers separating him from the One, and would be absorbed and reunited with the One. Of this blessed state he could only hope to gain transient glimpses during life, but when the body perished he would abide for ever one with the One. Plotinus sums up by saying this is “the flight of the Alone to the Alone”.

As Dr. Bigg points out, this mystical ascent of the soul is described by Augustine almost in the words of Plotinus:^56b “Thus as we talked and yearned after the eternal life, we touched it for an instant with the whole force of our hearts. We said, then, if the tumult of the flesh were hushed; hushed these shadows of earth, sea, and sky; hushed the heavens and the soul itself, so that it should pass beyond itself and not think of itself: if all dreams were hushed and all sensuous revelations, and every tongue and every symbol; if all that comes and goes were hushed—they all proclaim to him that hath an ear: ‘We made not ourselves; He made us who abideth for ever.’— But suppose that, having delivered their message, they held their peace, turning their ear to Him who made them, and that He alone spoke, not by them, but for Himself, and that we heard His word, not by any fleshly tongue, nor by an angel's voice, nor in the thunder, nor in any similitude, but His voice, whom we love in these His creatures—suppose we heard Him without any intermediary at all—just now we reached out, and with one flash of thought touched the Eternal Wisdom that abides above all. Suppose this endured, and all other inferior modes of vision were taken away, and this alone were to ravish the beholder, and absorb him and plunge him in mystic joy, might not eternal life be like this moment of comprehension?”

This is an admirable statement of the Plotinian “return” to the One.⁵⁷ It also well illustrates the main characteristic of the system—viz., its ultimate dependence on emotion rather than on intellect. Philosophy is only the handmaid of theology, only used to support and justify pre-existing beliefs. When his reason lands him in contradictions, as it must do when it tries to transcend its limits and outsoar the very atmosphere that bears it up, Plotinus straightway falls back on feeling and the inner light. Love and faith are a mighty spell, as Jalāl-ud-dīn Rūmī says,^57a and with Plotinus love and faith are always at hand to supplement the deficiencies of pure intellect.

The best accounts of Plotinus are those of Harnack in his History of Dogma, English translation, i, 247; of Caird in his Evolution of Theology in the Greek Philosophers, ii, 210; and of Whittaker in his Neoplatonists. Opinions differ as to whether he is to be classed as a Monist or as a Dualist. This would depend on whether his “not-being” is to be regarded as nothing or as something. Be this as it may, no one can read his impassioned outpourings without seeing that his theological reasoned statements by no means give the full measure of his beliefs. What he did believe in with a very passion of conviction was a Deity endued in some sense with the principal attributes of a personal God.

“PRAYERS^59a have three veils, whereof the first is prayers uttered only by the tongue; the second is when the mind, by hard endeavour and by firmest resolve, reaches a point at which, being untroubled by evil suggestions, it is able to concentrate itself on divine matters; the third veil is when the mind can with difficulty be diverted from dwelling on divine matters. But the marrow of prayer is seen when He who is invoked by prayer takes possession of the mind of him who prays, and the mind of the latter is absorbed in God whom he addresses, his prayers ceasing and no self-consciousness abiding in him, even to this extent that a mere thought about his prayers appears to him a veil and a hindrance. This state is called “absorption” by the doctors of mystical lore, when a man is so utterly absorbed that he perceives nothing of his bodily members, nothing of what is passing without, nothing of what occurs to his mind—yea, when he is, as it were, absent from all these things whatsoever, journeying first to his Lord, then in his Lord. But if the thought occurs to him that he is totally absorbed, that is a blot; for only that absorption is worthy of the name which is unconscious of absorption.

“I know these words of mine will be called an insipid discourse by narrow theologians, but they are by no means devoid of sense. Why? The condition of which I speak is similar to the condition of the man who loves any other things—e.g. wealth, honour, pleasures; and, just as we see some engrossed by love, we see others overpowered by anger so that they do not hear one who speaks, or see one who passes, and are so absorbed by their overwhelming passion that they are not even conscious of being thus absorbed. For so far as you attend to the absorption of your mind, you must necessarily be diverted from Him who is the cause of your absorption…

“And now, being well instructed as to the nature of ‘absorption’, and casting aside doubts, do not brand as false what you are unable to comprehend. God most high saith in the Koran: ‘They brand as false what they do not comprehend.’ The meaning of ‘absorption’ having been made clear, you must know that the beginning of the path is the journey to God and that the journey in God is its goal, for in this latter, absorption in God takes place. At the outset this glides by like a flash of light, barely striking the eye; but thereafter, becoming habitual, it lifts the mind into a higher world, wherein the most pure essential Reality is manifested, and the human mind is imbued with the form of the spiritual world, whilst the majesty of the Deity evolves and discloses itself. Now, what first appears is the substance of angels, spirits, prophets, and saints, for a while under the veil of I know not what beautiful forms, wherefrom certain particular verities are disclosed; but by degrees, as the way is opened out, the Divine Verity begins to uncover His face. Can anyone, I ask, who attains a glimpse of such visions, wherefrom he returns to the lower world disgusted with the vileness of all earthly things, fail to marvel at those who, resting content with the deceits of the world, never strive to ascend to sublimer heights?”

A very similar doctrine is taught by the writer calling himself Dionysius the Areopagite, who has been recently identified with Stephen bar Sudaili, a Syrian monk.⁶⁰

He says the soul, following what he calls “the negative way” or method of abstraction, “after completing its ascent into that region of being which, from its very sublimity, is to the impotent human intellect a region of obscurity, becomes completely passive, the voice is stilled, and man becomes united with the Ineffable Being.”⁶¹ “Then is he delivered from all seeing and being seen, and passes into the truly mystical darkness of ignorance, where he excludes all intellectual apprehensions and abides in the utterly Impalpable and Invisible; being wholly His who is above all, with no other dependence, either on himself or any other; and is made one, as to his nobler part, with the utterly Unknown, by the cessation of all knowing; and at the same time, in that very knowing nothing, He knows what transcends the mind of man.”^61a This is simply a restatement of the doctrine of Plotinus.^61b