Page 1
FROM MYSTICISM TO PHILOSOPHY (AND BACK): AN ONTOLOGICAL HISTORY OF THE SCHOOL OF THE ONENESS OF BEING
CANER K. DAGLI
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY IN CANDIDACY FOR
THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
RECOMMENDED FOR ACCEPTANCE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF NEAR EASTERN STUDIES
JUNE, 2006
Page 2
UMI Number: 3208826
32088262006
Copyright 2006 byDagli, Caner K.
UMI MicroformCopyright
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
All rights reserved.
by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
Page 3
Copyright by Caner K. Dagli, 2006. All rights reserved.
Page 4
iii
FROM MYSTICISM TO PHILOSOPHY (AND BACK): AN ONTOLOGICAL HISTORY OF THE SCHOOL OF THE ONENESS OF BEING
CanerK.Dagli
Abstract
IntheearlyhistoryofIslam,philosophy,theology,andtheteachingsoftheSufis
didnotoverlapinanyimportantway,butthiswouldeventuallychange.IbnSīnā(d.1037),amongothers,providedMuslimthinkerswithalanguageformetaphysicalspeculationandwasopentomysticalideashimself.AbūḤāmidal-Ghazālī(d.1111),inrefutingphilosophicalrationalism,paradoxicallyforcedmainstreamtheologytoadoptthelanguageofphilosophy.Suhrawardī(d.1191),thefounderoftheIlluminationist(ishrāqī)tradition,madethefirstgrandattemptataphilosophicalandmysticalsynthesis.IbnʿArabī(d.1240)providedanontologyandepistemologywithinthebosomoftheIslamictextualtraditionandSufism.Iarguethattheearlydiscoursesbetweenphilosophy,theology,andmysticisminIslamsetthestageforasynthesisofphilosophicallanguage,religioussensibility,andmysticalideasinlatercenturies.
OneofthemostunstudiedfacetsofthisconvergenceistheperiodofSufismandphilosophyfollowingIbnʿArabīandleadinguptoMullāṢadrā(d.1650).Throughacloseexaminationoftheirgradualadoptionofthetechnicallanguageofontology,ItracetheattemptsoffourgenerationsofmysticstoincorporatetheprevailingphilosophicalandtheologicallanguageofIslam.IshowthattheassociationoftheschoolofIbnʿArabīwiththeconceptofwaḥdatal-wujūdwasmorecomplexthancommonlythought,sincetheearlymembersofthisschooldonotseemtotreatwujūdor“existence/being”asanimportantconceptinitsownright.ThischangesgraduallyastheseSufithinkersenterintodialoguewithphilosophyandtheologywithanincreasedlevelofsophistication.TheresultingfusionofIbnʿArabī’smysticaldoctrineswiththematureformofIslamicPeripateticphilosophypresagesthegrandsynthesisofMullāṢadrā,whobeganfromthepointofviewofphilosophyandincorporatedthemysticalworldview.Icallthistraditionofmysticsandphilosophers,“TheSchooloftheOnenessofBeing(waḥdatal-wujūd).”
Page 5
iv
TableofContentsIntroduction vChapterOne:ProblemsofIdentitybetweenMysticismandPhilosophy 1ChapterTwo:WujūdandTashkīk,andtheCorrespondencebetweenQūnawīandṬūsī 36ChapterThree:Jandī’sUseofwujūdandRelatedConcepts 65ChapterFour:Kāshānī,Conditioning,andtheOntologicalArgument 74ChapterFive:QayṣarīandtheLanguageofPhilosophy 87ConcludingRemarks 114Bibliography 117
Page 6
v
Introduction
Thisworkaddressestheconnectionbetweenamysticandaphilosopherwhowere
separatedbyaperiodoffourcenturies.IbnʿArabī(d.1240)1wasoneofthetoweringfiguresofIslamicmysticismandamongSufisstillbearsthetitleofal-shaykhal-akbar,“thegreatestmaster.”InrecentdecadestherehasbeenatremendousgrowthinthescholarshiponthelifeandwritingsofIbnʿArabī.Infact,itisnoexaggerationtosaythatasaresultofthescholarlyactivityofthelasttwodecadesIbnʿArabīisoneofthemostextensivelystudiedfiguresinIslamicthought.OnlyfiguressuchasAbūḤāmidal-GhazālīandIbnSīnāhavehadsimilarattentionpaidtotheirworksandinfluence.JamesMorrishasopinedthat,aswithPlatointhewesternphilosophicaltradition,allofIslamicthoughtafterIbnʿArabīcanbeseenasfootnotestohiswork.PerhapslesshyperbolicandmorerealisticistheclaimthattherehasbeennoIslamicthinkerofgreaterinfluencesincehistime. MullāṢadrāwasthemostinfluentialphilosopherafterIbnSīnā,andsomehaveconsideredhimtobethegreatestphilosopherinthehistoryofIslamicthought.AswithIbnʿArabī,inthelasttwodecadesconsiderablescholarshiphasbeendevotedtoṢadrā,withnewtranslationsofhisworkbeingpublishedonaregularbasis.Itmaynotbeimmediatelyclearwhatconnectionamysticandphilosopherseparatedbyaperiodoffourhundredyearscouldhave.ṢadrāwasaPersianwhocameoutofaShīʿīphilosophicalmilieu,aproductoftheSchoolofIṣfahān,whileIbnʿArabīwasaSunniArabmysticwhoclaimednottohavemuchtasteforphilosophy.However,manyoftheideasandfoundationalprinciplesoftheschoolofIbnʿArabīwereincorporatedintoṢadrā’sal-ḥikmahal-mutaʿāliyahandindeedcanbearguedtobethebasisofitinmanyrespects.ThisisoftenoverlookedduetotheoverwhelmingprecisionandclarityofṢadrāascomparedwiththedensityandmanifoldsymbolismofthewritingsofIbnʿArabī.Yetthetwoarelinked,asindeedarelaterSufismandphilosophyingeneral,andthislinkitwhatisatleastpartiallyaddressedinthisthesis. BetweenIbnʿArabīandMullāṢadrāthereweremanyphilosopherswhobegantoincorporatedifferentsystemsofthoughtintotheirownphilosophy.Forexample,Quṭbal-DīnShīrāzī(d.1311)wasastudentofthePeripateticphilosopherNaṣīral-Dīnal-Ṭūsī(whowillbediscussedinthesecondchapter),butisalsosaidtohavestudiedwithṢadral-Dīnal-Qūnawī(alsodiscussedinthesecondchapter)andwasamajorreviveroftheIlluminationistphilosophyofSuhrawardī.AnotherexampleisʿAllāmahal-Ḥillī,anotherstudentofṬūsī’swho,besideshisrenowninImamitheologyandlaw,issaidtohavestudiedtheideasofIbnʿArabīinBaghdadwithShamsal-DīnKīshī(d.1296).AfterthetimeofDāwūdal-Qayṣarī(thesubjectofchapterfive)therewasḤaydarĀmulī(d.after1385),forwhomSufismandShīʿismweremanifestationsofthesamerealityandwhose 1Inthescholarlyliterature,hisnameappearsbothasIbnʿArabīandIbnal-ʿArabī.InhistwomajorstudiesChittickusestheformer(withthedefinitearticle“al-”)butinsomearticlesitappearswithoutitasinHistoryofIslamicPhilosophyeditedbyNasrandLeaman,whichcouldbeduetoediting.AccordingtoChittick,IbnʿArabīhimselfandhis“school”alwaysusedthedefinitearticle.TheİslamAnsiklopedisialsousesthedefinitearticle.MajidFakhry,M.Chodkiewicz,A.Schimmel,J.Morris,O.Yahia,A.ʿAfīfīandA.KnyshuseIbnʿArabī,withoutthedefinitearticle.
Page 7
vi
writingsappeartoflowquiteorganicallyfromthekindofphilosophicalSufismpresentedbyQayṣarī.StillanotherexampleisIbnTurkahal-Iṣfahānī(d.1432),whoacenturyafterQayṣarīattemptedtobringtogetherPeripatetic,Illuminationist,andSufithoughtinthecontextofShīʿism. Now,whilemuchscholarshiphasbeendevotedtotheperiodleadinguptoIbnʿArabī,andtothephilosophyofMullāṢadrāitself,considerablylessattentionhasbeengiventothisinterveningperiod.Indeed,the14th-16thcenturiesstillmakeuponeofthemostunstudiedperiodsintermsofphilosophyandmysticism.AnyoneofthefourmembersoftheschoolofIbnʿArabīdiscussedinthefollowingchapterscouldbetheobjectofaseriousmonograph.Moreover,thereisamuchlargercommunityofwriterswhocouldbecalledAkbarians(followersofal-Shaykhal-Akbar)whoarenottreatedhere,suchasTilimsānī,Farghānī,ʿIrāqī,Fenari,andmanyothers.
AfterthefirstchapterinwhichIdiscussthescholarlyunderstandingofwhat“mystical”and“philosophical”meanintheIslamiccontext,ItracethedevelopmentofontologyfromIbnʿArabī’smostprominentdisciple,Qūnawī,throughtothefifth-generationdiscipleDāwūdal-Qayṣarī.Thisisbasedonacloseandcarefulreadingoftheirtexts,withfocusontheiruseofthefamilyofontologicaltermsusedintheAkbariantradition.Thisisnotastudyofaparticularthinkernorevenofagroupofthinkers.Itismeanttotracethedevelopmentofagroupofideaswhichfallundertheheadingofontology.Thustherelevantcontextforeachofthesewritersisprimarilyintellectual,notculturalorhistorical,whichistosaythatitisQūnawī’scontactwithṬūsīthatmatters,nottheparticularitiesofhishistoricalsituation. OftenindiscussingtheschoolofIbnʿArabīastaticapproachisadopted,whichistosaythatthedoctrinesoftheschool,eventhoughitsexponentscouldbeseparatedbycenturies,aretakenasafixedbodyofdoctrines.WhileitistruetosaythatthefundamentalvisionofrealityofferedbyIbnʿArabīremainsthesameintheAkbarianschoolevenuntilthepresentday,thewayinwhichthatvisionisexplainedbegantochangefromtheveryfirstgenerationofhisdisciples.Evenbeforewecometolaterhistoricaldevelopment,thereisanobviouspluralityofexpositioneveninIbnʿArabī’sownvastbodyofwritingitself,sinceitistruetosaythatIbnʿArabīhasseveraldifferentontologiesandcosmologies.Theydifferinrepresentingdifferentwaysofexpressingthesameunderlyingreality,buttheexpressioncantaketheformofthesymbolismofthealphabetorsometimesalanguageverysimilartothatofPeripateticphilosophy. Whenthesuccessivegenerationsofdiscipleswentaboutadjustingtheirstyleandcontentofexpositionaccordingtotheirstatedofunstatedgoals—forexample,makingIbnʿArabī’sthoughtmoreunderstandabletothegeneralintellectualelite—thechangesthattheymadewerenotalwaysannounced.WhenQūnawīoroneofhissuccessorschangetheemphasistheyplacedonaparticularconceptsuchastaʿayyun(identification),ormodifiedthewayinwhichtheyusedwujūd(existence)orintroducednewconceptstoexplaintheestablishedideasoftheirschool,theydonotrevealitbylettingusknowthatIbnʿArabīsaidthusandsoandthattheyfinditmorehelpfultoexplainitanotherway.Thereisneveranyadmissionorhintintheirwritingsthatanydevelopmentistakingplaceatall.Indeed,intheultimatesenseitistruetosaythatthereisno“development”becausethefundamentalinsightsarenotchanging,butthelanguageandthewaytheinsightsareofferedupdoindeedchange,andthisturnsouttobeofthegreatestsignificance.
Page 8
vii
TheAkbariansareofcourseawareofwhocamefirstandknowtheirownintellectualheritage,buttheirrelationshipwiththepastisusuallyonlymentionedinopeningremarkspraisingtheirteacherorinmentioningthepositionofapredecessor.AsisusualinthehistoryofIslamicthought,quotationsandparaphrasesareoftenleftwithoutattribution.ButinthecaseoftheAkbarianswearenoteventalkingaboutcitingthepositionexplainedbyapastauthorinordertosupportorrefuteit.Iftheyhadanyconsciousnessthattheywere“improving”anypartoftheexpositionofIbnʿArabī’smetaphysics,ontology,andcosmology,theycertainlymakenomentionofit.Unlessonewereexpertinthewritingsofthisschool,onewouldbehardpressedtoidentifywhatcenturyaparticularworkwaswrittenin. ThuspartofthepurposeoftheworkathandistotracktheprogressoftheseunannouncedchangesinthewaytheAkbarianstalkedaboutoneofthemanyfieldstheycover:ontology.Thisisimportantforseveralreasons.Firstofall,thereisacommonidentification—onewhichbegancenturiesagointheIslamicworlditself—betweenIbnʿArabīandhisschoolandthephrasewaḥdatal-wujūdor“theonenessofexistence.”ThisisafacilelinkageandamisleadingoneifwewishtounderstandwheretheAkbarianschoolbeganandhowitdevelopedasfaraswujūdisconcerned.Thephrasewaḥdatal-wujūdappearsnowhereinIbnʿArabī’swritings,andappearstwicethatIknowofinQūnawī’swritings,whereitsmentionishardlymomentous.TothinkthatIbnʿArabīsomehowstartedoutwiththenotionofwaḥdatal-wujūdinhismindandthensetouttoproveitagainstotherpositionsonwujūdistomisrepresentwhatheconsideredtobeimportant.Waḥdatal-wujūdlendsitselfeasilytopolemicsandhasacertainpoeticqualitysoattractivetoIslamicauthorswhenassigninglabelstothings,butitisnotwhatIbnʿArabīfundamentallycaredabout.Theimplicationofthelabelwaḥdatal-wujūdisthatIbnʿArabīwasacompetingvoiceinthespectrumofphilosophicalvoicesonquestionsofontology.Thishecertainlywas,butnotforthesakeofcomingupwitha“correct”ontology,sinceforhimtherewasnoquestionofanytrulycorrectviewofthingsoutsideoftheprocessofspiritualrealization.Remember,IbnʿArabīwasfirstandforemost(andultimately)aSufi,andwaḥdatal-wujūdcouldbenothingmoretohimthananintellectualkeythatmightassistsomeonewhowastreadingthespiritualpath.Hismetaphysicsof“theoneandthemany”consistsofmanifoldmeditationsonthenatureofrealityandofman’srelationshipwithGod.Aswillbediscussedinthefirstchapter,hisencounterswithphilosophyonthissubjectdonotsupporttheideathateither“existence”oritsonenesswereprimaryforhim.IdonotwishtounderstateIbnʿArabī’sdoctrineof“existence,”sinceitisanimportantpartofhisthought,butitisnottheonlypartandIwouldarguenoteventhemostimportantpart.Onegoalofthisthesisistoshowthatthelabelofwaḥdatal-wujūdismoreappropriatelyappliedtothelatermembersoftheschool,especiallyQayṣarī. Second,thedevelopmentofontologyismeanttounfoldoneofthemainpointsdiscussedinthefirstchapter,namelythatthelinebetweenphilosophyandmysticismcannotalwaysbeclearlydrawn.IfweacceptIbnʿArabīaloneasarepresentativeofhisschoolofthought,thenthelinebetweenphilosophyandmysticismisrelativelyclear,butifwebringtheentiretyoftheAkbarianschoolintothepicture,thelinebeginstofadeaway.IbnʿArabīwasnophilosopherintheordinarysense,neitherapractitioneroffalsafahnorthelaterḥikmah.Qūnawīwasmuchlikehismaster,buthehadmoreofthephilosopherinhim.Kāshānīwasalreadybuildingstrongbridgesbetweenphilosophy
Page 9
viii
andmysticalideas,andanewdepthoffusionbetweenthemoccursinthewritingsofQayṣarī. “WhatisIslamicaboutIslamicphilosophy?”isnotaquestionthisthesisaddressesfullybutithopefullyhelpslaythefoundationsforananswer.SufismisamultifacetedphenomenoninIslam,andsomemanifestationsofitwerealwaysmorereadilyacceptedthanothers.However,exceptinrarecasesSufismassuchisnotrejectedbyanysectorintheIslamicworld.EvenIbnTaymiyyahwasamemberofaSufiorder;hisargumentwaswithcertainvulgarizedandalsoexcessivelyspeculativedimensionsofmysticism(especiallyIbnʿArabī,whoseal-Futūḥātal-MakkiyyahhepraiseduntilhereadtheFuṣūṣ).ThetechnicalterminologyofSufismhasalwaysbeenstronglyQurʾānic,indeedarguablythemostQurʾānicofanyofthedisciplinesinIslam.SomeofthegreatestIslamicluminarieshavebeenSufisorhavespokenwellofSufism.SomeformofSufismisalmostuniversallyacceptedinclassicalIslamiccivilization. Thesamecouldnotbesaidofphilosophy,especiallyintheearlyperiod.TherewasverylittletheMuslimcontemporariesofKindīandFārābīcouldrecognizeintheirheavilyGreek-influencedwritings.ThephilosopherswerebyandlargeasmallandelitegroupwhoseIslamiccredentials,atleastintheeyesofthecommunity,werenotverystrongascomparedtothejuristsandthetheologians,andeventheSufis.ThetriumphofAshʿarismoverMuʿtazilizmandGhazālī’seffectivecritiqueoftherationalismofthephilosophersdidnotleavemuchroomforfalsafahintheemergingjuridical-theologicalconsensus(atleastintheSunniworld).Philosophywaslargelyexcluded,whileSufismwaslargelyacceptedbutwithvariableconditionsfor“orthodoxy”dependingonwhomyouasked.Taṣawwufwasbasicallyindigenous,falsafahbasicallyforeign.IfsomeoneasapttorejectmysticismasIbnTaymiyyahcanrecommendtheFutūḥāt,theplaceofSufismintheIslamicmainstreamcanreasonablybeassumed. Thefirstchapterdescribesthewayinwhichthedynamicsbetweenphilosophy,mysticism,andtheologybegantochangeinthefourth/eleventhandfifth/twelfthcenturies.TheremainingchaptersexaminecloselyonestrandofwhatIbelievetobeaconvergencebetweentheseseparatezonesinIslamicthought.Asthemysticsgrapplewithphilosophicallanguagewithincreasingsuccess,theyneverlosetheirinherentlyspiritualsensibilityandtheircontactandoccupationwiththeQurʾānandthefundamentalprinciplesoftaṣawwuf.Themostimportantpartofthisisthat,nomatterhowclosetothephilosopherstheycome,theroleofreasonneverwinsprideofplace.PartofGhazālī’sgeniuswastoassurethatreasonwouldalwaysbesubordinateeithertotherevelation(waḥy)ortotrueinspiration(ilhām),thelatterpremisedupontheauthorityoftheformer.BothcamefromGod,andpossessedaspiritualauthoritywhichhumanreasoncouldneverhave. BythetimewereachQayṣarī,wehaveasystemofthoughtstronglyrootedinSufismbutwhichadoptedasystematiclanguageofphilosophy.Aswillbediscussedinthefirstchapter,thisprocesshadalreadytakenplaceandwouldcontinuetoacertaindegreeinkalām.Qayṣarī’ssynthesisiscenteredaroundontology,thoughhedoesdiscussmatterspertainingtologicandtocosmologyasitconcernsphilosophy.IargueinChapterFivethatQayṣarī’sbasicontologicalvisionisnotdifferentinsubstanceorformfromthe“revolutioninontology”tobecarriedoutbyṢadrāthreecenturieslater.ThesignificanceofthisliesintheabsenceofanyrealbarrierinQayṣarī’swritingbetweenmattersrelatingproperlytotaṣawwufandthespiritualpathinIslam,suchasunveiling,
Page 10
ix
theinterpretationofdreams,andsainthood;mattersof“theological”importancesuchasprophethoodandjinn;andanontologyexpressedlargelyinalanguageestablishedbythePeripatetics.Qayṣarī’sal-Muqaddimāt,unlikesomeofhispredecessors’work,isnotahousewithmanyrooms,somedevotedtophilosophyandmostotherstomysticism;hisisonegreatroomwithmanycornersallvisibletoeachother.Thismetaphorshouldhopefullybecomemoreclearasthediscussionofthesethinkersunfolds. ThisisneitherastudyofIbnʿArabīnorofMullāṢadrā.Theyratherformthebackground,bothprospectiveandretrospective,oftheideasdiscussedhere—retrospective,inthesensethattheAkbarianmetaphysicaltraditionfromQūnawītoQayṣarīwhichIdiscusshereisthoroughlyfoundedonIbnʿArabī’slanguageandhisvision,andprospectiveinthesensethatbythetimewereachQayṣarīthereseemstobeverylittledaylightbetweentheAkbarianexpositionofontologyandthewaḥdatal-wujūdofMullāṢadrā.ThedifferenceisthatṢadrā’sphilosophicalsystemismuchmorevastandencompassingthanQayṣarī’s,andaddressesahugenumberofissuestheAkbariansnevertouchupon.TheinfluenceoftheAkbarianschooluponMullāṢadrāisassumedratherthanproveninthisthesis,sincetodemonstratethisindetailwouldrequireaseparatemonograph.Evenifitcanbeshownthatthecommonontologyiscoincidence,theconvergenceisstillremarkableandimportantforwhatitsaysabouttherelationshipbetweenphilosophyandSufism.-TheroleofthecommentariesupontheFuṣūṣal-ḥikam Aswillbecomeclearasthisworkprogresses,muchofthematerialrelevanttothecrossoverbetweenmysticismandphilosophycomesoutofthetraditionofcommentaryupontheFuṣūṣal-ḥikamofIbnʿArabī.RecallthatIbnʿArabīwrotehundredsofbooks,someshorterthanothers,buthislargestiseasilyal-Futūḥātal-Makkiyyah,whichisakindofencyclopediaofhisideasandalsoofhisobservationsoftheSufisofhisday.Itisfullofpoetry,stories,commentaryupontheQurʾān,andmoreprosaicsubjectssuchasthesignificanceandproperpracticeofthecanonicalprayer.ItisbaseduponhisextensiveworkintheFutūḥātthatChittickhasarguedthatthephilosophicalwayofspeakingaboutthingsisonlyoneofthemanywaysinwhichIbnʿArabīappliedhispentoquestionsofthereligiousandspirituallife.ThewritingsofJamesMorrisandMichelChodkiewiczaretwoofthebestexamplesofscholarswhohavenotfocusedonthephilosophicalbuthavechosentobringoutthemoremystical,experiential,andphenomenologicalpointofview.Corbin,whoknewtheFuṣūṣwell,wasalsoanexampleofthis,butscholarshavequestionedhowtransparentlyIbnʿArabīcomesoutthroughthisscholar-philosopher’swritings.TheyhaveastheirresourceahealthyportionofIbnʿArabī’swritings,especiallythevoluminousFutūḥāt.Chittickhasbeenmorebalanced,andattheveryleasthaspaidseriousattentiontothephilosophicaldimensionofIbnʿArabī’swritingsinadditiontostudyingothervastandrepresentativesectionsofhistotalcorpus. However,itisduelargelytotheattentionpaidtothephilosophical,synthesizingdimensionoftheFuṣūṣbyQūnawīandhisintellectualdescendantsthattomanyhewasknownasṢāḥibal-fuṣūṣ,andnotṢāḥibal-futūḥāt.OneofthemostobviousfeaturesoftheFutūḥātisthatitisverylarge(severaltimesaslargeasGhazālī’sIḥyāʾ),andtomyknowledgenoonehasevertriedtowriteanythinglikeasystematiccommentaryonit.Thisislikelyduetothesheerenormityofsuchanundertakingandthefactthatthe
Page 11
x
Futūḥāt,forallitscomplexitiesanddifficulties,canlargelybereadmeaningfullyonitsownbyareaderreasonablywellversedinthetraditionalIslamicdisciplines.TheFuṣūṣ,however,isarelativelyshortwork,about180pagesinthecriticaledition,anditisforthemostpartwell-nighimpossibletodecipherwithoutadeepfamiliaritywithIbnʿArabī’sotherwritings,adetailedcommentaryonthetext,and/oratraditionalteacherofthetext.Also,itisaworkthatoftengivescenterstagetodiscussionsofontologyandepistemology,andspendsalmostnotimeontheactualpracticeofthespirituallifeorthecultivationofthevirtues,atraditionalmainstayofSufiauthors.Themetaphysicaldiscussionsaregenerallypithyandnotfleshedout,andasChittickhasremarkedonIbnʿArabī’swritingsingeneral,theideasaregenerallyintheirfullydevelopedform;thereislittlepedagogyintheFuṣūṣ.Thisbrief,pithy,andesotericnaturethusmakestheFuṣūṣanidealvesselforthatoftenmostoriginalformofliteraryexpressioninIslamicintellectualhistory,thecommentary.Interestingly,inrelationtotheFutūḥāttheFuṣūṣhasservedtwoseparateandcontradictoryfunctions.Asmentionedabove,evensomeoneassensitivetothefoiblesofSufismasIbnTaymiyyahlookedfavorablyupontheFutūḥātandconsidereditsreadingtobeaspirituallybeneficialexercise.2HisobjectionstoIbnʿArabīreallystemfromtheboldand(seemingly)antinomianassertionsintheFuṣūṣ,onthebasisofwhichheexcoriatesIbnʿArabī.Themorebalancedandself-explanatoryFutūḥāt—withitsmanysectionsonthefivepillars,asceticism,andobediencetotheLaw—didnotseemtotroublehim.ButtheFuṣūṣwasanimportantstartingpointforthecenturiesofphilosophicalelaborationbegunbyQūnawīandculminating,Iwillargue,inDāwūdal-Qayṣarī.Itwaspreciselybecauseitwasbrief,difficult,andcontroversialthattheFuṣūṣbecameakindoftemplateforthephilosophicalspeculationsandelaborationsofhisschool.AFuṣūṣcommentarywaswrittenbyQūnawī,thenbyQūnawī’sdiscipleMuʾayyadal-DīnJandī,thenbyJandī’sdiscipleʿAbdal-Razzāqal-Kāshānī,thenbyKāshānī’sdiscipleDāwūdal-Qayṣarī,inacontinuouslineofspiritualandintellectualsuccession.LatercommentariesincludethoseofʿAbdal-RaḥmānJāmī3andʿAbdal-Ghanīal-Nābulusī.4 ThefamousopeningpassagefromthechapteronAdamfromtheFuṣūṣreads:
TheRealwilled,glorifiedbeHe,invirtueofHisBeautifulNames,whichareinnumerable,toseetheiridentities—ifyousowishyoucansay:toseeHisIdentity—inacomprehensivebeingthatcomprisesthewholeaffairinsofarasitispossessedofexistenceandHisMysteryismanifesttoHimselfthroughit.Forthevisionathinghasofitselfinitselfisnotlikethevisionathinghasofitselfinanotherthing,whichwillbelikeamirrorforit;indeed,HeismanifesttoHimselfinaformaccordedbythelocusseen,whichwouldnothavemanifestedtoHimwithouttheexistenceofthatlocusandHisself-disclosuretoit.5
2“AtfirstIwasamongthosewhoheldagoodopinionofIbn‘Arabiandpraisedhimhighlyfortheusefuladviceheprovidesinhisbooks.Thisusefuladviceisfoundinthepagesofthe‘Revelations’[Futūḥāt]…andsimilarwritings.Atthattime,wewereunawareofhisrealgoal,becausewehadnotyetstudiedtheFususandsuchlikebooks.”QuotedinIbn‘ArabiintheLaterIslamicTraditionbyA.Knysh(NewYork,1999),96.3Naqdal-nuṣūṣfīsharḥNaqshal-fuṣūṣ,ed.WilliamChittick(Tehran1977).ThisisactuallyacommentaryuponasummaryoftheFuṣūṣwrittenbyIbnʿArabīhimself.4Sharḥjawāhiral-nuṣūṣfīḥallkalimātal-Fuṣūṣ(Cairo,1905).5TheRingstonesofWisdom,tr.CanerDagli(Chicago,2004),3-4.
Page 12
xi
Itisdifficulttoconceiveofapassagemorebafflingtotheuninitiatedreader,noronewhichissobroadinitscompass.Inorderforthispassagetobegraspedonemustknowthetechnicalmeaningof“identity,”“mystery,”“affair,”“comprehensivebeing,”“existence,”“locus,”and“self-disclosure,”whichdoesnotevenaddresstheoddgrammaticalstructureoftheoriginalArabic.Thispassageisnotatypicalinitsdensityandobscurity.Theremainderofthischaptercontainsmoreexposition,allquitedense,aboutmattersofontologyrelatingtothelevelsofrealityandthenatureof“existence.” ItistheveryfactthatsuchpassagesneedtobeexplainedthatmadetheFuṣūṣanaturalconduitfortheAkbarianstostartparticipatinginphilosophy.MostofthecommentariesupontheFuṣūṣ,startingasfarbackasJandī,beginwithanintroductionbythecommentatorwhichclearsthegroundandgivesthereaderabasisforunderstandingeverythingelsethatwillbesaidinthecourseofthetext.Jandī’sintroductioniswide-ranging,whileKāshānī’sbeginstohoneinonmorephilosophicalquestions.WithQayṣarīwehaveawork,al-Muqaddimāt,whichcanbeconsideredanindependentbook,eventhoughitwaswrittenaspreparationforhisowncommentaryupontheFuṣūṣ.ItisnotsurprisingthatmostofthesystematizingeffortstowardsamorephilosophicallanguageappearatthebeginningoftheseworksofcommentaryratherthanscatteredthroughouttheglossesonIbnʿArabī’stext,forthesimplereasonthatanintroductionisnotconstrainedbyhavingtoexplainanytext.Moreover,thefirstparagraphquotedaboveprovidesanyauthorinclinedtodiscussmetaphysicswithanalmostblankcanvas,andapaletteoftechnicaltermswaitingtobeexplainedandrelatedtoeachother.Ofcourse,mypurposehereisnottostudythedevelopmentoftheFuṣūṣcommentariesoreventhegrowthoftheschoolofIbnʿArabīasawhole,buttoexaminethewayinwhichontology,andspecificallytheuseoftheconceptofwujūd,developedfromthetimeofIbnʿArabī’sforemostdiscipleQūnawītothewritingsofQayṣarī.
Page 13
1
ChapterOne:ProblemsofIdentitybetweenMysticismandPhilosophy
Thepurposeofthischapteristoexaminewhatitmeans,intheIslamiccontext,tobemysticaloresotericinrelationtowhatitmeanstobephilosophical,andtothenanalyzethesignificanceofthisdichotomy,realorapparent,infourofthemajorfiguresinthisdiscussion:IbnSīnā(d.1037),AbūḤāmidal-Ghāzalī(d.1111),IbnʿArabī(d.1240),andSuhrawardīal-Maqtūl(d.1191).Thisbroadoverviewismeanttobringtolightthereactionsofmodernscholarshiptotheallegedmysticaland/oresotericcontentofthesefiguresandtoevaluatethevalidityofvariousclaimsmadeontheirbehalfinrelationtotheiridentificationwithphilosophyormysticismorboth.Theargumentoverwhetherthereisarealoppositionbetweenthe“philosophical”andthe“mystical”isimportanttoourunderstandingofthecrystallizationoftheschoolofwaḥdatal-wujūdasitismanifestedinthethoughtofIbnʿArabīandintheTranscendentPhilosophy(al-ḥikmahal-mutaʿāliyah)ofMullāṢadrāandespeciallythelonglineofthinkersinbetween.Aswillbearguedinlaterchapters,thismetaphysicalschoolcanbeclassifiedneitherpurelyasphilosophynoraspuremysticism,ifweunderstandthesetermsastheyareoftenemployedinmodernscholarship.Moreoverthesefourthinkers,inadditiontorepresentingdifferentpossibilitiesoftheinteractionbetweenrationalphilosophyandthemysticalorspirituallife,eachhadacrucialroletoplayinlaterIslamicthought,andespeciallyintheformationofwhatwewillrefertointhisthesisastheschoolofwaḥdatal-wujūd.Laterchapterswillbeaclosestudyofhowthepeculiarwujūd-basedontologyofthisschooldevelopedoverthecenturiesbetweenIbnʿArabīandMullāṢadrā(d.1640),andhowitwasheavilyinfluencedbyallofthefiguresdiscussedinthischapter.Fornow,ourpurposeistosituatemysticismandphilosophyinrelationtoeachotherandtodescribehowthesethinkerssetthestageforwhatwouldcomelater.-DefiningMysticism
AlthoughtherearemanydefensesaffordedtofiguressuchasAvicennaandSuhrawardīagainstassociationswithesoterismandmysticism,rarelyisaworkingdefinitiongivenofwhatitmeansforanideaoramodeofexpressiontobe“esoteric”or“mystical.”1TypicalofthistrendtodisassociatephilosophyfrommysticismisthefollowingstatementofD.GutasregardingAvicenna'sphilosophicalsystem,“Itis…self-consistentandunified,andthereforefreeofanyothermysticaloresotericaspect—howeverthesetermsareunderstood—thatwouldrepresentadifferentformorbodyofknowledgeandcreateadichotomywithinthesystem(italicsmine).”2Theuseof“therefore”createsanecessarysplitbetweensomethingthatisself-consistentonone
1Speakingofpost-GhazālīIslamicthought,FazlurRahmansaid,“[M]ostleadingscholarsinthisactivity,have,throughtheirownspiritualproclivities,beenledtoemphasizetheSufiandesotericsideofthisliteratureatthecost,asIbelieve,ofitspurelyintellectualandphilosophicalhardcore,whichisofimmensevalueandinteresttothemodernstudentofphilosophy.Ihavetriedtoclarifythis…withreferencetoṢadrāwhoishardlyesotericorSufi,althoughhedoesemphasizeintellectualintuitionvis-à-vispurelylogicalreasoning,”(ThePhilosophyofMullāṢadrā,Albany,1975,vii).ConsideringthecontentofṢadrā’sworksasawhole,especiallyhisal-Shawāhidal-rubūbiyyahandtheintroductiontohismagnumopustheAsfār,thisisaboldclaim,andnoreasonisgivenastowhytheattributeofesotericorSufidoesnotapply.2D.Gutas,“Avicenna:Mysticism,”EncyclopediaIranica,III,79.
Page 14
2
handandesotericand/ormysticalontheother.Thequestionablepartofthisassertionisthatthedefinitionofmysticismoresoterismisconsideredtobequiteimmaterialtothefactthatitisnotanypartoftheself-consistentorunifiedbodyofthought.Indeed,Gutastellsusthatanynormalsenseofmysticaloresoteric(“howeverthesetermsareunderstood”)willdotoplaceit.Theoppositewillbearguedhere,namelythatitiseminentlyimportanttodefinetheprecisenatureofmysticismisoneisgoingtospillmuchink—asGutashas3—inrepudiatingtheslightestinklingofthisentitycalled“mysticism”havingaplaceinanypartofAvicenna’scorpusofwritings.OverlookingtheneedtolayoutaworkingdefinitionofwhatmysticalmeansintheIslamiccontextleavespartlyambiguoustheargumentofthosewhobelievethatthemysticalelementisatbestatrespasserontheterritoryofrealphilosophy.
Tobeginwith,“mystical”and“esoteric”areWesternEuropeanwordsbothofGreek4origin,andinmodernlanguageshavebeenformedlargelywithasensibilitytothereligioustraditionofChristianityanditsownuniquemanifestationsofspirituality.Moreover,‘mystical’translatesnosinglewordfromArabicorPersian.IndiscussingmysticismintheIslamiccontext,orinevaluatingitsrole,weoughttofirstplaceourselvesinthelanguageofdiscourserelevanttotheplaceandtimes.Wehavetermssuchassulūk(traveling),ʿirfān(gnosisorknowledge),taṣawwuf,ʿishq(love),zuhhād(ascetics),ʿubbād(piousdevotees)muḥaqqiqūn(menofrealization),ʿurafāʾ(knowersorgnostics),ṭarīqah(path),bāṭin(inward),andsoforth,allofwhichhavesomethingtodowithwhatwemightrefertotodayasmysticaloresoteric.IbnʿArabīwashimselfavictimofterminology;alreadythepossessorofmysticalvisionsforseveralyears,hehadyettohearofthewordtaṣawwuforreadoneofthemajortreatisesoftheSufis.Moreover,theSufisprobablyhavehadagreatervarietyofnamesintheIslamictraditionthananyothercomparablegroup.EvenIbnʿArabīrarelycallsthemSufis;heprefersahlal-ḥaqq,al-tāʾifah,ahlAllāh,ʿurafāʾ,andmuḥaqqiqūn.ThemostexaltedofspiritualmenarenotevenreferredtobyhimasSufisatall,butasmalāmiyyah.Thephilosophersoflatertimes(afterthetimeofNaṣīral-Dīnal-Ṭūsī)usuallyreferredtotheirmetaphysicalcolleaguesamongtheSufisastheʿurafāʾandalsoasmuḥaqqiqūn,whilethelatterreferredtothephilosophersasḥukamāʾandnotfalāsifah.Insomeplaces,suchasmoderndayIranandTurkey,wherethewordtaṣawwufhasgraduallytakenonapejorativeconnotation,ʿirfān(Iran)orehl-etarik(Turkey)areoftenused.Thewordssālikandsulūkareusedbyawidevarietyofwriters,fromIbnTaymiyyahtoMullāṢadrā.ItisverytypicalforMuslimwriterstosaythatSufisusedtobecalledzuhhād,andthenʿubbādandlatertookonthenameofṣūfī.Thetermṣūfīisnotuniversallyused,andwhenitisitdoesnotalwayscarrypreciselythesamemeaning.ForIbnʿArabīaṣūfīisamid-levelsaint,butforothersṣūfīistheblankettermforanyonewhobelongstoa
3Hehasdealtwiththissubjectinmanyplaces,suchashisAvicennaandtheAristotelianTradition(Leiden,1988),“IbnṬufaylonIbnSīnā’sEasternPhilosophy,”(Oriens,34:222-41);“Avicenna’sEastern(‘Oriental’)Philosophy.Nature,Contents,Transmission,”(ArabicSciencesandPhilosophy,vol.10:159-180);and“TheHeritageofAvicenna:TheGoldenAgeofArabicPhilosophy,1000—ca.1350,”inAvicennaandHisHeritageeditedbyJ.JanssensandD.DeSmet,Leuven,2002.4Originallyfrommueinmeaning“toclosetheeyes”anditsderivativeswhichmeantsecretriteorinitiation,andwhichcameintoLatinasmysterium.Eso-isaprefixreferringtosomething“within”asopposedtoexo-or“outside.”
Page 15
3
ṭarīqahandfollowsashaykh.Attheveryleast,modernscholarslookingformysticalelementscannotsimplygohuntingfornamesortechnicalterms,especiallyasitconcernsthepossiblementionofSufism,becausethepresenceorabsenceofsuchtermscantellussomethingbutnoteverythingaboutagiventextoritsauthor.
IntheIslamiccontextwhatweusuallycallmysticalwecanclassifyeitherintermsofmetaphysicaldoctrineorspiritualpractice.Inthefirstsense,whichmightbecalledtheory,‘mystical’referstoacertainvisionofthenatureofthings,whichincludesourviewregardinghowwecanknowwhatweknow.Thatistosay,bothontologyandepistemologycanbecalledmystical.Intermsofpraxis,mysticaloresotericreferstoacertainsetofpracticesthatexistaboveandbeyondtheprescribedpracticesofIslamorwhichareintensifiedversionsofthesepractices,andcanincludetheindividualstates,visions,auditions,andsupernaturalexperiences(miraclesorkarāmāt)whichpeopleundergoorwitness.
Inthefirstsense,thatofmetaphysicaldoctrine,wemustbecarefulnottoequate“mystical”withthemereassertionofanonphysicalrealityandthepossibilityofinteractingwithit,foralthoughmysticsdoindeedasserttheexistenceofsuchamodeofrealityandthepossibilityofmeaningfulcontactwithit,thephilosophersdoasmuchintheirbelief,forexample,thatonecancomeintocontactwiththeActiveIntellectandachieveaninstantphilosophicalintuition(ḥads)ofthemiddletermofthesyllogism.Mysticalmustalsonotbeequatedwithnon-rational,andhereitiscrucialtomakeadistinctionbetweennon-rationalandirrational.Thebeliefintheimmaterial,non-physical,andinvisibleworldisinanycase,withfewexceptions,auniversalfeatureofIslamicbelief.Theappreciationofpoetryormusicisatleastinpartnon-rational,buttoclaimthatallmenarealsotablesisintrinsicallyirrational.Ingeneral,theoppositionofthemysticstotheuseofreasonisalmostalwaysadenialofthesupremacyofreasonovertheotherhumanfacultiesandoverdivinewrit.Neithershouldmysticalbeequatedwiththeuseofsymbolsandallegory.Alltheseabove-mentionedtraitscanbeshared,inanuncontroversialway,betweenphilosophyandmysticism.Therealfundamentaldoctrinaldifferencebetweenmysticalandnon-mysticalistheacknowledgmentofamodeofrealitywhichinitsessenceremainsinexplicablebyourpowersofrationaldemonstration,althoughreasoncanpointtoitanditneednotbecontrarytoreason.Moreover,amysticalworldviewassertsthatwithinthehumansubject—inthesoul(nafs),theheart(qalb),thespirit(rūḥ),whatevertheterminology—thereexists,atleastpotentially,apowertoknowandtoreachtruthsandrealitiestowhichthemindquareasoner-of-premiseshasnoaccess.Insuchaperspectivereasoned-outknowledgeisstillknowledge,butitisnottheloftiest,mostsureknowledge.Amysticalvisionofthingsassertsthatthetruestunderstandingavailabletomancomesfromanun-mediatedencounterwiththeAbsolute.Inrelationtothishighestwisdomtheprocessofreasoningandrationaldemonstrationcanservealaudablerole,whichistosaythatreasoningisagoodinitselfbutalsoameanstoahighergood.Thereisahierarchywithinthehumansubjectaswellasahierarchyofknowableobjects,andtheinherently‘mystical’aspectofthisisthatreasondoesnotoccupythehighestpartofthehierarchyofthesubject,andreasonedconceptsdonotholdprideofplaceinthehierarchyofobjectsofknowledge.5Theseare 5Itshouldbenotedthatby“reason”Iamreferringtoʿaqlinitsparticularsense,whatRumiwouldrefertoasʿaql-ijuzʾī(particularintellect)asopposedtoʿaql-ikullī(universalintellect).S.H.Nasrhastranslatedthefirstas“reason”andthesecondas“intellect”.Ibnal-ʿArabīusesitin
Page 16
4
basiccriteriaonecanusetosituatemysticismquadoctrineormetaphysicsforourpurposesinthischapter.
Onthequestionofpraxis,someofthemethodsbywhichtheSufistraversethespiritualpathareeventodaycloselyguardedsecrets,butwedoknowagooddealofwhatthemainstaysofSufipracticeare.ThemostuniversalpracticeofIslamicmysticismisthemethodicalinvocation(dhikr)6ofdivinenamesandvariouskindsoflitaniesinvolvingGodaswellastheprophetsandotherfiguressuchastheImamsinthecontextofShi‘ism,performedeitheraloneinretreat(khalwah)orinagroupsettingwithothersfollowingthesamemethod.Dance,singing,andtheotherformsofsamāʾarealsocharacteristicofmysticalpractice.7Mostcommonistheintensificationofexistingpractices,suchasbeinginaconstantstateofablution,fastingfrequently,andperformingsupererogatoryprayerinthelatehoursofthenight(qiyāmal-layl).AsthepracticesoftheSufisareoftenthestrictadherencetopracticesoutlinedinonewayoranotherintheQurʾān,ḥadīth,andscholarlytradition,itisoftendifficulttodeterminewherecommonpietyendsandmysticalpracticebegins.Forourpurposes,inordertodefinepraxisasmysticalintheIslamiccontextthespiritualseekermusthavesomesortofguide,whetherinthefleshorsomehowinvisibleandsupernaturallikeKhiḍrorthehiddenImam,8whoactsasanobjectivecriterionandexampleforone’sspiritualprogress.InhisroleassomeoneclosertoGod,withknowledgeofthepitfallsofthespiritualpath,heguidestheseekeralongtheṭarīqahbeyondwhathewouldnormallyencounterintheuniversaltraditionorsharīʿah.Thusforourpurposesofdefiningwhatismysticalthespiritualmethodmusttakeplaceunderthedirectionofthespiritualguideormustbetheoutcomeoftheperiodoftimespentundersuchdirection—andassuming,ofcourse,thatthespiritualpracticeandconcomitantexperiencestakeplaceundertherubricofthedoctrinalparametersoutlinedabove.
Finally,itshouldbenotedthatitisnotatallnecessaryforustobelieveinmysticalclaimsatallinordertoevaluatewhetherornotsomeoneelsebelievedthem.Weneednotacceptmysticalclaimsinordertotakeothers’mysticalclaimsseriouslyandtotrytounderstandwhattheysaidinthewaytheythemselvesunderstoodit.-AvicennaandMysticism boththesesenses,whereʿaqlcanmeanboththerationalfacultybutalsotheheart(qalb)whichisthesummitofthehumansubject.BābāAfḍalalsoemploysʿaqlinthislatterunlimitedsense.Inthemoreexaltedsenseoftheterm,however,thereisnoquestionof“reasoning”whichiswhatmakesitdifferentfrom“reason”asweusuallyunderstandit.6SeeEI2“Dhikr”.SeealsoAnnemarieSchimmelMysticalDimensionsofIslam(ChapelHill,1975)especially167-78.7See“SacredMusicandDanceinIslam,”byJean-LouisMichoninIslamicSpirituality:Manifestations(ed.S.H.Nasr,NewYork,NY,1991).8“Amongthesegroups[whofollowasupernaturalmaster]theUwaysisareworthyofbeingespeciallymentioned.TheoriginofthisformofSufismgoesbacktotheYemenisaint,Uwaysal-Qaranī,whoembracedIslamwithouteverhavingseentheProphet…TheUwaysisdonotusuallyhaveahumanspiritualmasterbutreceivetheirinitiationandguidancefromthe“invisibleworld”(ʿālamal-ghayb)andmorespecificallyfromal-Khaḍir,themysteriousprophetofesoterismmentionedintheQurʾān…[T]heyhavenotestablishedaregularSufiorderbecauseoftheverynatureoftheirinitiaticaffiliation,whichisnotbasedonregulartransmissionthroughaninitiaticchain(silsilāh),”(“SufismandSpiritualityinPersia,”inIslamicSpirituality:Manifestations,218.)
Page 17
5
Inthefieldofphilosophy,AvicennafirmlyestablishedthemainlineofPeripateticthoughtintheIslamicworld.Morethanthat,heestablishedthelanguagethroughwhichalmostallofphilosophyandmuchoflatertheologywouldexpressitself.ForhundredsofyearsafterAvicenna,andeventoalargedegreeamongIslamicphilosopherstoday,itbecameimpracticaltoexpressone’sphilosophicalideasinprofessionalphilosophicalcircleswithouthavingextensiverecoursetothewayofspeakingaboutphilosophicalquestionsAvicennaestablishedthroughhisworkssuchasal-Shifāʾandal-Najāt.Shihābal-Dīnal-Suhrawardī,thefounderoftheschoolofIllumination,wasanexampleofaphilosopherwhoopposedIbnSīnāonmanyimportantphilosophicalpoints,buteveninhisobjectionstothePeripateticphilosopherhemostoftenspokethroughtheverylanguageestablishedbythePeripateticsthemselves.Aswillbediscussedlater,thislinguafrancaofIslamicphilosophywasversatileandstableenoughtolaterincorporatesuchvariedmetaphysicalsystemsastheAkbarianschool,9theschoolofIllumination,andtheTranscendentalPhilosophyofMullāṢadrā.
Thereisnocontroversyamongscholars,EastorWest,astoAvicenna’sprimaryidentificationasaphilosopher(aswellasaphysician).AsthechiefexponentofIslamicPeripateticthought,hewasknowntolatergenerationsasal-shaykhal-raʾīs(“theleadingmaster”).Thereisasurprisinglyvociferousdebate,however,overtheextenttowhichAvicenna’sworkscontainmysticalideas,overtlyorsecretly,andwhetherornotAvicennahadasecretdoctrineor“truephilosophy”whichhesoughttokeephiddenfromtheworld.ThisdebatecentersaroundthestatusofAvicenna’sEasternorOrientalPhilosophy(indeedthereisdisagreementoverthisverytranslationofal-ḥikmahal-mashriqiyyah);theroleofAvicenna’smythicalallegories(seebelow);andtheallegedmysticalcontentofthelastthreechaptersofal-Ishārātwaʾl-tanbīhāt,aworkofhislaterperiod.
Firstweturntoal-ḥikmahal-mashriqiyyah.ThemostsignificantproblemhisworkofthistitlepresentstoscholarsisthatmostofithasnotreachedusandallwehavetoworkfromistheintroductionwhichissometimesreferredtoasManṭiqal-mashriqiyyīn.10TheneedtoextrapolatethecontentsofthisworkfromitsprovocativeintroductionandfromhintsinAvicenna’sotherworksdoesmuchtofuelthedebate.Somemodernscholars,amongthemHenryCorbinandS.H.Nasr,believethatal-ḥikmahal-mashriqiyyah,whichCorbintranslatedas“OrientalPhilosophy,”wasindeedadoctrineapart,anesotericandmysticalbodyofideasonlytobeunderstoodbytheeliteandonlyappropriateforthem.11DimitriGutas,amongthemostpersistentopponentsof
9Thatis,theschoolofIbnʿArabī,whosetitleofal-Shaykhal-akbargivesusthename“Akbarian.”Theyarecommonlyreferredtoastheʿurafāʾasopposedtotheḥukamāʾ,orphilosophers.ʿUrafāʾisamorespecifictermthanSufi,usuallyreferringtotheSufiswhoseactivityatleastinpartdealswithphilosophicalexplanations.10SeeS.H.Nasr,“IbnSīnā’s‘OrientalPhilosophy’,”HistoryofIslamicPhilosophy,248.11ThepositionofS.H.NasrinregardstohisunderstandingofAvicennabesummarizedasfollows:“AvicennadoesnotnegatethetenetsofPeripateticphilosophybutinterpretstheminadifferentlightsothattherationalisticUniverseoftheAristoteliansistransformedintoacosmiccathedralwhereeverysymbolconcernsmaninarealandimmediatewayandplaysaroleinhisspiritualrealization.InthismannerAvicennareachedtowardan“OrientalPhilosophy”which,ifnottakenseriouslybymostofhisOccidentalinterpreters,wasnonethelessofgreatsignificanceintheIslamicworldandpointedtothedirectionofthe“Illuminationisttheosophy”thatwastobe
Page 18
6
readinganymysticaldoctrinesinIbnSīnā,tracesoutalineageforthisnotionofahiddenphilosophywhichfindsitsoriginintheinterpretationofAvicennagivenbyIbnṬufayl.AccordingtoGutas,IbnṬufaylmistinterpretsAvicenna’sprologuetohisal-ShifāʾinsuchawaysoastoleadthereadertobelievethatAvicennahadanotherphilosophywheretherealtruthlayandwhichwasonlymeantforsome.Therelevantsectionoftheprologuereads:
Ialsowroteabookotherthanthesetwo[theShifāʾandtheLawāḥiq(Appendices)],inwhichIpresentedphilosophyasitisnaturally[perceived]andasrequiredbyanunbiasedviewwhichneithertakesintoaccountin[thisbookonEasternphilosophy]theviewsofcolleaguesinthediscipline,nortakesprecautionshereagainstcreatingschismsamongthemasisdoneelsewhere;thisismybookonEasternphilosophy.Butasforthepresentbook[theShifāʾ],itismoreelaborateandmoreaccommodatingtomyPeripateticcolleagues.Whoeverwantsthetruth[stated]withoutindirection,heshouldseektheformerbook[onEasternphilosophy];whoeverwantsthetruth[stated]inawaywhichissomewhatconciliatorytocolleagues,elaboratesalot,andalludes[talwīḥ]tothingswhich,hadtheybeenperceived,therewouldhavebeennoneedfortheotherbook,thenheshouldreadthepresentbook[theShifāʾ].12
GutaspresentsAvicenna’sprologueasgivingthereaderachoicebetweentwodifferentstylesofphilosophicaldiscourse,nottwoseparatesystems.HereadstheprologueassayingthattheShifāʾisabookmeanttotakeintoaccountallpossiblepositionsandobjections,andreasonoutallconclusionsindetail.TheOrientalorEasternPhilosophy(ashepreferstotranslateitinordertoremoveanyromanticassociations),onthecontrary,issaidtostatethephilosopher’sviewsdirectlyandwithoutconciliatorygesturestowardsotherintellectualpositions.Itdoesnotpresentadifferentsetofpositions,butonlyapareddownversionofhisestablishedpositionspresentedinadifferentlanguage.IbnṬufaylinterpretsthisprologuetomeanthatAvicennabelievedthetruthtobe“somethingelse,”thatis,somethingotherthanwhatisfoundintheShifāʾ,andbelievedthatAvicennaexplicitlysaidso.
AsforthebooksofAristotle,AvicennaundertookintheShifāʾtointerprettheircontents,proceedingaccordingtoAristotle’sdoctrineandfollowingthemethodofhisphilosophy.Butinthebeginningofthebook,Avicennastatedexplicitlythatinhisopinionthetruthissomethingelse[al-ḥaqqʿindahughayrudhālika],thathewrotetheShifāʾaccordingtothedoctrineofthePeripateticsonly,andthat“whoeverwantsthetruthwithoutindirectionshouldseek”hisbookonEasternphilosophy.13
InGutas’view,IbnṬufayl’sunsubstantiatedclaimswereself-servingastheylentauthoritytohisownepistemology“inwhichmysticalvisionplayedaleadingrole.”
HenryCorbinandS.H.NasrseeinAvicenna’sOrientalPhilosophy,astheytranslateit,aprefigurationofthelatermysticaltrendsinIslamicphilosophy,especiallyasitmanifestedinthewritingsofSuhrawardīandMullāṢadrā.Nasranalyzestheprologuetotheincompleteal-Ḥikmahal-mashriqiyyahanddrawsmarkedlydifferentconclusionsabouttheroleandsignificanceofOrientalPhilosophyinAvicenna’sthought. inauguratednearlyacenturyandahalflaterbySuhrawardī,”(ThreeMuslimSages,45).12Gutas“Avicenna’sEastern(‘Oriental’)Philosophy,”160-161.13Ibid.,161.
Page 19
7
Ofnoteisthepassagewhichreads,“Andwehavenofearifwerevealtothephilosopherssomethingotherthanwhatwehavewrittenforthecommonpeople—thecommonpeoplewhohavebecomeenamoredofthePeripateticphilosophersandwhothinkthatGodhadnotguidedanyonebutthemorthatnoonehasreachedDivineMercybutthem.”Theitalicizedpassage,onemightspeculate,couldbetheactualsourceofIbnṬufayl’sclaimthat“thetruthissomethingelse”thanwhatisfoundintheShifāʾ.AfterbemoaningtheslavishloyaltyofPeripateticphilosopherstooldideas,admittingthatheconformedtothemannerofspeakingestablishedbytheGreeks,andrevealingthathe“oftengainedknowledgefromnon-Greeksources,”Avicennasays,“Undertheseconditions,welongedtowriteabookcontainingtheimportantaspectsofrealknowledge…Wehavecomposedthisbookonlyforourselves,thatis,thosewhoarelikeourselves.Asforthecommonerswhohavetodowithphilosophy,wehaveprovidedintheKitābal-Shifāʾmorethantheyneed…”14
NasroutlinesthevariousopinionsofscholarsastothepreciseidentityoftheOrientin“OrientalPhilosophy.”HestatesthatGoichonidentifieditwiththemedicalschoolofJundishapurwhilePinesidentifieditwithBukhara.LouisGardetbelieveditsignifiedamorePythagoreanandPlatonicasopposedtoAristotelianphilosophy.ThemostirksometheoryforscholarssuchasGutasistheoneelaboratedbyH.Corbin,whobelievedthattheOrient(mashriq,literally“placeofsunrise”)designatedtheworldoflighttowhichthespiritjourneys,andassuchdoesnothaveanygeographicalsignificance.CorbinsawSuhrawardī’sḤikmatal-ishrāq,towhichweshallturnlater,asbeinginpartacontinuationoftheOrientalPhilosophyofAvicenna.AgainstthisGutasbringstobearthefollowingpassagefromSuhrawardīregardingthefragmentsonlogicfromal-Ḥikmahal-Mashriqiyyah:
Thequires[karārīs]whichAvicennaattributedtotheEasternersareextantseparatelyinunboundform.AlthoughheattributedthesequirestotheEast[Khurāsān],theyarethesameasthepreceptsofthePeripateticsandcommonphilosophy.Theonlydifferenceisthatheoccasionallyalteredtheformofexpression,orproceededincertainCorollaryissuesinasomewhatindependentwaywhich,however,neitherdeviatesfromhisotherbookstoanyappreciabledegree,norestablishestheFundamentalPrincipleoftheEastwhichwasfoundedatthetimeofthesagesintheeraofChosroes.15
GutaspointstothisasanexplicitrepudiationbySuhrawardīofapedigreeinAvicennaforhisownilluminationistphilosophy.ButCorbinhadalreadyansweredthisobjection,notingthatwecanshareSuhrawardī’ssurprisethatthereisnothingespecially“Oriental”inthesequires.“Wetooinourturncanreadthem…andfeelthesameastonishment,temperedbythefactthattheLogicbywhichtheḤikmatal-ishrāqisprefacedwould,ifdetachedfromtherestofthebook,exhibitnothingspecificallyOrientalexceptthethesesexpresslyputforthasIshrāqī.”16GutashasmademuchofthenatureofthisintroductorysectiononlogicintheḤikmatal-ishrāq,butasCorbinstates,“[T]heconnectionsproclaimthemselveselsewhere.”NodoubtheisreferringtothefollowingpassageofSuhrawardī:
14Nasr,“IbnSīnā’s‘OrientalPhilosophy’,”248-9.15Gutas,Avicenna,118.16HenryCorbin,AvicennaandtheVisionaryRecital,NewYork,1960,40.
Page 20
8
WhenIbecameacquaintedwiththeRecitalofḤayyibnYaqẓān,inspiteoftheadmirablespiritualsentencesandtheprofoundsuggestionsthatitcontains,Ifounditlackinginilluminationsdisplayingthesupremeexperience—thatis,theGreatOverwhelming(Qurʾān79:34)—thatiskeptinthetreasuryoftheDivineBooks,depositedinthesymbolsoftheSages,hiddenintheRecitalofSalamānandAbsālcomposedbythenarratoroftheRecitalofḤayyibnYaqẓān.ItisthemysteryuponwhichthestationsoftheSufisandofthemastersofmentalvisionareestablished.ThereisnoreferencetoitintheRecitalofḤayyibnYaqẓānexceptattheendofthebook,whereitissaid:itsometimeshappensthattheSolitariesamongmenemigratetowardHim,etc.TheninmyturnIwishedtorelatesomethingthereof,intheformofarecitalIhaveentitledtheRecitaloftheOccidentalExile,forsomeofournoblebrothers.17
Corbincomments,“ForanyonewhowishestoarriveataconcreterepresentationofthepositiverelationshipbetweenAvicennaandSuhrawardī,perhapsnobetterexerciseinmeditationcouldbeadvisedthatthathereadtheRecitalofḤayyibnYaqẓānandtheRecitaloftheOccidentalExileinsuccession.”18BywayofthisquotationwecanturntoAvicenna’smythicalallegories,whichCorbinreferstoas“visionaryrecitals.”AvicennawaswellacquaintedwiththeGreektraditionofpoeticsandrhetoric,andlikeAristotlebeforehimdiscussesthemasvalidformsofhumanself-expression,withdifferingmeansandgoalsofcommunicatingideas.Rhetoricandpoeticscanbothbeusedtopersuadeotherstoadopttrueideas,butinandofthemselvestheycannotprovideacoherentproofofthetruthstheypointto;onlyrationaldemonstrationintheformofsyllogisticreasoningcanaccomplishthat.Avicennanotonlydiscussestheroleofallegoryandallegoricalinterpretation,butalsoexplicitlyoutlineshisowntheoryofallegoryasitrelatestophilosophicaldiscourseandnotablyasitrelatestothephenomenonofprophethood(nubuwwah).Tostatethisbriefly,theloftiesttruthsattainablebymancannotbetransmittedtojustanyone.Thecommonfolk(al-ʿawāmm)wouldnotbeabletounderstandthephilosopher’sproofsandwouldinfactbeharmedbythemandbesentintoerroriftheyheardthem.Intrinsictothestateofimperfectmenistheinabilitytodealwithpureintelligibles;theycanonlyunderstandtheirexperienceintermsofconcrete,sensibleobjectsandstates.Anythingelsewillcauseconfusionandpsychologicaldamage.Itisforthisreasonthattheprophetmustcommunicatetopeoplethroughtheuseofsymbols(rumūz),becausethecommonpeoplewilltakethesymbolsattheirfacevaluewhiletheelite—theenlightenedphilosophers—willunderstandthetruesignificanceofthesymbolandwillseebeyondittothepureintelligibletruththatreallymatters.AvicennaclaimedthatPlato,Socrates,andPythagorasunderstoodthisneedtocoverthetruthinsymbolsandsigns,andthat“PlatosoblamedAristotlefordivulgingwisdomandmakingknowledgemanifestthatAristotlesaid,‘EvenifIhavedoneso,Ihavestillleftinmybooksmanyapitfallwhichonlytheinitiatedamongthewiseandlearnedcancomprehend.’AndhowelsecouldtheprophetMuhammad(mayGod’sprayersandpeacebeuponhim)havebroughtknowledgetotheuncouthnomad,nottomentionthewholehumanrace,sincehewassentamessengertoallofthem?”19
17Ibid.,42.18ibid.,43.19PeterHeath,AllegoryandPhilosophyinAvicenna(IbnSīnā),Philadelphia,1992,151.
Page 21
9
Thisruleforbiddingthecastingofpearlsbeforeswineisnotlimitedtotheprophets,asAvicenna’sreferencetoPlatoandAristotleshows.Thephilosophertoohasadutytomouldhismodeofdiscoursetosuittheintellectualcapacitiesofhisaudience.ScholarssuchasGutasconsiderthisconsiderationforthecapacityofnon-philosopherstobethesolemotivationforAvicenna’scompositionofhisallegories.Infact,“theallegoricalmethodofcommunicationisinferiortothedemonstrativeandexpositorybecauseitissuitedforandaddressedtoinferiorminds.”20GutasdelineatesthreebasicmodesofexpressionemployedbyAvicennainhisworks.Thefirstconsistsoffulllogicalexpositionandexplicitdemonstrativereasoning.ThismakesupthebulkofhiswritingandisthemethodemployedinsuchmajorworksastheShifāʾandtheNajāt.Thesecondisthemethodofallegory,whereideasareconveyedusingmythicalsymbolsandoftentoldintheformoftheinteractionoflivingcharacterswithoneanother.ThisisthemethodemployedinworkssuchasSalamānwa-AbsālandḤayyibnYaqẓān.Thethirdmajorcategorymakesuseofthe“indicative”method,whichisrelatedtothefullydemonstrativemethodexceptthatinsteadofdisplayingthedemonstrationforalltoseeitveilsit,asitwere,inordertoimpeltothestudenttoreasonoutphilosophicalsolutionsonhisown.Themajorexampleofthismodeistheaforementionedal-Ishārātwaʾl-tanbīhāt,or“RemarksandAdmonitions.”21
However,inallofthesemodesofexpression,Gutasasserts,thereistobefoundnosecretdoctrinewhatsoever.EverythingAvicennaeversaidorwrotewasanexpressionofthesameexactbodyofknowledge.Heonlydifferedinhisstyleandmodeofexpression,butthesearewell-explainedbyhisowntheoryoflogic,poetics,rhetoric,andallegory.Moreover,Avicennaonlyresortedtosymbolisminordertoprotectthemassesfromtheharmthatwouldbeinflicteduponthemweretheytobeexposedtophilosophicaltruthsintheirpurestform.Asymbol,contrarytoCorbin’sloftyinterpretationofit,22isnotsomethingusedtorepresentatruthorrealitythatcouldnotbeexpressedotherwise,butisratheraninferiormethodofcommunicationmeantforinferiorminds.Thismeansthatasamatterofprinciplethereisnotruthorrealitythatisnotexpressibleorattheveryleastunderstandableintermsof“establishingFundamentalPrinciplesandWorkingOuttheCorollariesbysyllogisticmeans.”23GutasconcludesthatalthoughAvicennahadonlyonebodyofknowledgehedidinfactbelieveintheprincipleofwithholdingit,sinceheexplicitlystatesthataphilosopheroraprophetmustdosoaccordingtothecircumstances.BeforehimFarābī,towhomAvicennahasrecourseinhisowntheoryofallegory,believedthatPlatoprohibitedtherecordingofmanyofhisteachings,fearingthattheywouldbediscoveredbytheunworthy.However,accordingtothisaccountputforthbyGutas,becausehefearedthatthetruthshediscoveredwouldbelost,“heselectedsymbolsandallegorieswiththepurposeofrecordinghissciencesandphilosophyinsuchawaythatonlythosedeservingofthem,andthoseworthyofcomprehendingthem,woulddetectafterinquiries,research,
20Gutas,Avicenna,302.21SeeS.C.Inati,RemarksandAdmonitions(al-Ishārātwaʾl-tanbīhāt),Toronto,1984.22HequotesCorbinasdefiningasymbolinthefollowingway,“Symbolistheretoannouncesomethingwhichcannotbeexpressedotherwise:itistheonlypossibleexpressionofthethingsymbolized;allegoryisamoreorlessartificialfigurationofgeneralitiesandabstractionsthatcanbeperfectlyexpressedandknownbyotherways.”Avicenna,299.23Ibid.,234.
Page 22
10
examination,andassiduousapplication.”24FarābīthengoesontoexplainthatAristotleseeminglydepartedfromthismethodbygoingtogreatlengthstoexplaineverythingindetail,butthisissoonlyinappearance.FarābīcontendsthatAristotlerenderedthings“inaccessible,cryptic,andintricate”bymixingupsyllogisms,leavingoutcertaintermsofsyllogisms,andinotherwaysarranginghiswritingsuchthatonlytruephilosophicaladeptswouldreallygraspwhathewassaying.
ThereasoningofGutasjustoutlinedabovewouldseemtoindicatethatAvicenna’spositiononallegoryisthatphilosophicaltruthmustnotbelostandsomustberecordedandtaught,butatthesametimeitmustbehiddenfromthemultitudeofpeople,andnotonlymustitbehiddenbutthecommonmassesmustnotevensuspectthatsomethingisbeinghiddenfromthem.AccordingtoGutas,thisisthebasisforAvicenna’s“philosophicalpraxis.”Now,wemayacceptwithhimthatAvicennadiddescribeatheoryofwithholdinginformation,butitdoesnotfollowfromthisthathenecessarilyfollowedthroughwiththistheoryinhisownwritings.Indeed,itisdifficulttoseethatAvicenna’ssolereasoninwritingallegoriesorchoosingastylethatwasnotclear-cutanddemonstrativeconsistedinnothingotherthanprotectinghimselffromtheignorantmassesandprotectingtheignorantmassesfromhim.TheproblemisthatifindeedAvicenna’sbodyofknowledgeisoneandself-consistent,andifhischoiceofdifferingstyleswassolelyamatterofdifferingmodesofexpression,thenofwhatbenefitisittowriteaphilosophicalallegorywhenallofyourideasarelaidoutindetailedworkstowhicheveryonehasopenaccess?TowhatpurposewouldAvicennaveilhisideasinallegorieswhenhisargumentsandthebulkofhisphilosophicalassertionsexistintheirexplicitforminotherworkssuchastheShifāʾ?IsnotoneoftheconditionsdescribedinAvicenna’sowntheorythatthosefromwhomthetruthisbeinghiddenshouldhavenoinklingthatsomethingisbeingkeptfromthem?Ifthedivinerevelationfollowsthewayofsymbolisminsteadofstatingthegreattruthsinadirectandphilosophicalway,thenitcanatleastmaketheclaimofbeingconsistentwiththeneedsofcommonpeopleincommunicatingwiththemthroughallegoryandsymbolism.OnecansuggestherethatAvicenna’stheoryofinterpretationandallegoryhasmoretodowithhisunderstandingoftheroleofrevelationandprophethoodthanwiththecompositionofhisownworks.TheargumentthatAvicennaonlywroteinallegoryandwith“indications”inordertohidehismessagefromthemassesandtodrivehisstudentstomakephilosophicaldiscoveriesoftheirownisweakenedbytheexistenceofAvicenna’sotherworks,suchastheShifāʾ,wherethisruleisnotheldtoatall.Itisthephilosophicalequivalentofshuttingthestabledoorafterthehorsehasgotout.PeterHeath,inhisworkonAvicennaandallegory,25suggeststhatAvicenna’sowntheoryofrhetoricandwithholdingknowledgefromtheunworthyisnotenoughtoexplainthenatureandfunctionoftheallegoricaltreatises.HeacknowledgesthemeritofGutas’position,basedasitisonananalysisoftextsandAvicenna’sowntheory,andindeedheprefersittoGoichon’sspeculationthatAvicennacomposedḤayyibnYaqẓānasakindofleisurelyexercisewhilehewasimprisonedforfourmonthsatthecastleofFaradān.Forhim,neitherthecontextnorthecontentofthetreatisesuggestanythingofthesort,althoughGoichon’sanalysisisvaluableinthatitshowstheclosecorrespondencebetweentheideasandstructureof
24Ibid.,228.25Seenote18above.
Page 23
11
Avicenna’sexpositoryworksandhismythicalorallegoricalones.26Heathattemptstomakesenseoftheallegoriesintermsoftheverypossibilitiesinherentinthisformofexpressionandwithdueconsiderationtothelimitations,asheseesit,inthemodeofrationaldemonstration.TryingtosituatetheroleofallegoriesinrelationtoAvicenna’sotherworks,hestates,“Morality,understoodasanintellectualframeworkthatdirectstheactionsoftheindividual,isnotanethicalbutratherametaphysical,evenananagogic,concernforAvicenna,hencehislackofinterestintheareaofpracticalphilosophyandthepaucityofhisexplicitlyethicalwritings.”27Philosophyhasthepurposeoffirstmakingsenseofwhatthecorrecthumanendsareandthenofmotivatinghumanbeingstopursuethoseends.ThefirstpurposeisaccomplishedbyAvicennathroughlogicandmetaphysicsandthemodeofexpressionbestsuitedtothem,namely,rationaldiscourse.“BoththesubjectinvolvedandtheparametersofAvicenna’straditionofphilosophicaldiscourserendereditimpossibleforhimtorepresentconcretelytheabstractprogressoftheindividualhumansoulinthemotionlesshereafter.”28Becauseofthislimitationinexpressingthetrueveritiesofmaʿādoreschatology,“Avicenna…wasimpelledbyhisownintensevisionofittoseek,oratleastexperimentwith,moreprecise,moreimmediate,andmoreevocativeformsofexpression.”29HeathagreeswithGutasthattheallegoriesdonotexpressanesotericormysticaldoctrine,buthedisagreeswiththepremisethatallegoryandsymbolismarefundamentallyinferiormodesofexpressionthatcanonlyserveapedagogicalorencryptingfunction.ItisnotmerelythatinḤayyibnYaqẓān“Hayy”reallymeans“activeintellect”orthatonecansimplyreplaceatalkingcharacterwithaphilosophicalconcept.Rather,allegoryandmetaphorhaveanintrinsicadvantageovertechnicalphilosophyinsomerespects,andhavetheabilitytocircumventthelimitationspresentedbyrationaldiscourseinordertoconveycertaintruthstothehumansoul.This,accordingtoHeath,doesnotrenderthecontentesotericormystical,butgivesitanimmediacythatrationaldiscourselacksbyitsverynature.Itfulfillsafunctionthat“encompassesneithergreaternorlessertruth-value”thanhisotherstylesofwriting.
Heath’sinterpretationissatisfyinginthatitquestionstheroleofAvicenna’stheoryofrhetoricandinterpretationinhisownwriting,andgivesanexplanationoftheroleofallegorywhichisquiteinkeepingwithourowncommonsensenotionsoftheuniqueinsightsprovidedtousbydiversemodesofexpression.ItisindeedhardtobelievethatAvicennatrulybelievedthatevenapopulationofpurephilosopherscouldlivesolelyonrationaldiscourseandsyllogisticintuition.
ThefinallocusofdisagreementovermysticismandphilosophyinvolvesthefinalthreechaptersofAvicenna’sal-Ishārātwaʾl-tanbīhāt.Asmentionedabove,thisisaworkofthelaterpartofAvicenna’slifeandiswritteninatersestylewherephilosophicalpointsaremadewithouttheusualdiscussionanddebatefoundintheShifāʾ.TheIshārātwastheobjectofacommentary(actuallyanextendedlinebylinecriticism)bytheFakhral-Dīnal-Rāzī,andlaterboththeoriginaltextandthecommentaryofRāzīweretogethercommenteduponbyNaṣīral-Dīnal-Ṭūsī,whothroughthiscommentarydidmuchto
26SeeA.M.Goichon,LerecitdeḤayyibnYaqẓān,Paris,1959.27Heath,Allegory,161.28Ibid.,162.29Ibid.,163.
Page 24
12
revivePeripateticphilosophy.30ThetitlesofthethreechaptersinquestionareFīʾl-bahjahwaʾl-saʿādah,Fīmaqāmātal-ʿārifīn(themostSufi-soundingofthetitles),andFīasrāral-ayāt,underasectiontitleofal-Taṣawwuf,althoughthisisonlyaninterpretivetitle.Noneoftheoriginalmanuscriptshaveit.31OftheIshārātGutassays,“ThereisnoseparateKnowledgepresentedhere,“esoteric”or“mystical;”itistheKnowledgeoftheAristoteliantraditionasintegrated,systematized,andrepresentedbyAvicenna.”32Theopposinginterpretation,thatthereisamysticalelementinthiswork,isbaseduponpassagessuchasthefollowing,inwhichIbnSīnāspeaksofdegreesofknowledgeandthensays:
Andtherearethendegreeswhicharenotfewerthanthosethatwentbefore.Weprefertobebriefconcerningthem,becausespeechcannotunderstandthem,discussioncannotunfoldthem,anddiscourseaboutthemcanuncovernothing,unlikeimagination.Whoeverwishestocometoknowthem,lethimascendthedegreesandbecomeoneofthepeopleofvision(mushāhadah)andnotconversation(mushāfahah),oneofthosewhoreachthespring(ʿayn)andnotthosewholistentolore.33Orthefollowing:Verily,theknowers(ʿārifūn)possessstationsanddegreesbywhichtheyaredistinguishedfromothersinthelifeofthislowerworld.Itisasthoughtheywerewearingtheirbodiesasgarments,havingleftthemanddivestedthemselvesofthemtogototheholyworld.Therearethingshiddeninthem,andtherearethingstheymanifest.Therearesomewhodenythem[thethings]andsomewhomagnifythem,andwewilltellyouaboutthem…KnowthatinthestoryofSalamānandAbsālthatSalamānisalikenessforyou,andthatAbsālisalikenessofyourdegreeofknowledge[ʿirfān],ifyouareamongitspeople.Sounlockthesymbolism,ifyoucan.
ThereisalsotheuseofSufiterminologyinthispartoftheIshārāt.Forexample,Avicennareferstotheclassificationofzāhid,ʿābid,andʿārif,whichisastandardtripartiteclassificationofdegreesofspiritualrealizationamongSufis:
Hewhorenouncesthepleasuresanddelightsoftheworldhasthespecialnamezāhid(ascetic);hewhodevoteshimselftoworship—standinginprayer,fasting,andthelike—hasthespecialnameʿābid(devotee);hewhomovestotheholyempyrean(jabarut)throughcontemplation,[moving]evertowardstheilluminationsofthelightoftheRealwithinhismystery(sirr)hasthespecialnameʿārif(knower,orgnostic).Herewealsohavetheuseofthewordsirrmeaning“secret”or“mystery.”In
SufiterminologyreferstothemostinwardpartoftheheartorsoulwhichisthesupremeseatofconsciousnessandtheplacewheremanisabletohavehisconnectionwithGod,anditispreciselyinthissensethatAvicennausesit.Inotherpassageshespeaksoftalṭīf
30See“KhwājahNaṣīral-DīnṬūsī:thephilosopher/vizierandtheintellectualclimateofhistimes,”inHistoryofIslamicPhilosophy,527-584.31Gutas,“Avicenna’sEastern(“Oriental”)Philosophy,”164-165.32Gutas,Avicenna,311.33al-Ishārātwa’l-tanbīhat(Qom,1960),90.
Page 25
13
al-sirrliʾl-tanabbuh,34…sirruhuʿanal-ḥaqq,35inziʿājuhubi-sirrihiilāʾl-ḥaqq.36HealsomentionsdhikrortheremembranceofGodsayingal-ʿārifshujāʿ…kayfalāwa-dhikruhumashghūlbiʾl-ḥaqq.“Theknoweriscourageous…andwhyshoulditnotbeso,seeingthathisrememberingisoccupiedwiththeReal/Truth?”37Healsospeaksofthemurīdorspiritualseeker:
Thefirstlevelofactivityfortheknowersistherestlessnessofdesire(hammal-irādah)orhimmah.Thisisthelongingtoattachtothestrongestrope.38So,hismystery(sirr)ismovedtotheholyinordertoreachthespiritofattainment.Aslongasheisatthislevelheisamurīd(desirer).
Anotherexampleishisbriefmentionofwaqtorthespirituallydecisivepresentmomentofexperience.39ItisnotamatterofdisputethatAvicennausedSufiterminologyinthispartoftheIshārāt;thequestionisthewayinwhichhedidso.AccordingtoGutasAvicennausesSufivocabularysuchasiradāhandwaqt“inanefforttoincorporateitsreferentsalsointohisphilosophicalsystem,muchashehaddoneearlierwithothermanifestationsofthereligiouslife.”Itdoesnotseem,however,thatintheIshārātAvicennaisbringingtheSufitermstoheelunderhisownwayoflookingatthings.Rather,hetreatsthesubjectsofasceticism,devotion,andtherenunciationoftheworldwithsympathyandmuchthewayaSufiwould.Thesetermsdoindeedappearinaworkwhichalsodealswithlogicandmetaphysics,butthatdoesnotmeanthattheywereincorporatedintothesystem.Inordertomakesuchanassertionitwouldhavetobeshownthathetookthesetermsandthenre-infusedthemwithastrictlyphilosophicalsignificance,whichwedonotfindinreadingtheseunusuallastthreechaptersoftheIshārāt.
Oftheninthchapter,Fakhral-Dīnal-RāzīstatesinhiscommentarythatAvicenna“arrangedinitthevarietiesoftheknowledgeofthesufis(ʿulūmal-ṣūfiyyah)inawaythatwasbothunprecedentedandunsuperceded.”40Gutasinterpretsthisasmeaningthe“varieties”or“grades”ofknowledge,not“sciences”oftheSufisasismaintainedbyMarmura.41Itisunclearthatthischangesanythingsubstantively,sinceʿulūmisstillinconstructwithal-ṣūfiyyah.IfAvicennaiswritingabouthowmuchSufisknow42insteadofhowtheyknowit,thisseemstohavelittleeffectongaugingAvicenna’sopinionsofSufis.
Gutas’objectionstoassociatingAvicennawithmysticalideasorproclivities,andsimilarobjectionsbyotherscholarsconcerningotherthinkers,stemlargelyfromanimpoverishedandsomewhatapriorihostileviewofwhatmysticismorSufismintheIslamiccontextreallyis,orevenwhatitclaimsforitself.Inthisviewtherecanbenooverlaporgiveandtakebetweenwhatislabeledas“rational”andwhatis“mystical.”
34Ibid.,380.35Ibid.,370.36Ibid.,390.37Ibid.,393.38AreferencetoQurʾān31:22.39Ibid.,394.40Gutas,“Avicenna’sEasternPhilosophy,”16441M.Marmura,“PlottingthecourseofAvicenna’sthought,”JOAS,111[1991],342.42MajidFakhryidentifiesʿārifintheIshārātwith“mystic”inhisAHistoryofIslamicPhilosophy,NewYork1970,160.
Page 26
14
FromGutas’defenseofAvicenna’s“rationalsystem”onewouldgettheideathatSufismdemandsmuddy,incoherent,andirrationalthinking.TopointoutthatAvicennahimselfneverusesthewordṣūfīintheIshārāttellsusnothing,sincetaṣawwufwasnot,atthetimeofAvicennaoreventoday,theonlyrecognizedtermusedtorefertothosepeopleandideaswhichwewouldrefertoas“mystical”ordealingwiththeactualpracticeofaspiritualdiscipline,whomwetodaymightplaceundertheblanketterm“sufi.”IfAvicennaadmitsthelevelsofknowledgeoftheSufis,asGutassuggests,thenhemustaccepttheirknowledgeclaims(oratleastsomeofthem)aswell,anditissomewhatself-servingtosaythathetheninterpretsittofitintohisownsystemandthusneverallowsofanythingmystical.Ifadoctrineisinterpretedtosuchapointthatitceasestobeitself—andanintrinsicaspectofSufismisthatrationalthinkingisnottheonlywayofknowing—thentowhatavailisclaimingtorecognizeitsvalidity?43IfAvicennaadmitsonlyonewayofknowinghecouldnotpossiblyadmitthevalidityofSufism,butifheadmitsonlyonewayofrationallyknowingthenhecanacceptSufism,sinceSufismdoesnotdenytheplaceofreasonorsyllogism.BeneaththesurfaceofGutas’objectionsistheapparentbeliefthattheacknowledgementofanything“mystical”obliteratesthevalidityorrealityoftherational,butthereisnoobjectivereasontobelievethatthisisso,orattheveryleast,noreasoningisgiven.44
-TheCaseofAbūḤāmidal-Ghazālī
HerewewillbelimitingourfocustolookingatGhazālī’sfunctionascriticand/orpractitionerofphilosophyandspokesmanformainstreamSufism.Whateveritsothereffectsmayhavebeen,Ghazālī’srefutationofthephilosophers’assertionsregardingvarioustopicsinhisTahāfutal-falāsifah(TheIncoherenceofthePhilosophers),45andparticularlythoseofAvicenna,hadadevastatingeffectuponthelegitimacyofpurelyrationalspeculationoutsideofthecontextoftherevealedtradition.Atthesametime,hisIḥyāʾʿulūmal-dīn(RevivalofReligiousLearning)andotherworkssuchasal-Munqidhminal-ḍalāl(DeliverancefromError)46gavetremendoussupporttothedoctrinesandpracticesofthemysticsandofcoursetheirparticularclaimstosuperiormodesofknowing.However,inpartbecauseofthetremendoussuccessofboththeseendeavors,accusationsofinconsistencyandofchanginghismessagetosuitdifferentaudienceshavedoggedGhazālīdownthroughthecenturiestoourpresentday,andthisquestionofwhetherornotGhazālīhadasecretdoctrinehasmuchtodowithhisrealpositiononcertaindoctrinesofthephilosophers,andhencewiththerelationshipofmysticismtophilosophyafterhim.InordertounderstandGhazālīinthisregarditisnecessarytofirstgraspexactlywhathisquarrelwiththephilosopherswas,andsecondtolookatwhat
43“Avicenna,however,didmaintainthevalidityofSufism,justashemaintainedthevalidityofothermanifestationsofIslamicreligiouslife,butheinterpretedit,justasheinterpretedthem,intermsofhisownsystem,”(Gutas,“Avicenna:Mysticism,”EncyclopediaIranica).44TheacceptanceofmysticisminAvicennaisnotlimitedtotheCorbin-Nasr‘school.’“NineteenthcenturyEuropeanscholarsthoughtthathismysticismwasextraneoustohisphilosophy,butfurtheracquaintancewithhiswritingsmakesitclearthatthisisnotso.Hismysticismandhisphilosophyconstituteasingleintegratedsystem.”W.M.Watt,IslamicPhilosophyandTheology,Edingurgh,1985,75.45TheIncoherenceofthePhilosophers.TranslatedbyM.Marmura.Utah,1997.46DeliverancefromError,RichardMcCarthy,Louisville,KY,1999.
Page 27
15
Ghazālīhimselfhadtosayaboutwithholdingknowledgeandpassingonsecretknowledgefromonepersontothenext.
AccusationsofinconsistencywereleveledatGhazālīquiteearlyinphilosophicalcircles.AspartofhisresponsetoGhazālī’sattackonthephilosophers,AverroesaccusedGhazālīofcriticizingtheemanationistviewsofthephilosophersinhisIncoherenceofthePhilosophersonlytoechothoseverysameviewsinhisMiskhātal-anwār(TheNicheofLights).47IbnṬufayl(thesamewhosawasecretdoctrineinAvicenna,itshouldberemembered)defendedGhazālībyaccusingAverroesofmisinterpretingGhazālī’slanguagetobeemanationistpurelyandsimplyinthemannerofAvicenna.AmongotherthingstheargumentwithrespecttoTheNicheofLights48centersaroundabeingGhazālīreferstoasal-muṭāʿ,or“theobeyedone,”bywhoseauthoritytheangelsmovethecosmos,whichnodoubtwasseenasbeingsuspiciouslysimilartotheIntellectofAvicenna’ssystem.WattwentsofarastopositthatthispartoftheNichewasnotauthentic,sinceGhazālīcouldneverhaveespousedsuchadoctrineandremainedconsistentwithhiscriticismofemanationismintheInchoherence.49
ItcanbearguedthatGhazālīonlyassumedtheroleofmutakallimasafunctionofhisfameandprestige,notwishingtoinflictoverly-esotericdoctrinesonthemasses,whowouldinevitablytakewhathesaidquiteseriously.50InfactoneofthemostfrequentrefrainsintheIḥyāʾarestatementstotheeffectof,“Wecouldsaymuchmoreaboutthis,butyouwouldnotbeabletounderstandit.”InthissenseGhazālī’smysticismwasoftenequivocal,takingintoaccounthisroleasapillarofthecommunityandanauthorityamongthescholarsofthetraditionalsciences.
DidGhazālītrulyhaveasecretdoctrineheespousedamongstaninnercircle,adoctrineherepudiatedinpublicinhisroleaspillarofthescholarlycommunity?WasheapublicAshʿaritebutaclosetNeoplatonist?ForthepresentmomentwhatcannotbedoubtedisthatGhazālīdidhaveasensibilitytowhathewouldsayopenlyandwhathewouldkeeptohimself.Thefollowingpassageisveryrepresentativeofhisperspectiveonthisquestion:
47Gairdner,W.H.T.“al-Ghazālī’sMishkātal-AnwārandtheGhazālīProblem”(DerIslam5:133),aswellas,al-Ghazālī’sMishkātal-Anwār(“TheNicheforLights”),Lahore,1952.48Mishkātal-anwār,ed.Abū’l-ʿAlāʾʿAfīfī,Cairo,1964.49“Inthelightofpresentscholarshipthesoundestmethodologyistoconcentrateonthemainworksofundoubtedauthenticityandtoacceptotherworksonlyinsofarastheviewsexpressedarenotincompatiblewiththeformer.”“al-Ghazālī,AbūḤāmid,”EI2.Hisfullerargumentisfoundin,“AForgeryinal-Ghazālī’sMishkāt?”JournaloftheRoyalAsiaticSociety,1949,5-22.50“Wemustrecall[Ghazālī’s]ownclearanddecisivedisclaimersaboutthelimitsoftheologicaldiscourse,forheisuncompromisingonthepointthatthesoleutilityofthekalāmliesinexplicatingthecreedofthecommonbelieversandindestroying,throughdialecticalargumentation,hereticalinnovationstothecreed.Itsrealandonlypurpose,then,isofaprotectivenature;hence,itspractitionersaretoberegardedasintellectualbodyguardsordogmaticpolicemenratherthanasexplicatorsofthetruthwhodelveintotherealitiesofthings.Indeed,asa‘science’(ʿilm)or‘craft’(ṣināʿah),thekalāmisthoroughlyinappropriateforanykindofspeculativeinvestigationintotheverities,hesays,andisforeverrestrictedtothelevelofcommonbelief.Seekingal-Ghazālī’scandidopiniononthetruenatureofthings,intheIhya’andelsewhere,wearetoldinnouncertaintermstofishinotherwaters.”TimothyGianotti,al-Ghazālī’sUnspeakableDoctrineoftheSoul:UnveilingtheEsotericPsychologyoftheIḥyāʾ,Leiden,2001,10.
Page 28
16
[T]otheextentthattheheartcomesclosetothethresholdoftheTruth,Hisveritieswillglimmerwithinit.Butthereisnowayto[gettothisstation]savethroughthe[spiritual]disciplinewhoseexplicationcomesinits[own,rightful]placeandthroughknowledgeandinstruction.ThesearethescienceswhichcannotbewrittendowninbooksandofwhichnothingisspokenbytheoneuponwhomGod—beheexalted—hasbestowedhisblessings,exceptwithhis[own]folk…whoarethosehavingashareinit.[Thecommunicationofthesesciencescanoccurboth]bywayoforalteachingandbywayofsecrets.Thatisthehiddenknowledge,which[theProphet](mayGodblesshimandgranthimsalvation)meantbyhisstatement,“verilyofknowledgethereis[something]akintotheoutershapeofthehiddenthing;onlythefolk[possessing]thegnosisofGod—beheexalted—knowit.Iftheyuttersomethingofit,onlythosewhoaredeludedaboutGod—beHeexalted—will[remain]ignorantofit.SodonotscornalearnedmantowhomGod—beHemighty,sublime—hasnotscornedhimsincetohimHegave[theknowledge].51
ItmightbeaskedwhysomeonewithapastoralconcernsuchasGhazālīwouldevenmentiontopeoplethatthereexistsaknowledgeofwhichtheyareunworthy.ThosewhotrulyknowneednotreadaboutitinGhazālī’sbooks,sincetrueknowledgewouldbringwithittheawarenessthatotherpeoplewouldnotunderstandit,orworse,wouldbeharmedbyit.Similarly,thosetowhomGodgrantednoknowledgemightonlybeputoffandscandalizedbythenotionthatthereisasecret,morevalidknowledgeouttherewhichisbeingdeliberatelykeptfromthem.Hestates:
[Perhaps]theamount…whichwehave[already]mentionedwouldhavebeenbetterleft[unwritten],sincethewayfarerbelongingtothispathdoesnotneedtohearitfromsomeoneelse.Andtheonewhoisnotfollowing[thispath]doesnotbenefitfromhearingit;indeedmaybehewouldsustainsomeinjurybecauseof[hearing]it,sincethatwouldbequeathbewilderment[to]himinasmuchashewouldhearsomethingthathedoesnotunderstand. However,thereisabenefitin[suchanexperience]:namely,hisbeingliberatedfromthedeceptioninwhichheis[submerged].Indeed,maybehewouldcometobelievethatthematteris[far]greaterthanhehadsupposedit[tobe]andhadimaginedit[tobe]byreasonofhisshort-sightedmind,hislimitedimagination,andhisembellishedargumentation.[Andmaybe]hewouldalsocometobelievewhatwastoldtohimoftheUnveilings,aboutwhichthesaintsofGodreport.52
Inshort,evensomeonewhodoesnotgraspthehigherspiritualpossibilitiesofknowledgemightbejoltedoutofhisspiritualtorporbyexposuretosuchknowledge,oratleasttoitswrittenvestiges.Hethenmightgoaboutthebusinessoftryingtoacquirethisincommunicablewisdomonhisown,acknowledgingthestationofthesaintsandtheprophetsandthevalidityoftheirspecialknowledgeandthenhimselfmakinganattempttobecomeworthyofabestowalofunderstandingandvisionbyGod.
51Ibid.,55.52Ibid.,59.
Page 29
17
TofurtherunderstandthisdebateaboutwithholdingknowledgeitneedstobenotedthatGhazālīwasoftennotattackingthesubstanceofcertainphilosophicaltenets,butthemethodbywhichtheywerearrivedat.
Inotherwords,al-Ghazālī’sfamousandoftenbrilliantrefutationsofIbnSīnā’spsychologicalandeschatologicaldoctrinesturnouttobemeticulousexpositionsofthefactthatsuchbeliefsarenotdirectoutcomesofdemonstrativenecessity.Thus…theTahāfutdoesnotalwaysdirectlyattackthephilosophicaldoctrinesperseorevenentertainquestionsoftruth,foritwasneverwrittentoaffirmorestablishbelief;ratheritwasdesignedtoshaketheproudfoundationsoftheAvicennianpositions,whichwereinhismindleadingsomeintellectuallycuriousMuslimsintodangerouswaters.”53
AsanexamplehequotesGhazālī,“Thereisnothinginwhat[thephilosophers]havementionedthatmustbedeniedintermsoftheReligiousLaw.FortheseareobservedmatterswhichGod,exaltedbeHe,hasordainedtorunahabitualcourse.Weonlywantnowtoobjecttotheirclaimofknowingthesoultobeaself-subsistingsubstancethroughrationaldemonstration.WedonotofferagainsttheirclaimtheobjectionofonewhodeemsthistoberemotefromthepowerofGod,theexalted,orperceivesthattheReligiousLawhasbroughtforththatwhichiscontrarytoit.Indeed,wewillperhapsshowthattheReligiousLawgivescredencetoitin[our]detailingoftheexplanationsoftheresurrectionandtheAfterlife.Wedeny,however,theirclaimthatreasonaloneindicatesthisandthatthereisnoneedinitfortheReligiousLaw.”54
ThismightpartlyexplainwhyscholarssuchasWatthadsuchadifficulttimeacceptingthe“emanationist”hierarchydescribedinTheNicheofLights.IfweunderstandGhazālī’scritiqueofphilosophytobeanattackanddisavowalofallofitssubstanceapartfromlogicandmathematics(whichheacknowledgesasneutralasregardsreligion)thennaturallyanydoctrineGhazālīespousessimilartothedoctrinesofthephilosopherswillseemtobeacontradictionorconfusion.Someofthemisunderstandingherenodoubtstemsfromtheunfortunatetendencytoassumethatanydoctrinethatresemblesanexistingphilosophicalideamusthavesomesortoffiliationwiththatidea.Thus,anydescriptionofrealityintermswhichareevenvaguely“emanationist”orshowinganontological-causalhierarchyiseasilyclassifiedas“ArabicNeoplatonism.”Infact,Wattseemstogivenomiddleground;forhim,tothedegreeGhazālīheldaviewincommonwiththeNeoplatonistshewasinfluencedbythemandhencewouldcontradicthimselfinbeingcriticalofthem.BuchmanarguesthatTheNicheofLightsisafundamentallyQurʾānictextinthesensethatitderivesfromthescripturesofIslamanddoesnotgoagainstthedoctrineoftawhid.ItismeantasaguidetoMuslimstopracticetheirfaith
53Ibid.,11.54Ibid.,98.OnthenuancesofGhazālī’srejectionofphilosophyseealsoJulesJanssens,“al-Ghazālī’sTahāfut:IsitreallyarejectionofIbnSīnā’sphilosophy?”JournalofIslamicStudies,12(2001),1-17,aswellasOmerAlper,“Gazālī’sviewofthePhilosophicalTradition:WasHeReallyAgainstPhilosophy?”İstanbulÜniversitesiIlāhiyatFakültesiDergisi,vol.4,87-107.AhmadDalāl(“GhazālīandthePerilsofInterpretation,”JOAS,122:4,773-787)presentsGhazālīaspossiblyambivalentwhenitcomestocompetingknowledgeclaims,wantingtosecuretheroleofreasonagainsttheBāṭiniyyahbutsubordinatingitasagainstthephilosophers.
Page 30
18
withgreaterpurityandunderstanding,andifitcontainsideasthathappentoparrelelcertainNeoplatonicnotionsasespousedbythephilosophersthistakesnothingawayfromitsowninnersenseofIslamicprovenance.ArgumentsovertheallegedNeoplatonicnatureofcertainpassagesofthisworkhave,inhisview,obscuredGhazālī’sfundamentalgoalinwritingit,namelytooutlinebasicpsychologicalandcosmologicalprinciplestoMuslims.
Indeed,farfrombeingaveiledimitationofNeoplatonicdoctrines,TheNicheofLightswasoneoftheearliestworkstoaddressphilosophicallywhatwouldcometobeknowninIslamicmetaphysicsastheimaginationalworld(ʿālamal-khayāl)ortheworldoflikeness,sometimestranslatedastheworldofimages(ʿālamal-mithāl).Ghazālīspeaksoftheworldbetweenpurespiritsandtheworldofbodies,saying,“Knowthatthelow,dense,imaginalworldbecamefortheprophetsaglass,anicheforlights,apurifierofmysteries,andaladdertothehighestworld.Throughthisitcomestobeknownthattheoutwardsimilitudeistrueandbehinditisamystery.”55ThisimaginationalworldasanontologicallevelofrealitywouldlaterbedevelopedinincrediblefullnessbyIbnʿArabīandthenincorporatedsystematicallyintothephilosophyofMullāṢadrā.InTheNicheofLightstheemphasisisplacedmoreontheroleoftheimaginationasoneofthepowersandresourcesofthesoulanditsfunctionasanessentialpartofthespirituallife.
Moreover,asitsnamemightindicate,TheNicheofLightsoftenspeaksoflightsasametaphysicalentityandindeedarrangeslightsinanangelichierarchy,almostacenturybeforeSuhrawardīdevelopedhisownsophisticatedhierarchyofangelsandmetaphysicsoflightsanddarknesses.
Knowthatithasbeenunveiledtothepossessorsofinsightsthatthelightsofdominionarelikewiseonlytobefoundinahierarchy[ʿalātartīb],andthatthelight“broughtnear”[referringtoangelsin4:172]istheonethatisclosesttotheFurthestLight.Hence,itisnotunlikelythatthelevelofIsrafilisabovethatofGabriel;thatamongtheangelsisonewhoisthemostnearbecauseofthenearnessofhisdegreetotheLordlyPresence,whichisthesourceofalllights;thatamongtheangelsisthefurthest;andthatbetweenthetwoaresomanydegreesthattheycannotbecounted.Theonlythingknownaboutthesedegreesoflightisthattherearemanyofthemandthattheirhierarchyderivesfromtheirstationsandtheirranks.56Andthefollowing:[T]heworldinitsentiretyisfilledwithbothmanifest,visuallightsandthenonmanifest,rationallights…Thelowlightsflowforthfromoneanotherjustaslightflowsforthfromalamp.Thelampistheholypropheticspirit.Theholypropheticspiritsarekindledfromthehighspirits,justasalampiskindledfromalight.Someofthehighthingskindleeachother,andtheirhierarchyisahierarchyofstations.ThenallofthemclimbtotheLightoflights,theirOrigin,theirFirstSource.ThisisGodalone,whohasnopartner.Allotherlightsareborrowed.TheonlytruelightisHis.EverythingisHislight—or,rather,Heiseverything…[T]hereisnolightexceptHislight.57
55TheNicheofLights,ed.D.Buchman,Utah,1998,34.56Ibid.,14.57Ibid.,20.
Page 31
19
HereisnottheplacetospeculateconcerningtheextenttowhichSuhrawardī,sofamousforhismetaphysicsoflight,wasinfluencedbyGhazālīinhisconceptionoflight,sincethetendencytoseelightasametaphysicalentitywasnotuniquetoGhazālī.58Rather,itisimportanttonoteherethattherewereprefigurations,insomeoneasearlyandsignificantasGhazālī,ofsuchfoundationaldoctrinesoflaterIslamicphilosophyasthelevelofrealitybetweenspiritandbodyandthemetaphysicsoflight.Thesepassages,moreover,occurinthepassagesofTheNicheofLightswhichwereneveranobjectofcontroversy.
Aswasmentionedbefore,Ghazālīdidnotattackallofthedoctrinesofthephilosophersasbeingintrinsicallyfalse.Rather,hewishedtoshowthattheywerenotnecessarilytrueastheywerepresented.Hisprimarymotivationfordoingsowasafirmlyheldbeliefthatnohumanbeingcouldhaveknowledgeregardingthethingsthephilosophersclaimtoknowoutsideofthecontextoftherevealedtradition(sharʿ).Ghazālīwasinnowaydefactoordejureagainsttheuseofreasonandlogic.59ItwasGhazālīhimselfwhobroughtAristotelianlogicintothescienceofkalām.ForGhazālīkalāmwasusefulasadefensiveweaponagainstaccusationsfromtheoutsideandasamedicineforthementalsicknesscreatedbyrationalskepticism.60However,trueknowledgemusttranscendallpossibilityofdoubt,andthuseventheloftiesttruthspresentinphilosophyandkalām,anditisthepracticeofthespirituallifeinthecontextofthetruths—andfromtheSufiperspective,thegracesorbarakah—ofthereligionthatthejourneytothestationoftrueknowledgeispossible.Otherwisekalāmwastobeavoided,asitonlyhadworthinthepresenceoftheologicalattackorreligiousdoubt.61
Ghazālī’sambivalentattitudetowardskalāmisalsodisplayedinhislackofinterestinlayingdownaspiritualizedmetaphysicalsystemofhisown.EvenwherewhatmightbecalledSufimetaphysicsisdescribedinTheNicheofLights,itisinthecontextofanexhortationforthespiritualtravelertocleansehisheartandascendfromtheworldofvisiblethings(ʿālamal-shahādah)tothetreasuresoftheunseenworld(ʿālamal-ghayb).Hismagnumopus,theIḥyāʾ,isanextendedmeditationonthepracticeofthe
58FortheparallelsbetweenGhazālī’smetaphysicsoflightandthemuchmoredevelopedsystemofSuhrawardī,seeJ.Walbridge,TheWisdomoftheMysticEast,“Ghazālī,theGhostatSuhrawardī’sFeast.”NewYork,2001,54-7.59GhazālīcomposedatreatiseonAvicennianlogicentitledMiʿyāral-ʿilmfīʾl-mantiq(Beirut,1964).FormoreonGhazālī’sviewsonlogicseeMichaelMarmura,“GhazālīandDemonstrativeScience,”JournaloftheHistoryofPhilosophy,Oct1965,183-204,and“Ghazālī’sAttitudetotheSecularSciencesandLogic,”EssaysinIslamicPhilosophyandScience,ed.G.Hourani,Arberry1975.60“[M]oreoftenthannotal-Ghazālī’s[intheTahafut]arguesfromanAsharitetheologicalbaseandaffirmsAshʿaritetheologicalpositions.Butthisishisprerogative.Whenhedoesthis,hedoesitaspartofhisendeavortorefute.HedoesnotdevelopatheologicalsystemintheTahāfut.”(M.Marmura,TheIncoherenceofthePhilosophers.Provo,Utah,1997,xxiii).Seealsohis“GhazālīandAshʿarismrevisited,”ArabicSciencesandPhilosophy,vol.12(2002),91-110,whereheneatlyoutlinestheroleofkalāmforGhazālī.61“Itisclearthatal-Ghazālī’sbasictheologicalsystemisfundamentallyincompatiblewiththetraditionalteachingoftheAshʿariteschool.Hisrejectionofkalāmasasimplisticdisciplinethatisinadequateeithertotheachievementofgenuineintellectualunderstandingortotheattainmentofhigherreligiousinsightisclearfromthoutset.”RichardFrank,al-GhazālīandtheAshʿariteSchool,Durham,1994,87
Page 32
20
piouslifefromitsbasicstoitsmostspiritualdepths,butitisnotaworkofmetaphysicsorcosmology.62Kalāmwastobeemployedinthisregardtotheextentnecessaryforthesociety,asafardkifāyahorgeneralizedcollectiveduty,buttrueknowledgecouldonlycomeintheimmediateandlivedencounterbetweenmanandGod,andthiswassomethingnorationalproofs—neitherfromthephilosophersnorthetheologians—couldprovide.
InthisdissertationitisassumedherethatinoppositiontokalāmGhazālīdidhavewhatRichardFrankcallsa“highertheology,”63whichwaswhathetrulybelievedbutwhichhedidnotthinkeveryoneneededtoknoworcouldunderstandiftheyheardit.Ghazālī’simpatiencewithkalāmisdemonstratedeasilyenough,asishisnuancedstancevis-à-visthephilosophers.AddtothisthemetaphysicalvisionexpressedinTheNicheofLightsIbelieveitisquitereasonabletoassumethatGhazālītailoredhismessageaccordingtohisaudience,hismaincriterionindoingsobeingthespiritualeffectitwouldhaveontherecipient,ratherthanconsistency.Ghazālī’s“highesttheology”wascontainedintheteachingoftheSufis,andinasenseeverythingelsehetaughtcouldbesubordinatedtoit.InthisrespectGhazālīrepresentsapossibilityoftheunionbetweenvariousseeminglyincompatiblestreamsofthought,aunionwhichwouldbeexploredbymanyothersintheensuingcenturies.Ofhisactualimprintonthenatureofphilosophyandkalāmmorewillbesaidintheconclusionofthischapter.-IbnʿArabīandPhilosophy
IbnʿArabīlivedatatimewhenthetraditionofPeripateticphilosophyhadalreadybeenwellestablished,afterFarābīandIbnSīnāhadwrittentheirworksandevenafterGhazālīhadattemptedtorefutethemandIbnRushdrosetodefendIbnSīnāinordertofurtherextendthetraditionofPeripateticphilosophy.Infact,oneofthemostnoteworthymeetingsearlyinIbnʿArabī’slifewaswithIbnRushdhimself,whenIbnʿArabīwasonlyfifteenyearsoldbutwasalreadyknowntohaveachievedacertainlevelofmysticalknowledge.ThephilosophersoughtoutameetingwiththeyoungmantoaskhimabouthisexperiencewithmysticalknowledgeandisreportedtohaveleftthemeetingsomewhatrattledbyIbnʿArabī’sresponsestohisquestions.64IbnRushdwaswell 62[Ghazālī]leavesuswithquestions,unansweredandseeminglyunanswerable…Forexample,thesoul’simmateriality—socentraltoIbnSīnā’spsychologyandeschatology—hasnowherebeenaffirmedordeniedwithinthecontextofal-Ghazālī’sesotericformulations…Ouroneandperhapsonlyremainingchanceforclarificationontheseandotherquestionsistoventureintothemalakūt,theworldoftheUnseen,whichisthehome“world”oftheheartandthetheatreinwhichtheheart“witnesses’itssupremeexperienceofUnveiling…”Gianotti,14.63al-GhazālīandtheAshʿariteSchool,76.64‘AsI[IbnʿArabī]entered,thephilosopher[IbnRushd]rosefromhisseatandcametomeetme,showingmeeverypossibletokenoffriendshipandconsiderationandfinallyembracingme.Thenhesaidtome:“Yes”.Iinturnrepliedtohim:“Yes”.ThenhisjoyincreasedashesawthatIhadunderstoodhim.Butnext,whenImyselfbecameawareofwhatitwasthathadcausedhisjoy,Iadded:“No”.ImmediatelyAverroestensedup,hisfeatureschangedcolorandheseemedtodoubthisownthoughts.Heaskedmethisquestion:“Whatkindofsolutionhaveyoufoundthroughilluminationanddivineinspiration?Isitjustthesameaswhatwereceivethroughspeculativethought?”Irepliedtohim:“Yesandno.Betweentheyesandthenospiritstakeflightfromtheirmatterandnecksbreakawayfromtheirbodies.”Averroesturnedpale;Isawhimstarttotremble.Hemurmuredtheritualphrase,“thereisnostrengthsaveinGod”,because
Page 33
21
knownatthistime,anditwouldseemthatthiswouldhavebeenIbnʿArabī’sfirstimportantencounterwithamajorfigureofIslamicphilosophy,butfromIbnʿArabi’spointofviewthemeetingwasmoreofaneventforthephilosopherthanforthematuringyoungmystic.ThedevelopmentofIbnʿArabī’spersonalengagementwiththetraditionofphilosophyisactuallynotveryeasytodiscern,whichissurprisingconsideringthethousandsofpagesIbnʿArabīwroteonsubjectswhicharetheverystuffofphilosophicalspeculation. TheintellectuallandscapepresentedtoIbnʿArabīcanbesaidtohaveconsistedbyandlargeofthefollowingelements:theQurʾān,ḥadīth,andthetransmittedsciencestowhichtheygaverise;thewritingsofthevariousschoolsofdogmatictheology(kalām);PeripateticphilosophyinthetraditionofKindī,Farābī,IbnSīnā,andIbnRushd;theadabtraditionofpoetryandothernon-sacredliterature;andthewritingsoftheSufisincludingGhazālī.IbnʿArabīwastrainedinthesciencesoftheQurʾānandtraditioninal-Andalūsbysomewellknownfigureswithinmainstreamcircles,beginninginSevillein1182.HisengagementwiththeQurʾānandḥadīth,especiallyintheFutūḥāt,leavelittledoubtthathewasthoroughlyfamiliarwiththemandwiththelearnedtraditionsurroundingthem.HisK.Muḥādarātal-abrāralsomakesclearthathewasinterestedinotherkindsofliteratureanddeemeditworthwhiletostudyallmannerofwritingsfromfablestothesayingsofkings,frompoetrytoancientchronicles.Initheincluded“allkindsofliterarystories(adab),sermons,proverbs,unusualanecdotes,chroniclesoftimesgoneby,thelivesoftheAncientsandtheProphets,thehistoryofkingsbothArabandnon-Arab,noblevirtues,marvelousstories,traditionsIhavebeentoldaboutthebeginningofthingsandthecreationofthisworld…aswellassometalkwhichisentertainingandamusingwhilenotservingtounderminereligion…”Addasstates,“Herewearefacedwithaclassicexampleofabookofadab—aliteraryworkaimedatbeinginstructive,funnyanderuditeallatthesametime,anddestinedforafairlybroadreadershipofudabāʾ,orliterati.”65 ItisthoughtthatIbnʿArabī’sstudyofthemanualsofSufismactuallybeganquitelate,sometwelveyearsafterhebeganpracticingthespiritualpath.In586hefirstcameintocontactwiththeRisālahofAbū’l-Qāsimal-Qushayrī,66whichwasoneoftheclassicsofSufism,andofitsaid,“IhadneverheardanythingwhatsoeveraboutQushayrī’sRisālah,oraboutanyotherworkofasimilarkind;Ididnotevenknowthemeaningoftheterm‘taṣawwuf’.”Thischanged,ofcourse,asevidencedbyIbnʿArabī’squotationsofSufiwritersinhisworks.Hisresponsestoquestionsposedbyal-Ḥakīmal-Tirmidhī67onthesubjectofwalāyah(sainthoodor“friendship”withGod),forexample,
hehadunderstoodmyallusion.’QuotedfromClaudeAddas,QuestfortheRedSulphur,Cambridge,37,accordingtowhomthisconversationtakesplaceinthecontextofadebateoverthenatureofbodilyresurrection.65RedSulfur,100.66SeeRichardGramlich,Das Sendschreiben al-Qusayris über das Sufitum (Stuttgart, 1989) andPrinciplesofSufism,trans.B.R.vonSchlegell,Berkeley,1992,bothstudiesofQushayri’sfamousRisālah.67SeeTheConceptofSainthoodinEarlyIslamicMysticism:TwoWorksbyal-Ḥakīmal-Tirmidhī,BerndRadtkeandJohnO’Kane,Richmond,Surrey,1996.
Page 34
22
formamajorchapterintheFutūḥāt.HealsofrequentlymentionsothermajorSufiwriterssuchasGhazālī,Niffarī,68Sulamī,69AbūṬālibal-Makkī,70andothers.71 Butwhatwashiseducationinscholastictheologyandphilosophy?Fromthestartitisimpossibletoknowwhichtextshemayormaynothaveread,asherarelyquotesanyphilosopherexplicitly,preferringtorefertopositionsinageneralwaywhenhedoesmentionphilosophersortheologians,andreferringtopeoplehecallsahlal-naẓar,whichitwouldseemcanmeaneitherphilosophersortheologiansdependingonthecontext.AsfarasgleaningIbnʿArabī’ssourcesfromhisownwritingsbylookingforsimilarwordingandthemesfromworksextantinhistime,thisisaratherquestionableapproachconsideringthesheervolumeofIbnʿArabī’swritingandhiswillingnesstoemployanyandallpossiblemodesofexpressionwhendiscussingcosmologyandmetaphysics.“Itisnolongerpossible,asitwasinthetimeofM.Schreiner,torefertotheLiberdecausisortheTheologyofAristotleandthusintimatethatIbnʿArabīhadreadthemwhenhespokeofthePureGoodortheidentityofknowledge,theknower,andtheknown.Allthiswasgeneralknowledgeinhistimesharedbyallintellectuals...Hemayverywellhavereadthoseworks,iftheywereaccessibletohimandhehadbeenlookingforthem,butunlessheindicatesthatmuch,proofthathedidwouldrequireunambiguousidentificationofaccuratequotations.”72 AninterestingincidentoccurredwhenIbnʿArabīpickedupacopyofFarabi’sArāʾahlal-madīnahal-fāḍilāhwhichwasontheshelfatafriend’shouse.Uponencounteringapassagewhichheremembersas,“Wemustspeculateonhowtopositagodintheworld,”usingilāhinsteadofAllāh,IbnʿArabīwasrevoltedandsaid,‘HedidnotsayAllāh!”andreturnedthebooktoitsowner.73ThisisonlyhowIbnʿArabītellsit,forasRosenthalpointsoutneitherilāhnorAllāhappearanywhereinthatwork.IbnʿArabīeitherrememberedthewrongwordoractuallyreadfromadifferentwork.Thathewouldgothetothetroubleofrecountingthisincidentmighttellussomethingabouthisopinionofthephilosophers’method,towhichwewillturnbelow,but“thequotedpassagedoesnottellusmuchabouttheextentofIbnʿArabī’sacquaintancewiththeavailablephilosophical-politicalliterature.”74Somewhatsurprisingly,theonephilosophicalworkthatIbnʿArabīspecificallyquotesisSirral-asrār(Secretumsecretorum)bypseudo-Aristotle.Itwasabookonpoliticswhichalsomixedin“science,superstition,andmagic.”75IbnʿArabīconsideredittobeagenuineworkofAristotle
68MuḥammadibnʿAbdal-Jabbāral-Niffarī(d.965),bestknownforhisK.al-MawāqiforBookofSpiritualWaystations.69Muḥammadibnal-Ḥusaynal-Sulamī(d.1021),animportantearlySufiauthor,perhapsbestknownforhisṬabaqātal-ṣūfiyyah.70MuḥammadAbūṬālibal-Makkī(d.996),authorofoneofthebestknownearliesttreatisesonSufism,Qūtal-qulūb.71InhisTheSelf-DisclosureofGod(pp.371-386),ChittickdiscussesIbnʿArabī’sviewsoncertainimportantSufissuchasRābiʿahal-ʿAdawiyyah(d.801)andʿAbdal-Qādiral-Jīlānī(d.1166).72FranzRosenthal,“IbnʿArabībetween‘Mysticism’and‘Philosophy’,”Oriens,vol.31(1988),18-19.73RedSulphur,108.74Rosenthal19.75Ibid.,25.
Page 35
23
addressedtoAlexander,anditformedthebasisofhisownK.al-tadbīrātal-ilāhiyyah.76Overall,onewhosearchesthroughIbnʿArabī’scorpusforadetailedengagementwiththephilosophersandthephilosophicalliteratureofhisdaywillfindonlyshortfragments.Hisdiscussionsofthephilosophersandtheirpositions,whentheydooccur,haveanad-hocquality.77
Onthequestionoftheacquisitionofknowledge,IbnʿArabīdividesmenintogroups,andassignssuperioritytothedegreethataman’sknowledgeisbasedondirectvisionasopposedtoreason.IbnʿArabīhasseveralnamesforthisdirectknowledge,whichsometimeshaveapeculiartechnicalsignificanceoftheirownbutwhichoftenrefertonon-discursiveknowledgeoftherealitiesofthings.Forexample,mushāhadahistobedistinguishedfromruʾyahwhenoneiscomparingthetwo,butwheneitherofthemisusedaloneinapassagesuchwordsasruʾyah(vision),mushāhadah(witnessing),kashf(discovery,unveiling),andfatḥ(opening)arereferringtomoreorlessthesamekindofexperience.ThefollowingpassagefromIbnʿArabī’sFuṣūṣal-ḥikamistypicalofhisattitudetowardsphilosopherswhenitcomestoconsequentialknowledge:
Noneofthemenofknowledgehavediscoveredthisknowledgeofthesoulexceptthegodly,namelytheMessengersandtheSufis.Asforthecompanionsofreasoningandthemastersofthinking—namelytheancientsandthetheologiansintheirtheologicaldiscussionsconcerningthesoulanditsquiddity—nonehavediscovereditsreality,andmentalreasoningwillnevergrantit.Whosoeverseeksknowledgeofitbywayofmentalreasoningdoessoinvain.Sucharecertainlyamongthosewhoseeffortsleadthemastrayinthelifeofthislowerworld,thinkingthattheyaredoingsomethinggood.78Whosoeverseeksthisaffairthroughotherthanitsproperwayshallnotobtainit.79
ThissentimentisexpandeduponinapassagefromtheFutūḥātdescribedbyAddas:[H]e[Ibnal-’Arabi]describesintheformofallegorythesimultaneousascension(miʿrāj)oftwoindividuals:oneofthemabelieverwhowalksinthefootstepsofaprophet,theotheraphilosopherwhoreliesonhisfacultyofreasontoleadhimtothetruth.Whearasthemanoffaithhashisprophettoguidehim,thephilosopherclaimshecanaccomplishthecelestialjourneyonhisown.Therestofthestoryiseasytoguess.Ineachofthesevenheavenstheyarriveattheprophetisgreetedbytheprophetwhoresidesthere,whoinitiateshimintoitssecretsandtransmitstohimitsspiritualknowledge.Asforthephilosopher,heisreceivedbytherulingangeloftheheaven,whoonlyimpartstohimaportionofthecosmologicalknowledgecorrespondingtothatparticularsphere.Whenhearrivesattheseventhandfinalheaven,theheavenofAbraham,thephilosopher
76al-Tadbīrātal-ilāhiyyahfīiṣlāhal-mamlakahal-insāniyyah,ed.ḤasanʿĀsī,Beirut,1993.77IntheFuṣūṣal-ḥikam,forexample,hetouchesontheperennialIslamicquestionofthenatureofGod’sattributes,inthiscaseknowledge.However,hesimplyrefersto“thetheologian”andmakesnoclarificationastowhetherhemeanstheAshʿaritesortheMuʿtazilitesorsomeotherview(TheRingstonesofWisdom,CanerDagli,Chicago,2004,24).ElsewherehecomparestheviewsoftheAshʿaritesandtheSophists(al-ḥusbāniyyah),butinanalmoststylizedwaythatmakesthemusefulonlyasacontrastforhisownposition,inthiscaseasregardstheonenessormanynessoftheworld’ssubstanceorjawhar(Ringstones,135-6).78Qurʾān18:104.79TheRingstonesofWisdom,135.
Page 36
24
findshimselfpreventedfromcontinuingonhisjourney;heistoldthathemustretracehissteps,beconverted,andfinallyperformalloveragainthejourneywhichwasmadebythemanoffaith—whocontinuesonhiswayuntilhereachesthethresholdoftheDivinePresence.80
ForIbnʿArabīthesatisfactionoftheoreticalcompletenessonesometimesfindsinaphilosophicalortheologicalsystemisinactualityanimposterforthetrue“tasted”knowledge(ʿilmal-dhawq)thespiritualaspirantshouldbeaimingfor.Theangelsinthemetaphorquotedaboverepresentthepurelyintellectualcapacitiesofman,whichcapacitiesaremoreoverinandofthemselvespartialandblindtotheirownlimitation.81Incontrast,theprophetofeachsphereisasymbolandactualizationofconsummatespiritualguidance.InIbnʿArabī’svisionofthingseachprophetisalsoaperfecthumanbeing,al-insānal-kāmil,whounliketheangelisnotlimitedinhisspiritualunderstandingandcanguidetheseekerthroughthemysteries.ForIbnʿArabīthepurelyspeculativephilosopherwhohashadnoexperiencebeyondthejugglingofconceptsinhismindisthevictimofaself-inflictedfraud.
InthiscontextofthelimitationsofspeculativephilosopherswecanlookbacktoGhazālī,whoseconversionfromskepticismtofaithindeedhadeverythingtodowiththerelationshipbetweenphilosophicalspeculationandmysticalexperience.IbnʿArabīmentionsGhazālīacoupleofdozentimesintheFutūḥāt,anddemonstratessomedetailedknowledgeofhispositionsonvariousquestions,buttheyalmostalwaysrefertomatterspertainingtothespirituallifeandnotspeculativephilosophy.InIbnʿArabī’seyesGhazālīis,ultimately,oneoftheSufis,althoughheiscriticalofhiminsomerespects.HereferstohimasthegreatinterpreterofSufismtothegeneralityofMuslims,andplaceshimamong“ourshaykhs.”HecitesGhazālīasanexampleofleavingtheworldlylife,whichmeanshewasacquaintedwithhislifestoryandhisstrugglewithspeculativethinking.82HementionshisacquaintancewiththeIḥyāʾandwiththeKimiyā-yi-saʿādātandashortworkofhisontheBāṭiniyyah.83TwicehemakesmentionofGhazālī’s“bestofbothworlds”argumentinadditiontoareferencetohispositiononwhetherornotprophethoodisearned.84Outsideofacuriousstatementwhereheisplacedamongtheahlal-naẓar85Ghazālīoccupiestheplaceofavenerableifsomewhatlimited86expositorofSufism.ThisisnoteworthybecausebythetimeofIbnʿArabī’swritingitishardtoimagineanyotherSufiwhohadmoreimportantthingstosayabouttherelationshipofspeculativephilosophytomysticalexperience,andwhowasaswellknown,asGhazālī.
80RedSulphur,106.81Theangelsarethevariousfacultiesofthisform[oftheworld]…Eachofthesefacultiesisveiledandcannotseeanythingsuperiortoitself.(Ringstones,5)Bycontrast,arealizedhumanbeingcontainsthepossibilityforknowingGodinacompleteandtotalwayaccordingtoIbnʿArabī,afeatnotevenanangelcanaccomplish.82al-Futūḥātal-Makkiyyah(Bulāqedition,Cairo1968)1:27483Ibid.,1:334.84Ibid.,1:552,2:345,2:3respectively.85Ibid.,4:416,disapprovingofhismethodnodoubtwhenGhazālīiswearinghismutakallimhat.86IbnʿArabīplaceshim,alongwithal-Muḥāsibī,amongthe“commonality”oftheSufis(Futūḥāt1:590)
Page 37
25
IbnʿArabīpointstohimasanexampleofthepitfallsofpursuingspeculativephilosophyandmysticism:
Someofwhatthe“unlettered”realizehasbeenrelatedfromAbūHamidal-Ghazālī,thespokesman[mutarjim]forthepeopleofthispath.“WhenIdesiredtojointheirway…Iretreatedintomyselfandwithdrewfrommyrationalconsiderationandmyreflection.Ioccupiedmyselfwithinvocation,andaknowledgewaskindledinmewhichIhadnothad.”
InthispassageGhazālīgoesontoexplainthateachtimehethoughthehadachievedahigherlevelofknowledgehewouldreflectuponitandrealizethatitwasstillsomewhatpolluted,althoughitwaspurereachtimehetried.Heconsideredhimselftohavereachedahigherstationthanspeculativethinkers,but:
“IdidnotreachtheleveloftheTribe[i.e.theSufis]inthat.Icametoknowthatwritinguponwhathadbeenerased(maḥw)isnotthesameaswritinguponthatwhichhasnotbeenerased…ThatistheunletteredpersonwhoseGod-givenknowledgeisnotprecededbyanyreflective,outwardknowledge.HencethatGod-givenknowledgecomestohimmoreeasily.”87
IbnʿArabīgoesontoexplainthateventhosewhoareabletoleavethescaleofphilosophyatthedooruponenteringthespiritualpathwillbepreoccupiedwiththescaleevenastheypursuetrueknowledgeandbeheldbacktoadegreebecauseofit.Thebestoptionwouldbetosomehowsmashthescale;IbnʿArabīadmitshehasneverseenanyoneactuallydothis,thoughhemaintainsthatitisnotimpossible.Ghazālī,aperfectexampleofthespeculativethinkerwhohadascendedtheheightsofconceptualunderstanding,88camefacetofacewithitsvacuity,bringingaboutacrisisafterwhichheascendedthespheresofknowledgethroughspiritualguidanceinsteadofphilosophyorkalām,muchlikethephilosopherintheaforementionedallegory.89 ButtowhatdegreeisIbnʿArabī’sownworkanextensionorcontinuationoftheprojectbegunbyGhazālītofirmlyimplantthetheoryandpracticeofSufismwithinthemajorityintellectualtradition,to“indigenize”itinthemajorityworldofkalāmandfiqh?90Asnotedabove,IbnʿArabīcallsGhazālīamutarjimorinterpretivespokesman 87Futūḥāt2:645.88OneofGhazālī’sclaimswasthathehadlearntallofphilosophyandmathematics,andhewasofcoursealreadyamasterofthetraditionalreligioussciences.HealsomentionsthathewasthoroughlyacquaintedwiththewritingsoftheSufisevenbeforeheembarkedonhisownspiritualjourney.89IbnʿArabīdidnotequatefaylasūfwithsomeoneoutsidethepale.Inoneinstance,forexample,heemploysthephrasefaylasūfislāmī,or“Islamicphilosopher,”nodoubtasopposedtoanon-Islamicphilosopher,Futūḥāt2:12490“[al-Ghazālī]wastheleaderinIslam’ssupremeencounterwithGreekphilosophy—thatencounterfromwhichIslamictheologyemergedvictoriousandenriched,andinwhichArabicNeoplatonismreceivedablowfromwhichitdidnotrecover.[AndH]ebroughtorthodoxyandmysticismintoclosercontact;theorthodoxtheologiansstillwenttheirownway,andsodidthemystics,butthetheologiansbecamemorereadytoacceptthemysticsasrespectable,whilethemysticsweremorecarefultoremainwithintheboundsoforthodoxy”(Watt,TheFaithandPracticeofal-Ghazālī,13).DespitethefactthatWatt’sstatementaboutwhathecalls‘Arabicneoplatonism’ishardlytrueinallpartsoftheIslamicworld,thePersian-speakingareasbeinganexample,andsettingasidetheambiguousmeaningof‘orthodoxy’whentalkingaboutkalāmandtaṣawwuf,thisappraisalisfaithfultoGhazālī’simportanceinIslamicintellectualhistory.Itisall
Page 38
26
fortheSufis.91OneofIbnʿArabī’smostfrequentpreoccupationsandoneofhismostoriginalcontributionsishistreatmentoftheworldbetweenspiritsandbodies,theworldoftheimaginationormundusimaginalisasHenryCorbincalledit.92Asdiscussedabove,Ghazālīwasinfactapioneerintreatingofthisdimensionofrealityinhiswriting,especiallyinTheNicheofLights.93
UnlikeIbnʿArabī,Ghazālīwasamemberofthescholarlyestablishment—indeedpossiblyitspreeminentmemberatthetime—whobecameaSufi.IbnʿArabī,forhispartastheSufiwhobecameanestablishedauthor,hadtheluxuryofpresentingSufismwithoutconcerninghimselfwiththeneedsofnon-Sufis.Indeed,inthisrespectthetwoarelikemirrorimagesofeachother:Ghazālīmasteredthetheorybeforemasteringthepractice,whileIbnʿArabīhadconsiderablemysticalexperiencebeforehavinganysystematicideasaboutit.PerhapsthisispartofthereasonwhyIbnʿArabī’sapproachtophilosophyissodifferentfromGhazālī’sanddoesnotappeartotakethelatter’sasanintellectualstartingpointforhisown(IbnʿArabī’s)engagementwithit.IbnʿArabī’scriticismsofthephilosophersandtheologiansarescatteredhereandthereinhisworks,whichisquiteinkeepingwithhisgeneralstyleofwriting.Indeed,“[g]enerallyspeakingitisimpossibletodisengageIbnʿArabī’spositiononfalsafahfromhisviewsonkalām.Heusuallylumpstogethertheauthoritiesinbothtraditionsandreferstothembysuchtermsas“thepeopleoftheory”or“consideration”(ahlal-naẓar),“therationalthinkers”(al-ʿuqalāʾ)and“thepeopleofthought”or“reflectivethinkers”(asḥabal-fikr).”94IbnʿArabīdoesnotseemtohaveagreatinterestindeconstructingthedoctrinesofthephilosophersfromwithin,asGhazālīdidinhisTahāfut,andevengoingsofarastomakesurehisreadersunderstoodphilosophybeforereadinghiscritiquebycomposingakindoftextbookofPeripetaticphilosophy,Maqāsidal-falāsifah.95Instead,IbnʿArabīexplicitlystates,“Wearenotoneofthosewhowouldreportanystatementsofthesages(ḥukamāʾ)orthestatementsofothers(likethem).Inourbook[theFutūḥāt]aswellasallourotherbooks,wesetdownonlytheresultsofrevelation[kashf]anddictatesofthe
themoreremarkable,then,thatIbnʿArabīconsidersGhazālītobeacommonSufi(ʿāmmah),notoneoftheelite.AmongSufisitwasinfactAbūḤāmid’syoungerbrotherAḥmadal-Ghazālīwhoisconsideredtohaveattainedahighermysticalstation,andsomehaveevenspeculatedthatAḥmadwasatonetimehisolderbrother’sshaykh.91InFutūḥāt2:290hementionsGhazālīasoneof“ourshaykhs”.In4:107hementionsthetheologiansandothersbutcountsGhazālīamongtheṢūfiyyah.92Ipreferimaginationaltoimaginal,asthelattertermdoesnottiebackstronglyenoughtotherootwordimagination,askhayālīdoestokhayāl.93“Therootkh-y-l,fromwhichkhayālisderived,isemployedasingletimeinarelevantmeaningintheKoran.IntellingthestoryofMosesandthesorcerers,theKoransaysthatthesorcerersthrewdowntheirstaffs,whichpromptlyturnedintoserpents.Asaresult,Moses“wasmadetoimagine,bytheirsorcery,thattheirropesandstaffsweresliding”(20:16).Thetermisusedinasimilarsenseinasimilarnumberofhadīths.Thesefewinstancesweresufficienttoallowal-GhazālītoprovidedetaileddiscussionsofimaginationasanIslamicconcept,justasal-FarābīandAvicennahademployedthetermlargelyonthebasisofGreeksources.”W.Chittick,TheSufiPathofKnowledge,116.94W.Chittick,“IbnʿArabī,”inHistoryofIslamicPhilosophy,500.95Asisoftennoted,thisworkhadtheperhapsunintendedconsequenceofmakingtheviewsofthephilosophersmorewidelyaccessible.Maqāṣidal-falāsifah,ed.SulaymānDunyā,Cairo,1960.
Page 39
27
Truth.”96Itshouldnotbethought,however,thatIbnʿArabīsawnovalueinengagingphilosophyandtheology.Indeed,heclearlyknewsomethingaboutthemanddevotedmanypagestodefendinghisownviews.Buthedefendedthemonhisowntermsandusedtheirterminologyandmethodsonlyinsofarastheywereusefulrawmaterialsfortheconstructionofhisownintellectualedifice.97 ComparingGhazālīandIbnʿArabīinthiswaycanshedlightuponthesomewhatdistantrelationshipIbnʿArabīhadwiththetheologicalandphilosophicalestablishment.Thesearetwothinkers,twoSufis,whointheirmainepistemologicalviewswereincompleteagreement,98butwhereasGhazālīsawfittosystematizeandassumetheroleofpedagogueforSufisandnon-Sufisalike,IbnʿArabī’srelentlessinsistencethatreasonisinadequatetothespiritualneedsofmanresultedinaconsummate‘unsystem’thatchewedthroughtheologicalandphilosophicalconceptslikesomanychangesofclothes.BecauseIbnʿArabī’sworkisinfactsomethingmorelikeafamilyofoverlappingontologicalandcosmologicalsystems,heisnotamenabletoacreativeengagementwithsystematicphilosophers,noraretheywithhim.InorderforasystematicthinkertobeabletowrestlewithIbnʿArabī’sinsightsitisnecessarytopluckoutoneofthesesystemsormetaphysicalapproachesanddealwithitonitsown.LaterIwillarguethatthisispreciselywhathappenedinthecenturiesfollowingIbnʿArabī’sarrivalontheintellectualscene,anditishowhebecamesofamouslyassociatedwiththedoctrineofwaḥdatal-wujūd,aphraseheneveremployedhimselfinanyofhiswritings.Thishappenedlargelythroughhisintellectualdescendantswhowillbediscussedlater,whotakentogetherwith 96QuotedfromRosenthal,8-9.97Thefollowingpassageisillustrativeofhisview,“Don’tletyourselfbeturnedoff,whenyoucomeacrossaproblemthatwasmentionedbyaphilosopheroramutakallimoraspeculativescholar[ṣāḥibnaẓar])inanydisciplineofknowledge,tosuchanextentthatyouwouldsayaboutthepersonwhomentionsitandwhoisatrulyinsightful(muḥaqqiq)Sufithatheisaphilosopher,justbecausethephilosopher(faylasūf)mentionedthatveryproblemanddiscusseditandbelievedit.(Anddon’tsay)that(theSufiwhodiscussesit)deriveditfrom(thephilosophers),orthathehasnoreligion,becausethephilosopherwhohadnoreligion(andwasnoMuslim)statedit(earlier).Don’tdothat,friend!Itwouldbeaninconsequentialargument.Fornotallthephilosopher’sknowledgeisuntrue,andthatparticularproblemmayjustinvolvesometruthhepossesses…Ifyou(attackatrulyinsightfulSufiby)sayingthathehearditfromthephilosopher(inoralinstruction)orreaditinbooksofthephilosophers,itcouldbeyouspeakfalselyandshowignorance.Thefalsehoodwouldbeyoursaying“heheardorreadit,”sinceyoudidnotobservethatdirectly.Theignorancewouldbeyourfailingtomakeadistinctionbetweentruthanduntruthwithregardtothatproblem.Yourstatementthatthephilosopherhasnoreligiondoesnotmeanthateverythinghepossesses(inthewayofknowledge)isuntrue.Everyintelligentpersonwouldperceivethatrightaway.”Ibid.,12.98A.A.ʿAfīfīmisunderstandsIbnʿArabī’smetaphysicsinafundamentalway(attributingtohimaradicalpantheism,andgoingsofarastousethephrasewaḥdatal-wujūdwhichwasneverusedbyIbnʿArabī),andsaysthatGhazālī’scomesclosetoIbnal-’Arabi’svisionbutisnotinfullagreementwithit.(Mishkātal-anwār,ed.Abū’l-ʿAlāʾʿAfīfī,Cairo,1964,16).Actually,ʿAfīfī’sdescriptionofGhazālī’smetaphysicsisidenticalwithIbnʿArabī’snotionofGodbeingtheonlyrealitythereis.ThepassageiswhereGhazālīsaysthat“AlllightsareborrowedandthereallightisHisalone,andeverythingisHislight…RathernothinghasanexistenceexceptHim…”ʿAfīfīisrightaboutGhazālī,butnotaboutIbnʿArabī.ThispassageistakenfromAbdulHaqAnsari,“TheDoctrineofDivineCommand:AStudyintheDevelopmentofGhazālī’sViewofReality,”IslamicStudiesvol.xxi(1982),1-47.
Page 40
28
IbnʿArabīhimselfcametobeknownbysomeastheAkbariyyahorAkbarianschool,afterIbnʿArabī’scurrenttitleamongSufisofal-shaykhal-akbaror“theSupremeShaykh.”
-TheRoleandSignificanceofSuhrawardī
Shihābal-DīnAbūal-FutūḥYaḥyāibnḤabashibnAmīrakal-Suhrawardī,alsoknownbyhistitleShaykhal-ishrāq(theMasterofIllumination)isafigurewhocannotgounmentionedinadiscussionoftherelationshipbetweenmysticismandphilosophy,bothbecauseofthecontroversysurroundinghisownviewsandbecauseoftheimmenseinfluenceSuhrawardīwouldexerciseoverlaterIslamicphilosophy,especiallytheSchoolofIsfahanandMullāṢadrā.Hewascontroversialeveninhisownday,andhisoutspokenviewscombinedwiththepoliticalsituationofthetimesledtohisexecutionatthehandsofnolessthantheAyyubidsultanSalāḥal-Dīn.99Thisledtohisbeingreferredtoasal-Suhrawardīal-Maqtūloral-Shaykhal-maqtūl(“theexecuted”). IncontrasttothecaseofAvicenna,thereisanunmistakableSufiandmysticalelementinSuhrawardī’sworkasawhole.ThequestionamongscholarsofSuhrawardīisoneofthepervasiveness,importance,andscopeofthismysticism.WhenwasSuhrawardīwritingfromamysticalpointofview,andhowimportantordecisiveisthatpointofviewinrelationtohisentirecorpusofwritings?AswithAvicenna,modernscholarshiponSuhrawardīhasgravitatedaroundtwopolesinjudgingtheplaceofmysticismwithinhislargerintellectualproject.MuchofthepioneeringworkonthesubjectwascarriedoutbyHenryCorbin,whoissaidtohavebeenintroducedtoSuharwardībyhisteacherLouisMassignon.CorbinreceivedfromhimacopyofḤikmatal-ishrāqwiththeadvicethathewouldfindwhathewaslookingforwithinitspages.100CorbinpaidagreatdealofattentiontoSuhrawardī’smetaphysicsoflightanddarknesswhilegivingshortshrifttohislogic.HiscriticaleditionsofSuhrawardī’sworksinfactleaveoutthesectionsonlogicaltogether,andheleavesoutthephysicsofḤikmatal-ishrāq.HesawSuhrawardīprimarilyasamysticalthinker,amanifestationofatraditionofsaintsandsagesreachingbackevenbeforetheadventofIslam.Suhrawardīwasnottobeassociatedwiththefalāsifah,butwiththeenlightenedSufis,theMagiofancientPersia,Plato,andevenHermes,whomSuhrawardīreferredtoas“thefatherofthephilosophers.”101CorbinsawSuhrawardī’sthoughtasacontinuation,inpart,ofthe“Oriental”philosophyofAvicenna,inSuhrawardī’scasereferringtoitasOriental“theosophy,”whichwasmeanttobeatranslationofḥikmahilāhiyyahbutwhichcriticshavestrenuouslyobjectedtobecausethetermislinkedwiththemuchlatertheosophicalmovementintheWest.Corbin,andNasrafterhim,preferredtheterm“theosophy”inordertodistinguishtheideassolabeledfrom‘ordinary’philosophyandsincetheterm“wisdom”inEnglishdoesnotcarrythesameresonanceasḥikmahinArabicorḥikmatinPersian.Thishasbeenamajorstickingpointamongscholarsinthefield,suchasJohnWalbridgeandHosseinZiai,whowrite,“Theuseofrenderingslike‘theosophy’and 99OnthecircumstancesofhisdeathseeJ.Walbridge,TheLeavenoftheAncients:SuhrawardīandtheHeritageoftheGreeks,NewYork,2000,201-210.100SeeWalbridge,Leaven,223.101Forthehistoryoftheinfluences,realorimagined,ofIslamicandpre-IslamicfiguresuponSuhrawardīseeJ.Walbridge,TheWisdomoftheMysticEast:SuhrawardīandPlatonicOrientalism.NewYork,2001
Page 41
29
‘oriental’indicatethefundamentallymythologicalfocusofCorbin’sinterestsandinterpretations.”102ForthosesharingtheperspectiveofCorbinandNasrsuchasMehdiAminrazavi,103thePersianallegoriesofSuhrawardī,whichoftendescribethejourneyofthesoulfromthelandofdarknesstothelandoflightandofteninvolvemeetingsbetweenspiritualmastersandnovicedisciples,areofequalimportancetoSuhrawardī’slogicalandPeripateticworks(writteninArabic)andcanevenbesaidtoshowthetrueheartofSuhrawardī’smotivationinhisentirecorpusofwriting.104(Morewillbesaidonthemeaningof‘Peripatetic’inregardstoSuhrawardībelow.)TheyemphasizethefactthatSuhrawardīconsideredthatSufissuchasal-Ḥallāj,Sahlal-Tustarī,andBayazīdBisṭāmī—noneofwhomhadanythingtodowithdiscursivephilosophy—werethetruephilosophers,andthatPeripateticthinkerssuchasAvicennaandFarābīdidnotpossess“onethousandth”105ofwhatthoseSufisdidwhenitcametotrueknowledge. TheothermajorpositionconcerningmysticisminSuhrawardī,heldbysuchscholarsasJohnWalbridgeandHosseinZiaiaswellasIranianscholarssuchasthelateMehdīHāʾirāYazdī,statesthattheallegoriesare“primarilyelementaryandsemipopularworksandnotcentraltotheIlluminationistphilosophy.”TheyconsiderthelogicalandmetaphysicalcritiquewhichSuhrawardīcarriedoutagainstthePeripateticstobeacoreconstituentinhisoverallthoughtandnotsimplyanecessarycorrectiontoclearthegroundformysticalexperienceandakindofdogmaticmythology.TheypointoutthatthelaterIranianphilosophicaltraditionalmostalwaysapproachedtheworksofSuhrawardībydiscussingthemusingAvicennianterminologyandbaseditsdiscussionofhimonhiscritiqueofPeripateticlogic,epistemology,andmetaphysics.TheygosofarastosaythatoftenwhatSuhrawardīreferstoas“primaryimmediatelyknownpremises”inscience,whichgoesbacktoAristotle’sPosteriorAnalytics1.1-2,usingsuchtermsasdhawq,al-ḥikmahal-dhawqiyyah,andal-ʿilmal-ḥudūrī,isnothingmorethan“intuitivephilosophy.”Discursivephilosophy,referredbytermssuchasbaḥth,al-ḥikmahal-baḥthiyyah,andṭarīqal-mashshāʾīn,andtheaforementionedintuitivephilosophytogetherformtwohalvesofperfectphilosophyinSuhrawardī’seyes.“Thecombinationofdiscursiveandintuitivephilosophyintooneconsistentsystem—thephilosophyofIllumination—wasSuhrawardī’smajorachievementintheeyesofmedievalbiographersandcommentatorsonIlluminationisttexts.”106Theycontendthattheaforementionedtermsreferringtointuitivephilosophydifferwhentheyareusedinatechnicalcontext,andbelievethatintuitivephilosophyistoooftentakentomean“mysticalexperience.”
102J.WalbridgeandH.Ziai,ThePhilosophyofIllumination,xix.103MehdiAminrazavi,“TheSignificanceofSuhrawardī’sPersianSufiWritingsinthePhilosophyofIllumination,”TheLegacyofMediaevalPersianSufism,ed.LeonardLewisohn,London,1992,259-283.104OnthistopicseealsoRichardIanNetton,“TheNeoplatonicSubstrateofSuhrawardī’sPhilosophyofIllumination:FalsafaasṬasawwuf,”TheLegacyofMediaevalPersianSufism,ed.LeonardLewisohn,London,1992,247-260.ForNetton,themergingofphilosophyandmysticisminSuhrawardīisnotevenatopicofdebate.Seeespecially258-259.105SeeLeavenoftheAncients,228.ThevisionofAristotledeclaresPlatospecificallytohavebeenpossessedofcompleteknowledge,whereasnotasingleIslamicphilosopher(beforeSuhrawardī,presumably)hadachievedthis.106ThePhilosophyofIllumination,xx.
Page 42
30
Thiscriticismisunclearontwocounts.First,whatismeantbythestatementthattermssuchasʿilmal-ḥudūrīdifferinatechnicalcontext?Doesitmeanthatinsomeplacesitrefersto“primaryimmediatelyknownpremises”andinothersto“mysticalexperience”?Secondly,whatismeantby“mysticalexperience”heresuchthatitnecessarilyfallsoutsidetheboundsofthetwohalvesofSuhrawardī’sperfectphilosophy?InhisreviewofAminrazavi’sbookonSufism,Walbridgestatestheproblemquitewellbyaskingthequestion“whetheritishiscriticalphilosophythatisimportantorhisSufism,or,consequently,whetherhispeculiarmetaphysicsoflightshouldbereadmoreasphilosophyormysticism(italicsmine).”ThereisadichotomyassumedinthisstatementthatWalbridgeandotherswhoaskthesamequestionneverseemtoacknowledgeorseektoclarify.NeitherdoesWalbridgementioninhiscriticismofRazavi,whoholdstheCorbin-Nasrview,thathe(Razavi)doesnotbelievethattheviewwhichplacesprimacyonSuhrawardī’s“mystical”dimensionexcludesornegatestheimportanceofhisdiscursiveengagementwithPeripateticphilosophy.ElsewhereWalbridgeasserts,“ThePhilosophyofIlluminationisphilosophy,notmysticism;Suhrawardīconstructsrationalproofsofhisintuitionsbothforthesakeofhisowncontinuedcertaintyandcorrectinterpretationofthoseintuitionsandfortheguidanceofthosewithouttheexperience.”107ButonecouldsayasmuchaboutmanyofthewritingsofIbnʿArabīandhisschool.Theytooclaimtoderivetheirfundamentaltruthsfromdirectexperience,buttheyacknowledgethepossibilityofcomingdowntoearth,asitwere,torelatesomethingofwhattheyhaveseeninacoherentandlogicalfashion,albeitlimitedinrelationtotheexperienceitself.InthesamepassageWalbridgeclaimsthatSuhrawardīsawrationaldemonstrationastheguarantorofmysticalexperience,thatinordertobecompletethemysticmustbeabletocomedownfromthetopofthemountaininorderto“withthetoolsofsurveying,establishdistances,directions,andaltitudes.”Thisisamisunderstanding,itwouldseem,ofSuhrawardī’sgeneralbeliefthatapersonwhohasbothmysticalandrationalunderstandingoftheloftiesttruthsissuperiortosomeonewhohasonlythedirect,non-rationalkindofunderstanding.Suhrwardiplaceshimselfinthefirstcategory,andhencewouldinthisrespectbesuperiortoBayazīdal-Bisṭāmī,whodidnotpossesstheabilitytodiscussandconveyhisexperienceofrealityinaphilosophicallyunderstandableway.ButthisconfusionresemblestheaccusationsleveledagainstIbnʿArabīthathebelievedthesaint(walī)tobesuperiortotheprophet(nabī).Inactuality,whathesaidwasthatwalāyahwassuperiortonubuwwah,andhencetheProphetwasthegreatestofsaintswhilealsobeingaprophet,butwithinhispersonthewalāyahwassuperiortothenubuwwah.ForSuhrawardī,withinthepersonofthetruephilosopherthedirectknowledgeissuperiortothediscursiveknowledge,butinsofarasamanhasbothkindsofknowledgeheissuperiortothemanwhohasthedirectmysticalkindonly. ThatSuhrawardīdidnothimselfdrawanystrictdistinctionbetweenmysticalexperiencesandphilosophyismadeclearfromhisKitābal-talwīḥātwhereherecountsamysticalvisionhehadofnoneotherthanAristotle,whoimpartstoSuhrawardīthetruthsofknowledgebypresence(al-ʿilmal-ḥudūrī)andtherealityofthePlatonicIdeas.108ItisAristotlewhotellshimthatSufissuchasBayazīdal-BisṭāmīandḤallājarethetrue
107J.Walbridge,TheScienceofMysticLights,42.108SeeLeavenoftheAncients,225ff.
Page 43
31
philosophers,notthePeripatetics.Regardlessoftheactualsourceofthisvision,ittellsusthatforSuhrawardītruephilosophyandtruemysticalinsight,farfrombeingviewedintermsofaneither/oroption,wereinseparable.OneintroducesanartificialandunnecessaryschismintoSuhrawardībyforcingthereadertomakeachoicebetweenphilosophyandmysticism.ItisasseriousanerrortodismissthemysticaldimensionofSuhrawardīasitistopassoverhisphysicsandlogic.IfavisionofAristotlecelebratingḤallājandbelittlingtheaccomplishmentsofPeripateticphilosophydoesnotgiveusanindicationoftheplaceofsupra-rationalandmysticalelementsinSuhrawardī’sthought,thenwhatcan?Acoherentlogic,physics,andmetaphysics,nomatterhowwelldevelopedandsimilarinlanguagetothePeripatetictradition,caninnowaynegatetheprideofplacewhichSuhrawardīgivestodirectsupra-rationalexperience.ForSuhrawardītherewasnocontradiction,andifwearetotakehisownclaimsseriouslyweshouldnotattempttoforceacontradictionintoouranalysisofhiswritings.Indeed,hementionshisreasonforwritingdowntheWisdomofIlluminationinhisintroductiontoḤikmatal-ishrāq,whichhisfriendshadbeenimploringhimtosetitdowninwriting:
[Y]ouwentonmyfriends…beggingmetowriteyouabookinwhichIwouldtellwhatIhaveobtainedthroughmyintuition(dhawq)duringmyretreatsandvisions.Ineveryseekingsoulthereisaportion,beitsmallorgreat,ofthelightofGod.Everyonewhostriveshasintuition,beitperfectorimperfect.
Dhawq,whichliterallymeans“taste,”isatechnicalterminIlluminationistphilosophymeaningthe“directapprehensionofthequidditiesofthings,”109butitcanhardlybecalledanaccidentthatitisalsoaSufitermreferringtothedirectperceptionandexperienceofathingasopposedtoconceptualknowledgeaboutit.Moreover,thewordforretreathereiskhalwah,anotherSufitermforatimeofextendedisolationfordhikr.Thus,wehaveinSuhrawardīexplicitmentionofanepistemologywheredirectmysticalexperienceisthetruestknowledge,aswellasacknowledgementofthefactthattheinsightsofhisphilosophyaretheresultofasceticismandreligiousdevotion,notofmerecogitation.110-SettingtheStagefortheSchoolofWaḥdatal-wujūd
Theimportanceofthefourfiguresdiscussedinthischapterisnotlimitedtotheirusefulnessasexamplesofthecontroversybetweenphilosophyandmysticism.Indeed,farfrommerelyembodyingadifferentdimensionofthedebatebetweenrationalandclaimsofsupra-rationalknowledgeandunderstanding,eachofthesefigureshadacrucialintellectualroletoplayinthecrystallizationoftheschoolofwaḥdatal-wujūdwhichoccurredinthecenturiesofIslamicphilosophyandSufimetaphysicsleadinguptothegreatsynthesisofMullāṢadrā.Tracingouttheontologicaldimensionofthisgradualcrystallizationandsynthesis,asitconcernstheconceptsofwujūdandtashkīk,willoccupyusintheremainingchaptersofthisdissertation.ButinconclusionletusoutlinetheimportanceofourthinkersandtheroletheyhadtoplayinsettingthestagefortheAkbarianschoolandforMullāṢadrāandhispredecessors. 109ThePhilosophyofIllumination,169.110“Itiscrucialtorealizetheimportanceofasceticismandpracticalwisdomtotheishraqidoctrineasawhole,eventhoughthisiscontrarytosomeofthelaterinterpretersofSuhrawardīwhoputmoreemphasisonhisintellectualandphilosophicalaspects.”Aminrazavi,SuhrawardīandtheSchoolofIllumination,53
Page 44
32
ItisprobablymostreasonabletoassumethatAvicennahimselfwasnotamysticorSufi,althoughitseemsequallyclearthathewaswell-acquaintedwiththemanifestationsofSufisminhisday,andthatatleastinhisIshārātheexperimentedwithincorporatingSufiterminology,seeminglyadmittingtheprovisionalvalidityoftheSufiperspective,quiteapartfromany“incorporation”intohissystem.Moreover,thethemesandtenorofhisphilosophicalallegories,thoughtheextenttowhichtheywereinspiredbyactualmysticalbeliefsormotivationsremainsdebatable,neverthelesseasilydovetailintomysticismproperlyspeaking.Forexample,SuhrawardīsawAvicenna’sallegoriesasanimperfectdepictionofthespiritualquest,andtheyinfactinspiredhimtocomposehisown,ostensiblymoreperfect,spiritualallegories.WhatisofgreatestimportancehereisnottodeterminetheextenttowhichAvicennaheldorespousedmysticaldoctrines,sinceitwouldseemthatthetextualevidenceallowsustosayneitherthatheconsideredmysticismtobenonsensenorthathewassecretlyamysticalpractitionerwithaclosely-heldesotericdoctrine.Rather,itistheconceptualandlinguisticframeworkwhichAvicennabequeathedtolatergenerationsofIslamicphilosophersandSufidoctrinalthinkerswhichmakeshimsosignificantintermsofthelaterschoolofwaḥdatal-wujūd.WhateverthelevelofAvicenna’sownmysticism,hiscorpusofwritings,includingtheallegoriesbutespeciallyworkssuchastheIshārāt,constitutedawayofspeakingaboutmetaphysicsandcosmologywhichhadtheinherentprecision,scope,andflexibilitytobeassimilatedbylaterthinkerswhowerethemselvesmuchmoreovertlymysticallyminded.111ThisisnottosaythatthephilosophicallinguafrancaAvicennaestablishedwasinherentlyorpredominantlymystical,ratherthatitsowncharacteristicsasasystemofwords,concepts,andmodesofexpressionprovidedlatergenerationsofmysticallymindedthinkerswithastartingpointandwithmanyofthebuildingblockswithwhichtoassembletheirownmetaphysicalsystems.ThisAvicennianheritageisseenclearlyintheworksofSuhrawardī,inthelaterschoolofIbnʿArabīfromthetimeofDāwūdal-Qayṣarī,inthepredecessorsofMullāṢadrāandthenfinallyinṢadrāhimself,nottomentionthewholehistoryofkalāmafterhim.ThatAvicennahimselfbegantointroduceSufiterminologyintohisworkinthelaterpartofhislife—apointonwhichallscholarsagree—isrepresentativeofwhatwouldhappentohiswayofspeakingaboutphilosophicalquestionsduringtheensuingcenturies.
111“IbnSīnā’smysticalwritings,especiallyal-Ishārāt,werearichsourcefromwhichnotonlyIbnTufayl,butlaterphilosophersandsufisborrowedheavily,evenwherenoacknowledgmentofthatismade,asinthecaseofIbnBajjaorIbnʿArabī”(S.Inati,IbnSīnāandMysticism,London,1996,66).ThoughnotagreeingwiththeassertionofIbnSīnā’sintrinsicmysticalcontent,P.Heathlargelyagrees:“AlthoughitistruethatAvicenna’selaboratetheoryofemanationbecameamajorsourceandmodelforallaltertheorists,hisownreactiontotheothertrends[i.e.thetendencytomysticism,thetheoryofal-insānal-kāmil,andthetheoryofcosmiccorrespondences]wouldhavebeenlessthanaccommodating.WhateverterminologyhemighthaveborrowedfromSufisminlateryears,Avicennawasnoadherentoftheconceptofsupernaturalmysticism.Suchanapproachgoesagainsttherationalismuponwhichhefoundedhiswholephilosophy…ItisoneoftheironiesofAvicenna’slegacythat,antagonisticashewastothesetrends,histhought(bothlogosandmuthos)wasnonethelessadopted,adapted,andsubsumedbytheirlaterexponents.Infact,itwouldbepossibletoarguethatitwasonlythisprocessofassimilationandincorporationthatkeptthephilosopher’sideasalivethroughtheensuingcenturies”(AllegoryandPhilosophyinAvicenna,186-7).
Page 45
33
ButhereitcanbesaidthatGhazālīandAvicennahadacommonroleinchangingtheparametersofmetaphysicaldiscourseinIslam.R.Wisnovskyargues,forexample,thatalthoughGhazālīisgivenmuchcreditforchangingthenatureofSunnikalāmandmakingitsproblemsverysimilartothoseofthephilosophers,thischangewasalreadytakingplaceduringAvicenna’sgenerationandwasdueinparttoAvicenna’sowncontribution.OnemajorchangewasthemetaphysicalshiftthatmadeGod’score“meta-attribute”tobeexistence(wujūd)insteadofeternality(qidam),andwhichmadetherelationshipofwujūdtomāhiyyahthemainepistemologicalquestion.BeforeAvicenna,themainconceptsusedtodiscussGod’sessenceandHisqualitieswerethenotionsofeternality(qidam)andtheircomingtobeintime(ḥudūth).112InthecenturyorsoafterAvicenna,someprominenttheologiansbegantorefertoGodaswājibal-wujūd.Ghazālī’steacheral-JuwaynitookthestepofassertingthatGod’seternalityandnecessitywereco-implied,whileGhazālīhimselftookthefurtherstepofsayingthatnecessityofexistenceisbasic,eternalitybeingderivativeofthisexistentialnecessity.113Suchchangeswereemblematicoftheincreasinglevelofcomfortthatphilosophy-warytheologiansneverthelesscametofeelwiththelanguageofphilosophy.114 Ghazālī’seffect,however,wasmuchmoredirectandobviousthanAvicenna’swhenitcametoreshapingthephilosophical-theologicaldiscourse.Bymakingthecriticismofphilosophysuchacentralpointofhismetaphysicalwritings,bygivingaclearpresentationofPeripateticdoctrines,andbygivinganuancedpositionaboutwhichaspectsofphilosophycouldbeconsideredcorrect,incorrect,orneutralasregardsreligion,GhazālīpermanentlyplantedphilosophyontotheIslamicintellectuallandscape.Thus,intakingphilosophytotaskforthesakeoffaith,heforcedkalāmtocometogripswithphilosophy.AsMarmuraputsit,“Afteral-Ghazālī,noIslamictheologianworthhissaltavoideddetaileddiscussionofthephilosophicaltheoriesal-Ghazālīhadcriticized.Kalāmthereafterbecame,asithadneverbeenbefore,thoroughlyinvolvedwiththe
112“Inthecaseofepistemology…pre-AvicennianSunni-kalāmdistinctionsbetweenthreemeanstoknowledge—perception(ḥiss),report(khabar),andspeculation(naẓar)—andbetweentwotypesofknowledge—acquired(muktasab)andapriori(ḍarūrī)—wereeclipsedbypost-AvicennianSunni-kalāmdistinctionsbetweenthetwomostbasicobjectsofknowledge—essence(māhiyyah)andexistence(wujūd)—andbetweenthreemodesofknowledgeofknowledge—necessary(wājib),possible(jā’izormumkin)andimpossible(mustaḥīlormumtaniʿ).Asfor…theproofsofGod’sexistence,thepre-AvicennianSunni-kalāmdistinctionbetweenGod’sbeingeternal(qadīm)andtheworld’sbeingoriginated(muhdath)cededgroundtothepost-AvicennianSunni-kalāmdistinctionbetweenGod’sbeingnecessaryofexistenceinitself(wājibal-wujūdbi-dhātīhi)andtheworld’sbeingpossibleofexistenceinitself(mumkin[orja’iz]al-wujūdbi-dhātīhi).Andinthecaseof…God’sonenessandattributes,pre-AvicennianSunni-kalāmdebatesovertheprecisenatureofthedivineattributes’eternality(qidam)weresupercededbypost-AvicennianSunni-kalāmdebatesovertheprecisenatureoftheattributes’necessity(wujūb).”RobertWisnovsky,“OneAspectoftheAvicennianTurninSunniTheology,”ArabicSciencesandPhilosophy,vol.14(2004),65-100.113Ibid.,91-95.114ItshouldalsobenotedthatAvicennawaslikelyhimself,indevelopinghismetaphysics,respondingtosalientissuesbeingdiscussedinkalāmcircles.ForafulldiscussionofthepossibleantecedentsofAvicenna’scoreconcepts,seeR.Wisnovsky,Avicenna’sMetaphysicsinContext,London,2003,chapters8-9.
Page 46
34
theoriesofthefalāsifa.”115Inattackingthe“proudfoundations”ofAvicennianthoughtinthejudiciousmannerhedid—keepingmuchofitsmannerofspeakingaboutthingsifnotitsconclusions—heremovedsomeofthebarrierbetweenkalāmandphilosophy.Ifkalāmhadpreviouslybeenanarmoftherevealedtradition,thankstoGhazālī,Avicenna,andothertheologians,thisarmwasabletoreachintothedomainofphilosophyintact—andsimilarly,philosophywasgivenanopeningintotheworldoftherevealedtradition. Moregenerally,throughtheargumentshemadeagainstthepurelyrationalunderpinningsofAvicennianthought,Ghazālīinsuredthatnosystemofthoughtbasedsolelyonthereasoningpowersofhumanbeings,independentofthetruthsofthereligioustradition,wouldevertakeholdintheIslamicworld.HemayhaveallowedAristotelianlogic(withcertaincriticisms)andmathematicstobeadoptedasmorallyneutraltoolsforallkindsofvalidknowledge,butafterGhazālīnoconceptualsystemcouldsurviveinIslamifthesummitofthehierarchyweretobeoccupiedbythereasoninganddiscursivepowersofthehumanintelligence.Moreover,throughworkssuchastheIḥyāʿandtheNicheofLights,Ghazālī’salsopushedthephilosophicalandmetaphysicaltendenciesamongthinkersintheIslamicworldtowardscomingtogripswithrevelationandthe“supernatural”truthclaimsofthemystics.Ghazālīcreatedanenvironmentinwhichitbecamedifficultifnotpracticallyimpossibletoevaluatetheclaimsofsystematicrationalthinkers—betheytheologians,philosophers,ormystics—outsideoftheauthorityandlegitimacywhichcouldonlybebestowedbytheQurʾānicandprophetictradition.116OnewasthusleftwithasituationinGhazālī’swakewhereitwasincreasinglydifficulttoputforthapurelyPeripateticorrationalistsysteminisolationfromthedemandsoftherevealedtradition,whileatthesametimethosewhohadstyledthemselvesthedefendersandupholdersofthefaithwereforcedtoadoptmanyoftheconceptualmethodsofthephilosopherswhomtheyattacked. IbnʿArabīwasthefirstmajorthinkerinIslamtocombineathoroughgoingconcernwiththeQurʾān,ḥadīth,andthepracticeofthepiouslife(hisFutūḥātcontainsthousandsofpagesonthespiritualsignificanceofthefivepillars,forexample)withacomprehensivemetaphysicalandcosmologicalvision.HepaidlittleheedtothesystematizingeffortsofAvicenna,andperhapsknewnothingabouthisoldercontemporarySuhrawardī,buthelaidoutapowerfulandcompellingontologyoftheoneinmanynessandthemanyinoneness(tobediscussedlater),whichwashugelyinfluentialamonglaterthinkersallthewayuptoṢadrā.ItwasIbnʿArabīwhodemonstratedthatamysticalpointofviewcouldhavesomethingtosayaboutalltheareastouchedonbyphilosophyandtheology,andinfactclaimedthatonlythroughasystemthattookasitspinnaclethedirectencounterbetweenmanandGodcouldrationalthinkingassumeitsproperplaceinhumanknowledge.TheAkbarianschoolafterhimtooksomeofthemorephilosophicalandsystematicaspectsofhiswritingandoverthecenturiesrefinedthemintoalanguageandconceptualhierarchywhichreachedaheightofphilosophicalpolishwiththewritingsofDāwūdal-Qayṣarī.ThemetaphysicsoftheAkbarianschool,nomatterhowsimilarinlanguagetothelargebodyofIslamic 115TheIncoherenceofthePhilosophers,xv-xvi.116NodoubtGhazālīwouldhaveapprovedofmuchofIbnʿArabī’sdoctrine,althoughhewouldhavequarreledwithhiscompletelackofconcernforexposingesoterictruths,especiallyinabooksuchasFuṣūṣal-ḥikamwhichcanbedownrightprovocativeinitsboldinterpretationsoftheQurʾānandtheroleoftheProphet.
Page 47
35
philosophy,wasfirmlyrootedintheQurʾān,ḥadīth,andorganizedorinstitutionalSufism. Becauseofthehomogenizationofthelanguageofdiscoursetoonewheretherootconceptswerewujūd,māhiyyah,wujūb,imkān,amongstothers,Sufisofametaphysicalbentwouldhavelittlechoicebuttosomehowcometogripswiththislanguageofdiscourse,inmuchthewaySuhrawardīdideventhoughhisphilosophicalvisionwassodifferent.ThiswastrueoftheschoolofIbnʿArabī,althoughtheeffectwasnotimmediate.Aswasmentionedearlier,IbnʿArabīdidnotconformhimselfovermuchtotheideasofthephilosophersandtheologians,whomhelumpedtogetherasahlal-naẓarasopposedtopossessorsofdirectillumination.However,philosophicalconceptsmostdefinitelymaketheirappearanceinhiswritings,andundertheinfluenceofphilosophicalconceptshisdescendantsbringSufismclosertothephilosophicaldiscourse,thewayGhazālīhadalreadydoneforkalām.Thisprocesswillbedescribedindetailinthenextchapter. Suhrawardī,unlikeIbnʿArabī,didnotoperateprimarilyinauniverseofQurʾānicsymbolismandthushasasomewhatalienqualityinrelationtotheQurʾānandḥadīth.Rather,hestrovetoexplainavisionofthingsthatsoughttobemoreopenlyperennialanduniversal.Hisuniquecontributiontophilosophywastoattempttoenshrinetheepistemologyofthemysticsinasystematicphilosophicaldiscourse.UnlikeIbnʿArabī,heaimedatsystematizationandconsistencyinthemannerofthePeripatetics,eventhoughhispremisesandhisconclusionswerevastlydifferentfromAvicenna’s.ItwasimpossiblethatSuhrawardīcouldhavehadthewideanduniversalappealofIbnʿArabī,ashisIslamiccredentialswerenotstrongenough—atleastinhiswritings—andhissystemdoesnotoperatecomfortablyinthecontextofthescripturaltradition.Suhrawardīwastheearliestthinkertostrivetocreateacompletesystem—thatis,aconceptuallycoherentonewithaworkingtechnicalvocabularytogoalongwithitsvisionofreality—thatcombinedthefundamentalsupra-rationalclaimsofmysticismwiththereasoned-outrigorofphilosophy.Hewastremendouslyinfluentialindeterminingtheissueslaterphilosophywouldfocusupon.LaterIslamicphilosopherswouldtendtoclassifythinkersintermsofwhethertheyconsideredessencetobebasic(aṣālatal-māhiyyah,Suhrawardī)orexistence(aṣālatal-wujūd,theAkbarianschoolandMullāṢadrā),anditwasSuhrawardī’scritiqueofAvicenna’streatmentofwujūdwhichbeganthisprocess,atleastintheeyesoflaterIslamicphilosophers.Ṣadrā,whodepartedfromSuhrawardīonfundamentalquestions,arguablyowedmuchtohimintermsofthewayhespokeaboutthingsinhisphilosophy.
Page 48
36
ChapterTwo:WujūdandTashkīk,andtheCorrespondencebetweenQūnawīandṬūsī
Inthischapterwewillbegintoseehowmysticismandphilosophyinteractedanddevelopedastheyconcernontology,andspecificallyastheyrelatetotheconceptsofwujūd(existence)andtashkīk(equivocality),aswellasthoseconceptsdirectlyrelatedtothem.Thisstudyislimitedtoontology,althoughtheinfluencesandinteractionsbetweenmysticismandphilosophyarenotlimitedtoontology,butincludeepistemology,cosmology,ethics,andeventheunderstandingofQurʾānandḥadīth.ThefirstpartofthischapterisadiscussionoftashkīkandwhatitmeanttoMuslimphilosophers.ThisisfollowedbyasectiondealingwiththeapproachtoontologyoftheAkbarianschoolingeneralbutspecificallyofIbnʿArabī’sgreatestdiscipleandstudentṢadral-Dīnal-Qūnawī,withadetailedanalysisoftheconceptofwujūdandrelatedconceptsastheyareusedinhiswritings.ThisisfollowedbyadiscussionofthecorrespondencebetweenQūnawīandhisPeripateticShīʿīcontemporaryNaṣīral-Dīnal-Ṭūsī,1anexchangeofideaswhichshedsmuchlightonhowtheSufimetaphysiciansandthephilosophersviewedeachother’sideas.
Ṣadral-DīnMuḥammadb.Isḥāqb.Yusufal-Qūnawīal-Rūmī(d.673/1274)wasoneoftheforemostdisciplesofIbnʿArabī,2andwascertainlythemostnotableasfarasthepracticeofmetaphysicalexpositionwasconcerned.3IbnʿArabībecamefriendswithQūnawī’sfather,Majdal-DīnIsḥāq,andthetwotraveledtogethertoAnatoliain601/1204-5.Qūnawīwasbornin1210,anditissaidthatIbnʿArabīmarriedhismotheraftershehadbeenwidowedbyhisfather.QūnawītookovertheroleoftrainingdisciplesafterIbnʿArabī’sdeathin1240,amongthemʿĀfīfal-Dīnal-Tilimsānī(d.1291),amajorSufiinhisownright.
FiveyearsafterIbnʿArabī’sdeath,QūnawītraveledtoEgyptwherehegaveoralcommentaryonIbnal-Fārid’spoemNaẓmal-sulūk.HecontinuedthiscommentaryallthewaybacktoKonya,andhisdiscipleSaʿīdal-Dīnal-Farghānīcollectedhisnotesinbookform,entitledMashāriqal-darārī,whichlaterappearedinArabicunderthetitleMuntahā’l-madārik.HewasfollowedinthistraditionofcommentingonIbnal-Farid’spoetrybyKāshānīandbyQayṣarī.ThiscombinationofAkbarianmetaphysicsandArabicSufipoetryisalittleknownandlittlestudiedaspectofSufismintheWest.
QūnawītaughtḥadīthinKonya,andamonghisstudentswasthephilosopherQutbal-DīnShirazi(d.1311),themostprominentofṬūsī’sstudents.Inadditiontobeingthefriend,son-in-law,anddiscipleofIbnʿArabī,hewasfriendswithhiscontemporaryinKonyaJalālal-DīnRūmī.QūnawīdidinitiatedisciplesintoSufism,butnotallhisstudentswerehisdisciples,forexampleFakhral-DīnʿIrāqī.ʿIraqīwrotea
1SeeH.Dabashi,“KhwājahNaṣīral-Dīnal-Ṭūsī:ThePhilosopher/VizierandtheIntellectualClimateofHisTimes,”inHistoryofIslamicPhilosophy,527-84.2ForanaccountoftheijāzahQunawīreceivedfromIbnʿArabī,andthebookshestudiedwithhim,seeGeraldElmore,“Sadral-Dīnal-Qunawī’sPersonalStudyListofBooksbyIbnʿArabī,”JournalofNearEasternStudies,56:3(1997),161-181,whichalsodiscussesIbnʿArabī’sownbibliographyofhisownworks,theFihristal-mu’allafat,whichwaswrittenforQunawī.3SeeWilliamChittick,“TheCentralPoint:Qunawī’sRoleintheSchoolofIbnʿArabī,”JournaloftheMuhyiddinIbnʿArabīSociety,xxxv(2004),25-45.Foramorecompletebiographicalaccount,seehis,“TheSchoolofIbn‘Arabi,”(TheHistoryofIslamicPhilosophy,511-14).
Page 49
37
workcalledLamaʿāt4inPersianfollowingthestyleofAḥmadGhazālī’sSawāniḥ,5inspiredbyQūnawī’steachings.FarghānīwasinitiatedinthelineofShihābal-DīnʿUmaral-Suhrawardī(d.1234).
Qūnawīwasineverysenseapractitioneroftaṣawwuf,andhisstartingandendingpointwasthespiritualpath,buthewasalsointimatelyfamiliarwiththeideasofthephilosophers.6HeisgenerallyconsideredthemostimportantfigureindeterminingwhattheheritageofIbnʿArabī’swritingswouldbetotherestoftheIslamicworld.Theworks7ofQūnawīwhichwewillprimarilybediscussinginthissectionareKitābal-fukūkfīasrārmustanadātḥikamal-Fuṣūṣ,acommentaryontheFuṣūṣal-ḥikam;hiscommentaryupontheFatihahentitledIʿjazal-bayānfītaʾwīlummal-Qurʾān;hismajorworkonmetaphysicsMiftāḥghaybal-jamʿwaʾl-wujūd,usuallyshortenedtoMiftāḥal-ghayb;andhisphilosophicalcorresponencewithṬūsīpublishedunderthetitleMurāsalātbaynaQūnawīwa-Ṭūsī.-TashkīkasaPhilosophicalConcept
InFarābī’sK.al-Ḥurūfthereisapassagethat,thoughnotmentioningequivocality(tashkīk)explicitly,neverthelessoutlinesakindofrelationshipbetweenacertainclassofthingswhichisneitherconventionalsynonymynorconventionalhomonymy.Hewrites:
Itisproper[ifyoudesiretoknow](sic)thesecategoriesthatyouhaveknowledgeofthosethingswhosenamesagree(muttafiqahasmāʾuhā),thosewhichareunivocallynamed(mutawāṭiʾahasmāʾuhā),andthosewhichareintermediatebetweenthosewhicharesimilarlynamed(homonymous)andthosewhichareunivocallynamed.Thesearethosethingswhichbearthesamenameandwhichareattributedtodifferentthingsbyvirtueofsomethingwhichtheyallbearinmutualresemblance,withoutthosethingstowhichthisentityisattributedbeingnamedbyitandwithoutthatoneentitybeingnamedwiththenameofthosethings.8
AsFazlurRaḥmānpointsout,theclassicalAristoteliantraditionhadmadeadistinctionbetweenunivocallyapplicableand“equivocallyorambiguously”applicableuniversals. 4DivineFlashes/Fakhral-DīnʿIrāqī.TranslatedbyWilliamChittickandPeterLamborn(NewYork,1982).5SeeSawāniḥ:InspirationsfromtheWorldofPureSpirits,translatedbyNasrollahPourjavady(NewYork,1986).6QunawīwasalsoacontemporaryandfriendofJalālal-DīnRūmī,whowasayoungercontemporaryofIbnʿArabī.EvenwiththelinkthatQunawīcouldhavetheoreticallyprovided,however,itdoesnotseemthatthetwomysticalgiantshadanyeffectoneachother’sideas.SomehaveconcludedthatthoughRumiwasinfactfamiliarwithIbnʿArabī’sideashedidnotentirelyapproveofthem.SeeMehmetDemirci,“SadreddinKoneviileMevlanaCelaladdin’inMunasebetleriHakkinda,”D.E.UIlāhiyatFakültesiDergisiVI(1989)159-171.7AcompletelistingofhisworksandmanuscriptsistobefoundinOsmanErgin,“Sadreddinal-QunawīveEserleri,”ŞarkiyatMecmuası,2(1957),63-90.ForadiscussionregardingtheauthenticityofworksattributedtoQunawī,andforabriefaccountofhislifeandhisspiritualandintellectualacquaintances,seeWilliamChittick,“TheLastWillandTestamentofIbnʿArabī’sForemostDiscipleandSomeNotesonitsAuthor,”SophiaPerennis,4:1(1978),43-58(alsoavailableonthewebsiteoftheMuhyiddinIbnʿArabīSociety).8Kitabal-huruf,ed.MuhsinMahdi,Beirut1970,71.
Page 50
38
Anexampleofthefirstis“man,”whichcanbesaidofallhumanbeings,andanexampleofthesecondis“soul,”whichcanbesaidofanimalsouls,humansouls,celestialsouls,etc…9ThepassageinFarābīisanacknowledgementthatbetweenunivocality(“man”beingpredicatedofZaydandʿAmr)andsynonymy(“man”and“humanbeing”)athirdwayofpredicationwhichpossessesaspectsoftheothertwomustexist.Unlike“man”thereisamultiplicityintheunqualifiedconceptof“soul,”suchthatitstillretainsitsrealmeaningbutbyitsverydefinitionispredicatedofdifferentlevelsofthings,atleastintheclassicalconceptionof“soul.” ThewordtashkīkappearsasearlyasIbnSīnāinthephilosophicalsenseofgraduatedornon-univocalpredication,suchasthepredicationof“luminous”ofthesun,alantern,andacandle.ForexampleintheMetaphysics(ilāhiyyāt)ofK.al-Shifāʾ,10IbnSīnāsays,“‘One’canbesaidequivocally(biʾl-tashkīk)ofmeaningsthatcoincideinbeingactuallyundividedinthemselves.However,inthismeaningthereexistspriorityandposteriority.”Then,settingasidetheonenessofattribution(ʿarḍ)suchasthestatement,“ZaydandIbnAbdullahareone(i.e.thesame,wāḥid),”IbnSīnāsays,“Asforthatwhichisoneinitself,itcanbeoneingenus,11oneinspecies,oneindifferentia,oneinaffinity(munāsabah),oneinsubject(mawḍūʿ),oroneinnumber.”Thusonecancorrectlybepredicatedinallthesewaysandyetnotmeanthesamething.Inanothersection,entitled“OnPriorityandPosteriority,andonComingToBe(ḥudūth)”hesays,“Priorityandposteriority,eventhoughtheycanbesaidinmanyways,canappeartogetherinonethingbymeansofequivocality(ʿalāsabīlal-tashkīk).Thishappenswhentheprior,insofarasitisprior,hassomethingtheposteriordoesnothaveandtheposteriorhasnothingthatthepriordoesnothave.”12Hethenoutlinesvariouswaysinwhichathingcanbeprior,suchasbeingpriorinspaceorintime(something’sbeingcloserorhappeningfirst);orbeingpriorinthewaybeing-a-bodyispriortobeing-an-animalintermsofsubstance(jawhar);orbeingclosertothePrimeMover,asachildisinrelationtoanadult.Inallcasesofprioritythereisameaningpossessedbythepriorthingwhichisnotpossessedbytheposteriorthing,whilethepriorthingpossesseseverythingthattheposteriorthingpossessesofthatmeaning.Intermsofbeing-a-substanceananimalmustfirstbeabody,andintermsofcomingfromthePrimeMoveranadultmustfirstbeachild.Thepointhereisthattheterm“prior”appliestoallofthesebutnotinthesameway.Itcanbesaidofthemequivocally,whichmeansthatachildcanbeclosertothePrimeMover,butcanalsobeclosertoaperceiverspatially,andcanalsoarrivehomeearlier.Inallcasesthechildis“prior”butthetermisusedequivocally.
9F.Raḥmān,ThePhilosophyofMullāṢadrā,34.HepointsoutthatlaterMuslimPeripateticsdidnotadoptthisviewandinsteadfocusedontheparticularinstancesofanessence.Whenblacknesschanges,thereisnodifferenceintheblackbutratheranewspeciesofblackcomesintoexistencewhiletheothergoesoutofexistence.10K.al-Shifa’Ilāhiyyat3:2,97-98oftheMadkuredition.11Icanonlyassumethereisamisprinthere.Insteadofminhu(wa-minhual-wāḥidbi’l-jins)itreadswa-huwa,whichcouldbemistakenforoneanother.Ireaditasapartofthelistoftypesofonenessandreadminhu.12K.al-Shifa’Ilāhiyyat4:1,163-164.
Page 51
39
Itranslatetashkīkas“equivocality”andmushakkakas“equivocal,”althoughothershavetranslateditas“gradation”or“analogicalgradation”13or“systematicambiguity.”14Therearetwofactorstoconsiderindiscussingandtranslatingthisimportantconcept.First,tashkīkisawordthatbelongsinalogicalgroupwithtawāṭuʾor“univocality,”andtheconceptofthisgradationinpredicationisoftendiscussedinphilosophicaltexts,sousingtheprefix“equi-”workswellwiththerelatedconceptwhichusestheprefix“uni-.”Second,andperhapsmoreimportant,isthequestionofthederivationandmeaningoftheworditselfinArabic.IfwedosomethingassimpleaslookinLane’sLexicon,weseethatshikākare“tentsarrangedinarow”;ashakīkahis“aparty,sect,ordistinctbodyorclass”;shakkūʾ-l-arḥāmmeans,“Theymadetherelationshipstobecloselyconnected”;shakkacanalsomean,“Hewasmade,orasserted,tobeconnectedtothelineageofanother”;shakaktuhumeans,“Idrewandjoined,oradjoined,it[toanotherthing]”;shakkal-thawbmeans,“He(thesewer)madethestitchholesfarapart[insewingagarmentorpieceofcloth].”Thusinadditiontothemeaningofdoubtanduncertainty,thetrilateralrootsh-k-kcarriesasenseofthingsarrangedinarow,aclass,oragrouping,butalsoofjoiningthingstogethersuchaslineagesandeventhreadthroughagarment. WenoticethattashkīksharesthetafʿīlformwithsuchcoreIslamicintellectualconceptsastawḥīd,tanzīh,andtashbīh.Suchwordshavealwaysbeenchallengingtotranslateowingtothefactthattheydenotesomethingstaticaswellassomethingdynamicatthesametime.Tawḥīd,forexample,meansbothonenessandthedoctrineofoneness(ofGod),whilealsoreferringtothesubjectiveactofmakingone,ofdeemingathing(specifically,God)tobeone.ThesameholdstruefortheincomparabilityorsimilarityofGod;tanzīhandtashbīharebothdoctrinesaswellasmentalacts.Ifweviewtashkīkinthesameway,wecanproduceadefinitionwhichmightread,“Thestatusofathingbeinguncertainortheactofdeemingathingtobeuncertain.”FazlurRaḥmānappearstorelyheavilyonthissensewhenrenderingtashkīkas“systematicambiguity,”aproblematictranslationtosaytheleast.Butwhatofthepossibilityofapplyingthetafʿīlformtotheword’sothermeanings?Applythetafʿīltotheaforementionedexamplesandonecouldreasonablyproduce,“Thefactofathingbeingarrangedinrows,classes,orgroups,ortheactofdeemingthemtobeso,orthefactofathingorthingsbeingcloselyconnectedandtheactofdeemingthemtobeso.”Itiscertainlynotthesenseofdoubtorambiguitythatisbeingusedinthewordmushakkakahor“lattice,”forexample. Suchadefinitionoftashkīkappliesverywelltoitsphilosophicalusage,namelyasinglerealitythatisyetsomehowtousarrangedinvariousgroupingsormodeswhilebeingconnectedbytheveryfactofbeingindividualinstancesofthatthing.ForthePeripateticsitremainsadescriptionofakindofpredicationthatstandsbetweenunivocalityandindividualnaming.ItdidnotappeartobeaverycrucialconcepttoFarābī,IbnSīnā,ortheircontemporaries,andinanycasewasnotapartoftheirmetaphysics.Aswewillseeagainbelow,theirunderstandingofthingsplacedtashkīkmoreintherealmoflogic,specificallypredication.ItappearsthatitisatthetimeofNaṣīral-DīnṬūsīthatthetermtashkīkinitsphilosophicalsensereallymakesastrongentranceontothephilosophicalscene,whenṬūsīreliesheavilyontheconcepttorebut 13SeeforexampleSeyyedHosseinNasr,Ṣadral-DīnShīrāzīandhisTranscendentTheosophy(Tehran,1997),107-8.14SeeforexampleF.Rahman,ThePhilosophyofMullāṢadrā(Albany,1975),34.
Page 52
40
someofthechallengesofFakhral-Dīnal-RāzītoIbnSīnā’sal-Ishārātwaʾl-tanbīhāt,aswellastoanswerthequestionsposedtohimbyQūnawī,asweshallseelaterinthischapter.-Ṭūsī’scommentsontashkīkintheSharḥal-ishārāt
IncommentingonapassageintheIshārātwhereIbnSīnādescribeshowaquidditycanbethecauseofaquality—aswhen(thecapacityof)reason(nāṭiqiyyah)canbethe“cause”for(thecapacityof)wonderment(mutaʿajjibiyyah),whichistosaythattheessenceofonenecessitatesorimpliestheessenceoftheother—Ṭūsīspeaksofwujūdasbeingaqualityalso,butwiththemajordifferencethatquiddityexistsbyreasonofwujūd.Qualitiescanariseasaresultofquiddity,orqualitiescanarisefromeachother,butexistencecannotarisefromeither.Ṭūsīmakesitclear(p.39)thatquidditytakingonexistenceasaquality(ittiṣāfal-māhiyyahbiʾl-wujūd)isapurelyconceptualmove.Itdoesnotactuallyhappenconcretely,unlikeforexamplewhenabodytakesonthecolorwhite.Aquiddityquareceptacleforexistenceisathinginourminds.Ṭūsīnotesthistoforestallanyappealtoaninfiniteregress,whereaquiddity’sexistencewouldbeprecededbyitsownexistence.Thisistosay,ifthequidditytakesonexistenceasaquality,thenitmustfirstexist,andwouldthusalreadypossessexistenceasaquality. Fahkral-Dīnal-Rāzī,Ṭūsī’s“worthycommentator,”takesthisrelationshipbetweenquiddityandexistenceasproblematic,asitimpliesthattheexistencebelongingtoGodandtheexistencebelongingtosomeparticularthingareofequalstatus.Ifthisisso,Rāzīargues,justastheexistenceofathingis“attributedto”(ʿāriḍ)15itsquiddity,sotooistheexistenceofGod“attributedto”Hisquiddity.Followingthroughonthisreasoning,then,eitherthestatusoftheexistenceofparticularthingsrisestotheleveloftheNecessaryinExistence(wājibal-wujūd)—orthestatusoftheNecessaryfalls—ortheuseofthewordwujūdisonlyhomonymy(ishtirāklafẓī),andthereisnocommonmeaningbetweenitsuseinconnectionwithGodanditsuseinconnectionwithcreatedorcontingentthings. Ṭūsī’sanswertothisobjectionreliesontheconcepttashkīk.Anexampleoftruehomonymyisthewordʿayninitsvariousseparatemeaningsof“eye,”“spring,”and“identity.”Whenitcomestopredicationsthatoccurequivocally,meaningaccordingtotashkīk,themeaningofthepredicationisthesamebut“notuniformly”(lāʿalāʾl-sawāʾ).Thus“continuous”canbesaidbothofagivendimensionandoftheobjectpossessingthedimension;“one”canbesaidbothofsomethingthatistotallyindivisibleandofthat
15InEnglish,therelationshipofjawhartoʿaraḍhasusuallybeenexpressedas“substance”and“accident,”andsomehavesuggested“coincident”forthelatterasitfollowstheoriginalmeaningoftheGreekmoreclosely.Theʿaraḍofasubstanceissomethingwhich“happenstobe”inthatsubstance,andsomightnotbeinit,aswith“laughing”inrelationtoman.Itissurelynoaccidentthatʿaraḍalsocarriesthemeaningof“tohappen,”buttranslatingitthisway,thoughitissatisfyingphilosophically,turnsouttobetroublesomeduetothederivativesofthewordinArabic.Whenaqualityisʿāriḍtoajawhar,itexpressestheactofsomethingbeingbroughtintorelationshipwiththatsubstance,aswhenwesaythatlaughteris(happenstobe)inaman.Inthisactthesubstancethenbecomesma‘rud.Thisisdifficulttoexpresswith“accident”or“happenstobe”butispossiblewith“attribute.”As“substanceandattribute”isalsoareceivedwayofexpressingthisrelationship,Iwilloftenuseittoexpressjawharandʿaraḍ,althoughonealsorunsintothedangerofconfusingthetermwithṣifah,sometimestranslatedas“attribute.”
Page 53
41
whichisdivisibleinsomerespectotherthanthatwhichmakesitone;“white”canbesaidofsnowandivoryindifferinglevelsofintensity.“Existence”containsthepossibilityforbeingpredicatedintheallthewaysjustmentioned.Existence“occursin”(wāqiʿʿalā)“cause”and“effect,”wherepriorityorposteriorityisthedistinguishingfactor.Italsooccursin“substance”and“accident,”thelevelofprimacyordependencebeingthedistinguishingfactor.Itoccursinthe“stable”and“dynamic,”intensityandweaknessmakingthedifference.Itoccursinthe“necessary”andthe“contingent,”thedifferencebeingmadeupofallthedifferencesjustmentionedabove. Inthecaseofsuchpredication,thatthingwhichunitesthequidditiesofthevariousthingscannotbeanintrinsicpartofthequiddityofthosethings.“White,”asweknowit,isnotpartoftheessenceofsnoworivoryintrinsically.Atbest,whatwecall“white”isanentailmentofthequiddityofsnoworivory,butitisnotacauseorconstitutive(muqawwim)partofit.Inthecaseofthecolorwhitethereasonisthepotentialinfinityofcolorsoreventypesofcolorsthatcanpossiblyexist.Predicationthatisgraduatedorequivocalisthustheresultoflinguisticorconceptuallimitations.Wecouldnotpossiblycomeupwithanameforeverycolorthatbelongstoeveryobjectintheworld,butwecanamelioratethisproblembyunderstandingthat“white”canbepredicatedofsnowandivoryinaspecialwaythatisneitherunivocalitynormerehomonymy. Thesameprincipleholdsforthequalityofexistence.WesaythatGodexistsandthatthemanythingsintheuniverseexist,butthereisnowayofassigningadifferentnametoeachandeveryexistencebelongingtoeachquiddity.Justaswhiteisusedforconvenience’ssakeinthecaseofivoryandsnow,soexistenceisusedbothforthenecessaryandforthevariouscontingentthings.Tashkīkorequivocalitydoesnotapplytothequidditiesofcontingentthings—aboutthisṬūsīisemphatic—buttotheexistencesorgeneralexistenceconnectedtothosequiddities.Thephilosopherscanrightlysaythatexistenceappliestothenecessaryandthecontingentwiththesamemeaningbecausedifferentrealitiescansharesomeofthesameentailments--aswiththecaseofivoryandsnow.Inthiscase,thereissomethingcommonenoughtothe“exists”inthestatements“Godexists”and“Zaydexists”tomakewujūdormawjūdsomethingmorethanacommonlocution;thereisacommonmeaningaswell,butnotanidenticalmeaning. Thereisanobjectiontostatingthequiddity-existencerelationshipinthisway,however.Forone,Rāzīobjects,thephilosophersstatethattherealityofthenecessaryexistence(God)isunknowabletohumanminds,buttheyalsoclaimthattheycanperceiveHisexistenceapriori.Yet,inthecaseofatrianglethephilosopherssaythatweknowtherealityofatrianglewithoutknowingwhetherornotitexists.Here,thephilosophersareclaimingthattheydonotknowtheexistence,buttheyknowthereality.Startingfromthesetwoexamples,wherethe“knowability”oftherealityoressenceorquiddityisseparatedfromtheknowabilityofitsexistence,theimplicationisthatGod’srealityissomethingotherthanHisexistence. Ṭūsī’sreplytothisisthatwhatweperceiveisnotGod’sparticularandindividualexistence,whichsetsHimapartfromanyandallotherexistences.Weperceivetheabsoluteexistencewhichisentailedbythatindividualexistence(al-wujūdal-muṭlāqalladhīhuwalāzimli-dhālikaʾl-wujūd[al-khāṣṣ]),andwhichisalsoentailedbyallotherexistences.Thislatterexistence,sometimescalled“generalsharedexistence”(al-wujūdal-ʿāmmal-mushtarak),istheexistencethatisknowableapriori,andknowingitdoes
Page 54
42
notmeanthatweknowGod’sreality(ḥaqīqah),becauseknowingwhatisentailed(lāzim)bysomethingdoesnotmeanweknowwhatitisanentailmentof(malzūm).Otherwise,byperceivingthisabsoluteexistencewewouldperceivetheindividualexistenceofeachandeverything,whichisnotthecase.Thecrucialstephereistheconceptualseparationofthisabsoluteexistence(inthesensethatthiswordisusedinabsolutenumber,meaningunqualified)fromtheindividualexistenceeachexistingthing,includingGod,has.ThedifferenceforthePeripateticsisbetweensomethinggeneralandconceptualontheonehand(existenceingeneral)andrealandconcreteontheother(therealexistenceofathing,itsindividualbeing).Ṭūsīisclearthatexistenceisnota“speciesnature,”(ṭabīʿahnawʿiyyah)becausesuchanatureisfoundineachindividualofthatspeciesunivocally(biʾl-tawāṭuʾ),unlikeexistencewhichisfoundinthingsequivocally(biʾl-tashkīk). -AkbarianOntology
Althoughthisisastudyofwujūdandrelatedconcepts,inordertounderstandtheAkbarians’usageofwujūditiscrucialtofirstunderstandtheiruseofthetermsʿaynandtaʿayyun,andinsodoingprovideakindofprimerofAkbarianmetaphysics.ʿaynhasmanymeaningsinArabicandisusedinmorethanonewaybytheAkbarians,butforourpurposeswewillfocusonitsmetaphysicalandphilosophicalsenses.First,anʿaynissimplyasomething,tothepointthatChittickconsidersthissensetobebasicallysynonymouswithshayʾor“thing.”Itisindeedanon-specificlabelthatcanbeappliedtoanythingwhatsoever,beitGodormaterialobjects.ThusinthewritingsoftheAkbariansweencountersuchtermsasʿaynkhārijiyyah,ʿaynthābitah,andʿaynmawjūdah.Foranygivenobjectintheuniversetherearefundamentallytwowaysoflookingatitasanʿayn.First,ifitexistsasanobjectinspaceandtime(thisisnotlimitedtothematerialworld,butappliestotheintermediateworldorʿālamal-mithālaswell)itiscalledanʿaynkhārijiyyahorʿaynmawjūdah,anexternalizedorexistentʿayn.Secondly,ithasanʿaynthābitah,afixedorimmutableʿayn,whichisdefinedastheformoressenceofthatobjectinGod’sknowledge.Theykeyideahereisthatthereisreallyonlytheonething,theoneʿayn,butitisbeingviewedfromtwodifferentperspectives. Asamatterofgeneralusage,however,whenthetermʿaynappearsaloneitisusuallyreferringtotheimmutableʿayn,theforminGod’sknowledge.Inthissenseithasthemeaningofauniversalorparticulararchetype,one’sinmostreality.Whenusedwithafīasinfīʾl-ʿaynitmeansanythingthatisobjectivelyrealoutsideofthemindoftheobserver,usuallyinthecreatedrealmbutnotnecessarilyso.Thusitcanalsoberenderedbytheterm“concrete.”Ichoosetotranslateʿaynas“identity”becauseinitstechnicalsenseanʿayncanalsobespokenofasanessence,or“whatitis”ofathing,verymuchlikeidentity.Also,itdovetailsnicelywiththemeaningofʿaynas“identicalwith.”16 Taʿayyun,atermnotveryimportanttoIbnʿArabīhimselfbutusedasacentraltermbeginningwithQūnawī,17isawordusedbytheAkbarianstodescribethestagesbywhichthepureEssenceorSelf(al-Dhāt),whichisaboveeventhedistinctionbetweenGodandtheworld,becomesorisseenasbeingtheGodoftheworldwithallHis
16IdiscussthisquestionmorefullyinTheRingstonesofWisdom,xvi-xx.17SeeW.ChittickTheSufiPathofKnowledge(NewYork,1989),83.
Page 55
43
qualitiesandattributions(ṣifāt,nisab),thentheGreatSpirit,theUniversalSoul,theworldofspirits,theworldofimagination,andfinallytheworldofbodies.TheEssence/Selfistheleveloflātaʿayyun,ofno-taʿayyun,whileGodasLordandCreatorrepresentsthefirsttaʿayyun,andsoforthuntiltheworldofbodies,whichisthefinaltaʿayyunofseveral.Iattemptheretolimitmyselftowordssuchas“successive”becauseoneshouldbecarefulnottousewordssuchas“become”whenspeakingoftaʿayyun,becausetaʿayyunisnotfundamentallyanactoratransformationbutreallyrepresentstheintrinsicdimensionsofultimatereality. Chitticktranslatesʿaynandtaʿayyunasentityandentification,whichwouldinmyowntranslationresultinidentityandidentification,andthisturnsouttoworkreasonablywell.Ifwesetasidepartoftheidiomaticuseof“identity”inmodernEnglish,weseethatitdoesagoodjobofdescribingthesuccessivelevelsoutlinedabove.Asʿayncarriesthesenseofspecificityandparticularization,thentaʿayyunwouldmeanathing’s“becoming”orbeingdeemedspecificandparticular.ThefirsttaʿayyuniswhenweidentifytheDivineRealityastheGodwhoisLordandCreatoroftheworldwithHisinfinitequalities.Thisisaspecificationorparticularizationinrelationtothepuredhāt,whichownsnospecificityorparticularizationwhatsoever.Ifsomehavetranslatedthistermasdeterminationorauto-determination,itisbecauseofthissenseofdelimitingandspecifyinginrelationtosomethingwhichisitselfbroaderinscope.TheSelf/Essenceisnotidentifiedordeterminedbecausethemomentyouidentifyitordetermineit(i.e.makeajudgmentaboutit)youarealreadyatthelevelofthefirsttaʿayyun.Itshouldbekeptinmindthatthischoiceoftranslationisproblematicbecausetheuseof“identity”and“identification”canleadtoanexcessivelysubjectivereadingofawordwhichisnotlimitedtotheactofasubjectpointingtoanobjectandsaying,“Thatissuchandsuch.”Translatingʿaynas“identity”workswellforIbnʿArabī,butitbecomesproblematicinthelaterschoolwhichusestaʿayyunextensively,andthusthetranslationofthetermpresentsproblemsinthelaterschoolnotfoundinIbnʿArabī’sownworks.Thereaderisaskedtoalwayskeepinmindthetechnicalsenseof“identification”asatranslationfortaʿayyun. WhentheAkbariansspeakoffayḍ(emanation)itisinreferencetotheprogressionoftheselevels,andoftwomainontologicaldivisionsinparticular.TheHoliestEmanation(al-fayḍal-aqdas)resultsintherealizationofformsinGod’sknowledge,whicharenomoreorlessthanHisknowledgeofHisownNamesandQualities.Thesecond,orHolyEmanation(al-fayḍal-muqaddas)istheexistentiationorexternalizationoftheseforms(theimmutableidentities)intotheworld,thusmakingthemʿaynmawjūdahorʿaynkhārijyyah.Thisprocessordifferentiationoflevelsisalsospokenofintermsofself-disclosure(tajallī),thefirstbeingtheinvisibleself-disclosure(tajallīal-ghayb)andthesecondbeingthevisibleself-disclosure(tajallīal-shahādah).Theseconceptsdescribe,inessence,howwegofromonelevelofidentificationtoanother.Asweshallhaveoccasiontosee,emanation(fayḍ),self-disclosure(tajallī),manifestation(ẓuhūr,iẓhar),existentiation(ījād),andevenidentification(taʿyīn,taʿayyun)areoftenusedinterchangeably,withaparticulartermbeingusedtoemphasizeacertainaspectoftheontologicalrelationshipofthingstoGod.
Page 56
44
-Qūnawīandthephilosophicaltreatmentofwujūdandrelatedconcepts
ForQūnawīwujūdisseenontheonehandasthewujūdofwhatwouldcometobeknownaswaḥdatal-wujūdbutwhichforhimwaswujūdal-ḥaqq,theUltimateRealitywhichisthebasisof,indeedis,allthingsinamysteriousway.Ontheotherhand,wujūdisusedtoexpressthemanifestationandself-disclosureofGodintherealmofcreation.Thatistosay,besidesdenotingultimaterealityassuchitisusedtoexpresstheprogressionofthevariousidentificationsandthegrandcircleformedbymovingfromthepureinwardtothepureoutwardandbackagain.Inthissenseitisusedbasicallyasasynonymofkhārijīorexternal,orassomethingalreadyself-disclosedoremanatedatthesecondlevelspokenabove,andistheoppositeofʿadam(non-existence),asmawjūdisofmaʿdūm.Butoftennon-existenceisnotusedintheordinarysenseof“nothingness.”Non-existencecanmeantheabsenceofmanifestation,whereexistenceisdefinedastherealmofcreation,oftheworldormāsiwāʾllāh,“whatisotherthanGod.”Thatis,non-existencecanbethatwhichisyet-to-bemanifestfromtheMindorKnowledgeofGod,andalsothatwhichwillneverbemanifested,butisnot“nothing.” AmajorpartofwhatmakesthetreatmentofwujūdamongtheAkbarianssointerestingandsoimportantisthateveninasingleworkonasinglepagetheusagevacillatesbetweenthesensesabove.ConsideringhowcloselyidentifiedthisparticularschoolofSufismiswithaparticulardoctrineofwujūd,thisturnsouttobenosmallquestion.Inthefirstsense,wujūdisthatoneindivisibleUltimatewhichisthesolepre-occupationoftheSufis,whethertheycallitwujūd(Akbarians),ʿishq(Rūmī,AḥmadGhazālī),orsomethingelse.Itis,despiteitsconnectionwithotherphilosophicaldefinitions,aprimarilymysticalconceptinthisusage.ItisalsothesensewhichgetsSufisintothemosttroublewiththeircritics,whoarescandalizedbythenotionthatdonkeydroppingshaveanykindofidentificationwiththeexistenceofGod.18ThesecondsenseinwhichQūnawīuseswujūdistheordinarysenseofexistencewithoutthemetaphysicallyextendedideaoftotaloneness.Usedinthisway,wujūdsimplymeansthefactofsomethingbeingexistentorevencreated,althoughQūnawīrarelydiscusseshismetaphysicsintermsof“creation.” EarlyinMiftāḥal-ghayb,Qūnawīstatesthatthesubjectmatterof“knowledgeofthedivine”(al-ʿilmal-ilāhī),i.e.metaphysics,iswujūd,thewaythesubjectmatterofgeometryismeasurement.Thenhetellsusthattheprinciples(mabādīʾ)ofsuchaninvestigationaremadeupofconceptions(taṣawwur)andassents(taṣdīq),thus(atleastpartially)framinghisdiscussiontobeinlinewiththewayphilosophersmightapproachtheproblem.Itisnotamannerofapproachingtheproblemfoundinhismaster’swritings.However,talkofconceptionsandassentsandthestudyofbeingquabeingseemtoberestrictedtotheopeningpages.Thetenoroftheremainderofthebookisnotanunfoldingofhisanalysesofthesephilosophicalconceptsastheyapplytohisownmetaphysics.Itseemsasthoughheopenswithanodtothephilosophers,andindeeddoesprovideamoresystematicdiscussionofmetaphysicsincomparisonwithhismaster,butinQūnawī’smetaphysicalwritingswhatweencounterisreallyamoreorderly,pedagogicalversionofIbnʿArabī,withmanyofthemyriadoftopicsIbnʿArabītouches
18ForahistoryofpolemicsforandagainstIbnʿArabī,seeAlexanderKnysh’sbook,IbnʿArabiintheLaterIslamicTradition.Albany,1999.
Page 57
45
oninhisownworksleftout.Qūnawīdropstheshaṭḥ(ecstaticsayings)andtriestobesystematic,somethinghismasterrarelydid,butevenwiththischangeneithertheworkofthemasternorthatofhisdisciplecanbeclassifiedinastrictsenseasfalsafahoreventhelaterḥikmah.Qūnawī’swritingsare,however,clearenoughandconsistentenoughasabodyofthoughttobeabletoenterintotheworldofIslamictheologyandphilosophy,whoselanguagebasedaroundessence/quiddity(dhāt/māhiyyah),existence(wujūd),necessity(wujūb),andcontingency(imkān)hadalreadybeenfairlywellcrystallizedbyQūnawī’stime,asdiscussedinthepreviouschapter. InMiftāḥal-ghaybweactuallydoencounterthephrasewaḥdatal-wujūd,whereQūnawīstatesthattheoneness(waḥdah)thatamanperceivesinhimselfisnotlike“theonenessofexistence.”Heonlyhastheabilitytoviewhimselfassomerealitythatpossesses,asoneofitsqualities,wujūd(muttaṣifahbiʾl-wujūd),alongwithotherqualitiessuchaslife,knowledge,andwill.19Theunityoronenessheperceivesisseenintermsofamultiplicity,notwithrespecttoitsunity.Hereheusesthetermaḥadiyyahinsteadofwāḥidiyyahorwaḥdah,theformerinvokingforAkbariansunityassuchwhilethelatteristheunityofsomemultiplicity.Henceaḥadiyyahisthelevelofno-taʿayyunwhilewāḥidiyyahisthelevelofthefirsttaʿayyun,theunityoronenessofthedivinequalities.20Interestingly,waḥdatal-wujūdisnotexpandeduponassomegrandmetaphysicalaxis-concept.AsIunderstandit,Qūnawīissimplymakingadistinctionbetweentheonenessofamultiplicity(man’sparts),andtheonenessbelongingtotherealityofexistence,whichisreallynoneotherthanGod’sreality,andishencetrulyone. Itisnotreally“theonenessofexistence”asadoctrinetobedefendedwhichprimarilyconcernsQūnawī.Rather,heisoccupiedwithwujūdal-ḥaqq,theexistenceoftheReal(God)butwhichcanalsomean“trueexistence.”Sowhatisthiswujūdal-ḥaqqanditsrelationshiptoallthings?“ExistenceasitconcernstheRealisidenticalwithHimself(dhātihi).Asitconcernseverythingelseitissuperadded(zāʾid)toitsreality(ḥaqīqah).Therealityofeveryexistentisareferencetotheattribution/relationofitsidentificationinitsLord’sknowledge,beginninglesslyandendlessly.”21FromonepointofviewthisistheveryfamiliartheologicalandphilosophicalnotionthatonlyGod’sexistenceisintrinsictoHimself,whileallotherthingscaneitherexistornotexistwithouttherebyintroducinganyabsurdities.GodmustexistornotbeGod,henceheisnecessaryinexistence(wājibal-wujūd),theseotherrealitiesQūnawīreferstobeingonlycontingent(mumkin).Thephrase“attribution/relationofitsidentificationinitsLord’sknowledge”(nisbattaʿayyunihifīʿilmirabbihi)meansitsrelationshiporitsplaceasanidentity(ʿayn)amongotheridentitieswithinGod’sknowledge—thisbeingtheverydefinitionofanimmutableidentityorʿaynthābitah.Thepassagegoesontosaythefollowing,“ThesearecalledimmutableidentitiesintheterminologyofthemenofrealizationamongtheFolkofGod.Theyarecalledquiddities(māhiyyāt),knownobjects(maʿlūm),non-existents(maʿdūm),andimmutablething(al-shayʾal-thābitah)byothers.”22 AlthoughIsaidthatQūnawī’swritingshouldneverbemistakenforfalsafahintheordinarysense,thislattermoveatinterchangingtermsisasignificantexampleofbridge-buildingbetweentheAkbarianmodeofexpression(identity,identification)and 19Miftāḥal-ghayb20.20Ibid.,20.21Ibid.,20.22Ibid.,20.
Page 58
46
thoseofotherschoolsofthoughtwhichdealwiththesamekindsofthings,notablyphilosopherswhocallthisentityorsimilarentitiesquiddities(mā-hiyah,aquiteliteraltranslationoftotiesti,or“whatitis”).Thisnotionofexistencespreadingthroughoutquiddities,insteadofidentities(aʿyān),ismentionedafewtimesinQūnawī’scommentaryuponthechapterofAdam.Forexample,hediscussesthestateofthequidditiesbefore“thespreadingthroughoutofexistencethatisemanateduponthemandtheirentailments.”23(Thisconceptof“spreadingthroughout”(inbisāṭ)willbemorefullydiscussedlater.)Healsomentionsthe“non-existentquiddities,”24meaningthattheessencesinGod’sknowledgeareinastateofnon-manifestation;accordingtothefamousAkbarianadage,theimmutableidentiesorquiddities“haveneversomuchasbreathedthescentofexistence(lātashammurāʾiḥatal-wujūd).”Elsewherehementionsthe“onenessofeverythinginrespectofitsreality,whichisnamed‘quiddity’and‘immutableidentity,’andwhichreferstotheattribution/relationshipofathingidentifiedeternallyinReal’sknowledge.”25TheReal’sknowledgeisanattributionoftheSelf,oraself-qualitywhichisnotseparablefromwhatisqualified.Later,linkingquidditywithimmutabilityQūnawīspeaksofthe“quiddityimmutableinknowledge(al-māhiyyahal-thābitahfīʾl-ʿilm),”26againreferringtoGod’sknowledgeofHimself.FortheAkbariansimmutability(thubūt)isatechnicaltermusuallyreservedfortheidentitiesinGod’sknowledge. ThefactthattheAkbarianssoreadilyinterchangethephilosophicalterm“quiddity”for“identity”issignificantasṢadrāwilllatermakethesameinterchangeinthereversedirection.IbnʿArabīalmostalwaysused“identity”torefertotheformsinGod’sknowledge,althoughhewouldsometimesuse“essence”(dhāt)27or“reality”(ḥaqīqah)instead.ItshouldbenotedthattheAkbarianshaverecoursetoseveraldifferentwaysoftalkingaboutessences[whicharenotparticularlyphilosophicalintheirtone].Inthepair“existenceandlevel”(wujūd,martabah)existencereferstotheverybeingofthings,especiallywithrespecttoallthingsbeingultimatelyoneinGod.“Level”evokesthehierarchyofthisbeingorexistence,fromtheworldofbodiesallthewayuptotherealmoftheimmutableidentitiesinGod’sknowledge.Although“level”wouldseemtoonlyevokethegeneralontologicalstrataofreality,thewayitisusedbytheAkbariansalsoallowsittorefertoathing’sindividualplaceinthehierarchyofexistence,namelyitsownshareinexistence.“Reality”isanothertermoftenusedinatechnicalsensetomeanathing’sessenceoridentity.Especiallyinrelationtothecreatedorder,the“realities”ofthingsarereallynoneotherthantheirimmutableidentities,pureforms.Thatbywhichself-disclosureoremanationormanifestationtakeplaceisathing’sreality.Theselatterterms—tajallī,fayḍ,ẓuhūr—areusuallyassociatedwiththe“existenceside”ofthings,whileḥaqīqahisusuallyassociatedwithʿayn,dhāt,māhiyyah,orthe“essenceside”ofthings.
* * *Asstatedabove,IproposetwomainsensesinwhichQūnawīemploysthetermwujūdandrelatedconceptsinhiswritings.First,heuseswujūdinitssenseofpurebeing,wujūd 23Kitābal-fukūk189.24Ibid.,226-227.25Iʿjāzal-bayān135.26Ibid.,195.27SeeforexamplethechapteronṢāliḥinTheRingstonesofWisdom,p.120,whichreads,“Itsimmutableessenceinitsstateofnon-existence…”
Page 59
47
baḥtorwujūdmaḥḍ,themysteriousentitywhichissomucheverythingandnothingthatitisnotevenanentity.Secondly,heuseswujūdasadesignationmeaningmanifestation,comprisingthecreatedorderfromspirits,downthroughsouls,andendinginbodies.TherefollowsexamplesdrawnfromQūnawī’sworksdemonstratinghisusageofwujūdandrelatedconceptsinontologyastheyapplytothesetworangesofmeaning.I.TheOneMystery:ExamplesfromQūnawīA.as“existence”(wujūd)
ForQūnawīGodis“thepureexistence(al-wujūdal-maḥḍ)inwhichthereisnodistinction,andHeistrulyoneandinHisregardmultiplicityisinconceivable.”28InMiftāḥal-ghaybhegoesontosay,“Wesay‘oneness’forthesakeofassertingincomparabilityandformagnification.Itisnot[meantto]alludetotheunderstandingof‘oneness’asordinarilyconceivedbyveiledminds.”29Thoughhepointsoutthatwhatanordinarypersonthinksofas‘one’doesnotdojusticetowhatheisspeakingof,neverthelessQūnawīusesonenesstoexpresshismessage.Godistheoneexistence,wearetold,butwemustbeopentothefactthatour‘one’iswronginthiscontext.30Heisnotmerelyoneinthenumericalsenseofnotbeingtwoorthree,butisatrueunity,usuallyreferredtobyAkbariansasaḥadiyyahinsteadofwāḥidiyyah,thelattertermbeingtreatedasakindoflessprofoundunitythatembracesmultiplicity. Againspeakingaboutwaḥdatal-wujūdQūnawīstates,“Theoneexistenceattributed(ʿāriḍ)tocreatedcontingentthingsis,inreality,notsomethingdifferentfromthetruehiddenexistence,uncoupledfromidentitiesandplacesofmanifestation31exceptbyattributionandfiction.”32Themultiplicityoftheoneexistenceisonlyapparent,andcomesfromthesideofthe“placesofmanifestation,”i.e.,fromthepointofviewofmultiplicityandmanifestationitself.Hegoesontonotethattheuseofwujūdisanimpreciseone,butheuseditinsofarasitwasthemost“generalizedattribute”forthethingsaboutwhichhewastalking.Theuseofthisterminologydoesnotstemfromthefactthat“itcorrespondstohowthingsactuallyare”(lāannadhālikaismunmuṭābiqunliʾl-amrifīnafsihi).HecomparesittotheuseofthedivinenamestheLightandtheManifest.Nevertheless,hesays,suchlanguageis“approximateandpedagogical”(taqrībanwa-tafhīman).Itissignificantthatthisappearstobeasfarasheiswillingtogoindefiningwujūdasatotalizingconcept. LaterinMiftāḥal-ghaybhesays,“Thedifferenceperceivedbetweenvariousexistencesandtheoneexistencestemsfromthedifferentiationofreceptiverealitiesinbeing(kawniyyah).Itisnotduetothedifferentiationofexistenceinitself,norisitduetothefactthattherearemanyexistenceswhoserealitiesdiffer.Indeed,thereisonlythe
28Miftāḥal-ghayb19.29Ibid.,19.30ThisisnotanunfamiliarconceptualmoveinIslamiccircles.WhenitcomestoGod’squalities,theAsharitesgiveasimilarsounding,“Hesees,butwedonotknowhow.”ThedifferenceisthattheSufisbelievethatthereisapotentialforahumanbeingtoreallyknowwhathemeanswhenhesaysthatGodisone,unlikethecaseforGod’squalitiesamongtheAsh‘arites.31Areferencetocreatedthingsasplaceswherethedivinequalitiesappear.32Miftāḥal-ghayb21.Izutsuusedthewordfiction,thewayinlawonesays“legalfiction,”toexpressthetermi‘tibar,meaningsomethingwhichispurelymentalandhasnoobjectivereferent.
Page 60
48
oneexistencewhichmanifestsbyreasonofthedifferentiationofthereceptacles’realities…”Laterhestates,“Soreflectonthis…insofarasGodisonesinglepureexistencewhoisneithergrasped,norknownencompassedbyvisionandknowledge;andinsofarasheisanexistencemanifestintheidentitiesofexistentthings.ThroughitandinaccordancewithittheReal,theidentities,necessity,andcontingencyareknown.”33 InK.al-fukūkQūnawīmentions“theexistentialorigination[ofthings]fromtheEssence-Unseenandabsoluteencompassingexistence(al-ghaybal-dhātīwaʾl-wujūdal-muṭlaqal-iḥāṭī)”.34ThisisinthecontextofacommentaryonthenatureofexistentiationinthechapterofṢālihfromtheFuṣūṣal-ḥikam.Herethesupremelevelofal-ghaybal-dhātī,whichisthehighestwayatwhichwecanspeakaboutGod,isidentifiedwithexistenceasabsoluteandall-encompassing. InIʿjazal-bayānhestatesthatthe“absoluteunseen”(al-ghaybal-muṭlaq)isthedivineessenceandselfhood(huwiyyah),35andisnoneotherthanpurelightandpureexistence.36Againinthesameworkhesays,“Theworld,initstotality,isalocusofmanifestationforpureexistence(wujūdbaḥt),andeachexistentinitsidentificationisalsoalocusofmanifestation.”37 InapassagewhereQūnawībeginswithananalogytothehumanself,whichisonebutfromcertainpointsofviewcanbeseenasmultiple,headdstheanalogyof
33Miftāḥal-ghayb59.34Kitābal-fukūk,240-1.35Chittick,forexample,translatesthistermas“he-ness,”whileothershaveusedvarioussynonymsforessencesuchas“ipseity”(Goichon).“[T]histranslationisjustifiedandevensuperiorbecausethepronounhuwainArabicisnotstrictlyconfinedtothethirdperson.Thenotionofathingitself,ofbeingnoneother,isoneoftheusesofhuwainArabic.Forexample,huwahuwaliterallymeans‘itisit,’butreallymeans,‘Thisisthethingitself.’ItisthisreflexiveshadethatislostwhenhuwsorhuwiyyahistranslatedasHeorHe-ness.Ipseityliterallymeans“Itself-ness,”whichIthinkismoreelegantlyrenderedinEnglishbySelfhoodinsteadofusingaLatinateterm.HuwaisisusedtoindicatetheunconditioneddivineEssence,beyondtherelationshipof“I”and“Thou,”whichistosaybeyondduality,andbecausethedivinedhātcanalsoberenderedasSelf—thedhatofathingislinguisticallyandphilosophicallythethingitself—therenderingofhuwaasSelfisinkeepingwithinterchangeability,fromonepointofview,ofal-Dhāt(Self,Essence)andHuwa(He),theformerusedmoreoftentoexpressthephilosophicalideawhilethelatterismeanttoexpressthemystery.Thenotionofselfisnotrestrictedtothefirstperson,sincefirstwouldimplysecondandthird;rather,pureselfhoodisbeyondrelationalityasisthemetaphysicalconcepthuwa.Huwadoesnotcarryastrictlythirdpersonsignificance.ThefollowingquotefromAmīrʿAbdal-Qādirishelpful,whereisisinterpretingaQurʾānicversethatcontinsthepronounhuwa,whichhesaysreferstoGod:Huwaisnotusedhereasathirdpersonpronoun(theabsentperson)whichisgrammaticallyrelatedtoafirstperson(onewhospeaks),andtothesecondone(onetowhomonespeaks)[forthiswouldimplyamultiplicity,whichisinfinitelytranscendedbythemetaphysicalhuwa].Allahdidnotsayla-anā“certainlyI,”forthepronounanahasadeterminativecharactersinceitimpliespresence.(TheSpiritualWritingsofAmīrʿAbdal-Qādir,tr.MichelChodkiewicz,Albany,NY,1995,46).(CanerDagli,TheRingstonesofWisdom,Chicago,2004,128).36Iʿjāzal-bayān149-150.37Ibid.,210.
Page 61
49
breath,andthateachletterisreallynoneotherthanthebreath.Likewise,“Allindividualexistentialidentities…arenotdistinctfrompureexistence.”38 TowardstheendofIʿjāzal-bayān,followingapoemwhichquotestheQurʾānicverseAllthingsperishbutHisFace,39Qūnawīisdiscussingthemultiplicityofexistentthings.TheyarenotdistinctfromGod’sexistenceexceptinsofarastheyare“identifications”ofit.40Theexistenceweascribetothemisreallynothingotherthanthe“clothing”ofGod’stasksorlabors(shaʾn)withHisexistence.Thislattertermisnoteasytotranslate,andIhaveused“task”aschosenbyChittick.IbnʿArabīuseditinreferencetotheQurʾānicverse,AndeachdayHeisuponsomelabor(shaʾn)(Arberry).41Theirmultiplicityderivesfromthe“particularities”(khuṣūṣiyyāt)concealedintheunseenofGod’sSelfhood(ghaybhuwiyyatihi). TheseexamplesdrawnfromQūnawī’swritingsaremeanttoshowthathewascomfortableusingexistencetoexpresstheultimatereality,butaswewillseebelow,itisnotanecessarytermforexpressingthisreality,norisittheonlyonewhichisusedtodoso. B.aslight(nūr),mercy(raḥmah)
Thoughnotpurelyandsimplysynonymouswithexistence,nūr(light)andraḥmah(mercy),thelatterwhichisoftenusedtogetherwith“breath”asin“theBreathoftheAll-Merciful,”canhaveasimilarscopeand“fundamentality”(whatlaterphilosopherswouldcallaṣālah)andoftencarryatrueontologicalstatusfortheAkbarians.Likeexistence,theycanbeusedinmorethanoneway,especiallytosignifytheoneall-embracingmysterypresentinallthings. Lightisanaturalmetaphysicalconcept,andaswesawinthepreviouschapteritwasemployedbyGhazālīandSuhrawardītoexpresstheverystuffofreality.ItwasalsousedextensivelybyIbnʿArabī,whichshouldnotbesurprising.AlthoughwecanbesurethatQūnawīwasinfluencedbyhismaster’streatmentoflight,thecasesofGhazālīandSuhrawardīarenotasclear.AssomeonelearnedinphilosophyandSufismitishardtoimaginethatQūnawīhadnotreadoratleastcomeacrossGhazālī’sNicheofLights.AsforSuhrawardī,thereactuallyexistsacopyofhisPhilosophyofIlluminationcopiedoutinQūnawī’sownhand.42OnecanspeculateastowhatkindofimportanceQūnawīascribedtoSuhrawardī’swork,butinhisownwritingsthereisnoevidencethatQūnawī’streatmentoflightisnotwhollyfromwithinIbnʿArabī’scorpusandQūnawī’sownphilosophicalwork.BetweenhisfriendshipwithRūmī,hisstudyofphilosophy,apparentlybothPeripateticandIlluminationist,andhisstudyofḥadīth,Qūnawīcertainlyhadhisfingersinmorethanonepie,buthereallyonlyexplicitlyacknowledgesadebttoIbnʿArabīasfarashisownwritingaboutmattersofmetaphysicsandspiritualityisconcerned.
OnthesubjectoflightQūnawīsays,“Truelighthasthreeotherlevels.Oneofthemisapartnertopureabsoluteexistence(al-wujūdal-maḥḍal-muṭlaq).”43Here 38Ibid.,212.39Qurʾān28:88.40Iʿjāzal-bayān511.41Qurʾān55:29.42SeeW.Chittick,“Thelastwillandtestament,”47.43Kitābal-fukūk226-227.
Page 62
50
Qūnawīisdiscussingtherealityandsymbolismoflight,especiallyasitrelatestoknowledge.However,atitshighestlevelevenlight,whichisusuallyassociatedwithmanifestationandwiththeattainmentofhigherknowledge,isonalevelwiththeultimatelevelofexistence.Thecommonalitybetweenlightandexistencerelatestoknowledge,andconsistsoftheunveilingordiscovery(kashf)ofsomethinghidden.Inthecaseofexistence,“Sinceit[existence]isreallyoneandhasvariousmultiplethingsattributedtoit,oneknowsthattherearemanyentitiesofvaryingreceptivity.Inthiswayexistencebecomesameansofknowingthenon-existentquiddities(al-māhiyyātal-maʿdūmah).”Becauseoftherealonenessofexistence,quidditiesarenon-existent,andindiscoveringthetruerealityofexistencewediscoverthatthisisso.Hegoesontosay,“Neitherexistence,knowledge,orlightaredifferentiatedfromoneanother,inthatnoneofthem,withrespecttotheironenessandabsoluteness,canbeseenorperceived.Indeed,thereisno44multiplicityamongtheminthepresenceofessence-oneness.”45 Whatwecalllightandexistencebecomedifferentiatedfromoneanotherinthemodesofmanifestation.“Thedifferencebetweentruelight(al-nūral-ḥaqīqī)andthatwhichisnamedpureexistence(al-wujūdal-maḥḍ)consistsofthis:existenceappearstoourfacultiesofperceptionthroughthereceptivityofnon-existentidentifiedobjectsofknowledge(al-maʿlūmātal-maʿdūmahal-mutaʿayyinah)inGod’sknowledge.Asfortruelight,itcanonlybeperceivedinanexistentlocusofmanifestation(maẓharmawjūd).Shortlythereafterhereasserts,“Pureexistence(al-wujūdal-maḥḍ)cannotbeperceived.”46Again,inIʿjāzal-bayānhesaysthatGodis“sheer(baḥt)existenceandpure(khāliṣ)light,”47andlater,“Knowthatexistencespreading-throughout(al-wujūdal-munbasiṭ)islight”48(seebelowfordiscussionof“spreading-throughout”).OfcourseQūnawībelievesthatallthingsarecomprisedwithintheonereality,whetherthatrealityiscalledexistenceorlight.However,insofarasexistenceandlightarenotmeresynonymsofoneanother,itcanbesaidthattheyrepresentthatsamerealityfromdifferentpointsofview,orfromdifferentconceptualstartingpoints.Atthehighestlevel,thereisnomultiplicityandhencenodifference,butatthelevelofsuccessiveidentifications(taʿayyun)indeedthemeaningofexistenceandlightareindeeddifferent,andthesamewouldholdtrueformercyasanontologicalentity.
Theuseofmercy(raḥmah)asanontologicalconceptisveryparticulartotheAkbarianschool,andisamajorthemeinIbnʿArabī’sFuṣūṣal-ḥikam,forexample.49Mercyisnotjustaqualityofthings;inasenseitistheveryrealityofthingsbecausetheveryrealityofGodisMercy,asshownbythedivinenameal-Raḥmān.ThesymbolismoftheBreathoftheAll-Merciful(nafasal-Raḥmān)isoneofthemostimportantmetaphysicalthemesinallofIbnʿArabī’swritings.Godismercy(whichcanbewell-translatedasloveinthiscontext)withinhimself,buthealsogivesofthismercythrough
44Therearetworeadingshere,onewiththe“no”takenout,butfromthecontextitisclearthatthecorrectreadingis“nomultiplicity.”45Thatistosay,thetrueonenessoftheEssenceorSelf(dhāt).Tousetheadjectivalform“essential”totranslatedhātīwouldbemisleadinginthiscontextandisusuallynotthebestwaytotranslatethisterm.46Kitābal-fukūk228.47Iʿjāzal-bayān144.48Ibid.,193.49FormoreonIbnʿArabīonmercyseeTheRingstonesofWisdom,105-6,177-82,219-24.
Page 63
51
thedivineBreath.Justaswordsarewhollymadeupofbreathandaresustainedonlysolongasthebreathisthere,sotooarecreatedthingsdependentuponthebreathofGod—indeedarenothingbutthebreathofGodfromonepointofview.
InMiftāḥal-ghaybQūnawīsays,“TheAll-Merciful(al-Raḥmān)istheonepure(baḥt)existence.TheLight(al-Nūr)isGod’sNamewithrespecttoHisownmanifestationandthemanifestationofotherthingsbyHim,meaningthatlightisluminousinitselfandilluminatesnon-luminousthings.Lightistheformofabsolute/unqualifiedexistence.”50Again,laterhestatesthattheAll-Merciful(al-Raḥmān)isthenamefortheformofdivineexistencewithrespecttoitsmanifestinginandofitself.HereQūnawīcallstheresultof“Iwantedtobeknown”(aḥbabtuanuʿraf)the“existentialformmanifestedinandofitself.”51 Againonmercy,inIʿjāzal-bayān,hestates,“Mercyisthesameasexistence.”52Laterhemakesreferenceto“thegeneralexistentiatingmercyofal-Raḥmānwhichencompasseseverythingbythegeneral(muṭlaq)receptivityofcreatedcontigententities.”53InK.al-Fukūkheexplainsthatmercyisthesameasexistence,andal-Raḥmānisthesameasal-Ḥaqqduetoits(Iassumethelatter)beingexistence.HesaysthatthisiswhywhenthemountingofthedivineThroneismentioned,itisonlythenameal-Raḥmānthatisused.54Laterhementionsthegeneralmercy(al-raḥmahal-‘ammah)whichencompasseseverythingbythegeneral(muṭlaq)receptivityofcreatedcontingententities.Theselatterarelikemirrorsforexistence’smanifestation.55InIʿjāzal-bayānQūnawīstatesthat“theReal’sself-disclosuresreachtheworlduponeachbreath,andinthetruestsenseareonlyoneself-disclosure,manifestingtoit[theworld]asafunctionoftherecipients,theirlevels,andtheirpreparednessand56identifications.57C.as“spreading-throughout”(inbisāṭ)and“flowing-through”(sarayān)
TwoconceptswhichcomeuprepeatedlywheneverQūnawīisdiscussingtheessentialidentitybetweenmanyexistencesandtheoneexistence,orthemannerinwhichthebreathofGodgrantseverythingitsexistence,orthewaylightunfoldsintheuniverse,areinbisāṭ(spreading-throughout)andsarayān(flowing-through)—thatis,thespreading-throughoutandflowing-throughofexistenceinparticular.Inbisāṭisalmostsynonymouswithtajallīandfayḍ,representingtheprocessbywhichexistenceisbestoweduponthingswhicharestillonlypotentiallyexistent,namelytheimmutableidentitiesorquidditiesinGod’sknowledge.Moretechnically,itreferstotheall-embracingmysteryoftheoneexistence,notfromthepointofviewofitsabsoluteonenessinitself,butinsofarasitistheonenessthatmakesthemultiplicityofexistencetrulyoneandapparentlymany.Thatistosay,whentalkingabouthowallthingsarereallytheoneexistence,theterminbisāṭisakeytogiveusperspectiveonthemysteriousOne,topointusinthedirectionofviewingitasmany-as-one.
50Miftāḥal-ghayb62.51Ibid.,40.52Iʿjāzal-bayān511.53Ibid.,265.54Kitābal-fukūk205.55Ibid.,221.56This“and”doesnotappearinthetext,butitdoesnotmakesenseotherwise.57Iʿjāzal-bayān137.
Page 64
52
Sarayānisusedsimilarly,butcarrieswithitthesenseofsomethinghappeningwithinexistentthingsasopposedtobeinggiventothem.BothinbisāṭandsarayānbecomeveryimportantforṢadrā’sontologyandhiscosmology.TheformerisusedinṢadrā’sal-wujūdal-munbasiṭ(“existencewhichspreads-throughout”)58inmuchthesamewayQūnawīusesit.Itrefers,nottotheabsolutelyunifiedexistenceassuchnortotheexistenceofmultiplicity,buttotheoneexistenceinasmuchasitistheveryexistenceofthemanyexistences.Ṣadrāusessarayāntorefertowujūdbutespeciallytothewaynature(ṭabīʿah)ispresentinthingsandoperatesasthemeansbywhichmotiontakesplaceinthecreatedorder. WithrespecttoinbisāṭandsarayānitisusefultorecallthatforQūnawītheultimaterealityissometimescalledthepresenceofunionandexistence(ḥaḍratal-jamʿwaʿl-wujūd).59“Thefirstoftheknown,named,anddesignatedlevelsisthelevelofunionandexistence.Somemenofrealizationcallittherealityofrealities(ḥaqīqatal-ḥaqāʾiq),thepresenceofunity,thestationofunion,andsoforth.Itisviewedintwoways,firstwithrespecttotheaforementionedunion(jamʿ),itsall-embracingness,anditsoneness,andsecondwithrespecttoitsbeingnothingotherthantheaforementionedrealitieswhichitencompasses.”60Hegoesontosaythatthepresenceofunionandexistenceiscalledthefirstlevelofwitnessing/manifestation(shahādah)inrelationtotheaforementionedabsoluteunseen,andisalsoidentifiedwiththeBreathoftheAll-Merciful(seebelow).61Itakethistomeanthattheabsoluteunseenisthedivineessenceconsideredwhollyinandofitself,whilethisfirstidentificationasQūnawīcallsithereisthatsameabsolutebutconsideredwithrespecttoitsbeingtheveryexistenceandrealityofallcontingentandmultiplethings.Thatistosay,withthepresenceofunionandexistencewearethinkingaboutthe“spreadingthroughout”ofultimateexistence. Thusthedesignationofunionandexistenceismeanttocapturethenatureofthesupremerealitybothasimpenetrableoneness,completelyItselfandthuscompletelyOther,andasmysteriouslytheveryexistenceofallthingsweknowwhileweareinthestateofmultiplicity.Thefirstreceivesthelabel“union,”whilethesecondreceivesthelabel“existence.”ItisinthislatterrespectthatQūnawīusestheterms“spreadingthroughout”(munbasiṭ)and“manifest”(ẓāhir)todescribeexistenceasitappliestocontingentthings.Furthermore,thisexistenceisaself-disclosure(tajallī)flowinginorpenetratingthrough(sārī)therealitiesofcontingentthings.Boththetermsmunbasiṭ(“spreadingthroughout“)andsārī(“flowingin/penetratingthrough”)arefrequentlyusedlaterbyṢadrātodenotetheverythingQūnawīisdiscussinginthispassage.AgaininthesameworkQūnawīmentions“theflowingthrough(sarayān)ofexistencespreadingthroughout(munbasiṭ)therealitiesofexistents.”62Herethe“realities”aretheessencesoridentitiesofthings.AswasmentionedaboveintheFukūk,thenotionofexistence
58F.Rahmantranslatedthisas“expansiveexistence”(ThePhilosophyofMullāṢadrā,85-86).59Miftāḥal-ghayb27.60Ibid.,35.61InIʿjāzal-bayānp.99,thepresenceofunionandexistenceiscalled“thepresenceofunion,existence,hiding,andrevealinganditholdsthemiddleplace.”Hesaysthatmanownsthispresence,andIunderstandbythisthatthismustrefertoman’sstationasthemicrocosmoftheuniverse.Otherwise,itwouldbeinconsistentwiththeontologicalstatusgivento“thepresenceofunionandexistence”intheotherpassagesmentionedabove.62Miftāḥal-ghayb118.
Page 65
53
spreadingthroughout(inbisāṭ)quidditiesismentionedafewtimesinthechapterofAdam.Here,Qūnawīisdiscussingthestateofthequidditiesbefore“thespreadingthroughoutofexistencethatisemanateduponthemandtheirentailments(lawāzim).”63 InIʿjāzal-bayānQūnawīstatesthatrealitiesandspirits(ḥaqāʾiq,arwāḥ)havecertaindeterminationsbyvirtueoftheirmereidentitybutalsobyvirtueofthe“existentialself-disclosurewhichflowsthroughthem”64(al-tajallīal-wujūdīal-sārīfīhā).Laterhelikenstheactofwritingtothespreading-throughoutofexistentiallight(inbisāṭal-nūral-wujūdī)onasheetofpaper,inwhichtheformsofexistentsareidentified(taʿayyana).65Relatingthisideatotheconceptofmercyhestates,“Hisbeingnamedal-Raḥmānreferstothespreading(inbisāṭ)ofHisabsoluteexistencethroughoutHismanifestedlabors…Mercyisthesameasexistence,andal-RaḥmānistheReal(al-Ḥaqq)withrespecttoHisbeinganexistencespreadingthroughout(munbasiṭ)everythingthatmanifestsbymeansofit(i.e.existence).”66 Speakingtothemysteryofexistentiation-in-general(muṭlaqal-ījād),heanswerstheself-posedqueryastothereasonforexistence:Itisforthesakeoftheperfectionwhichdependsuponthemanifestationand“emanatedflowing-through”(al-sarayānal-mufḍā).67Then,whenaskinghimselfabouttheoriginandreturnofthings,hesaysthatexistenceisacircle,andthatthiscirclebyvirtueofthecompletenessitengendersattainstotheflowing-throughexistence(al-wujūdal-sārī).68Thatistosay,toachievethestatewhereGod’srealityistheveryrealityofmultipleotherrealitiesisitselfaperfectionthatcanonlyberealizedthroughthemanifestationofexistence,throughtheactofcreation.ThisisoneofIbnʿArabī’scentralthemesinhismetaphysics,namelythatGodwouldbelimitedifhewereonlyabsolute.ItisincomprisingboththeabsoluteandtherelativethatGodisfullyGod.D.Isthereequivocality(tashkīk)inQūnawī?
Theseideasofinbisāṭandsarayān,relatingastheydotothesimultaneityofmanynessandonenesswithintherealityofexistence,naturallybringupthequestionofjusthowwecantalkaboutmanynessinonenessbeyondjustsayingthatthisisthecase.ThisquestionwouldbecomeamajorpartofṢadrā’smetaphysics,andhewoulduseahighlydevelopedconceptoftashkīktodescribehowoneexistencecanapparentlycomprisemanyessenceseachhavingtheirownexistence.Forhimthisequivocalnatureofexistencewasaconcretefactaboutthingsinthemselves,notanactofmentalanalysisaboutthegeneralconcept“existence.”QūnawīalsosubscribestoawayofthinkingaboutexistencewhichismetaphysicallythesameasṢadrā’sinthesensethattheybothholdtoasingleexistencewhichisapparentlymultiple,butonnooccasiondoesQūnawīmakereferencetotashkīk(aconcepthewasdefinitelyfamiliarwith,aswillbeseenfromhiscorrespondencewithṬūsībelow)asawayoftalkingabouthowtosituatetheapparentlymanydifferentrealitiesweencounterwithintheoneexistence.
63Kitābal-fukūk189.64Iʿjāzal-bayān166.65Ibid.,203.66Ibid.67Miftāḥal-ghayb117.68Ibid.,118.
Page 66
54
InIʿjāzal-bayānhestates,“Allthethingsweperceivewithourintellectual,mental,imaginational,andsensorialfacultiesare,eachandall,nothingmorethansimple,uncoupled(mujarrad)69realitieswhichareclothedwiththeoneindividualexistence.Theymanifestofthemselves.70However,someofthemaredependent(tābiʿ)uponothersintermsofmanifestation,determination,encompassment,andattachment.Thelatterarecalledindependent(matbūʿ)…[andare]realities,causes,andintermediariesbetweentheRealandthatwhichisdependentupontheminexistence….Thedependentarecalledpeculiarities(khawāṣṣ),entailments,accidents,qualities,states,attributions,effects,conditions,andthelike.”71Hegoesontosaythatindeed,thingssuchasmanifestation,existentiation,form,relationality,priority,posteriority,substance,accident,independence,anddependenceareactuallymeanings(maʿānīmujarradah)andintellectualattributions(nisabmaʿqūlah).Whensuchthingsare“clothedintheoneexistencebywhichtheymanifest”theyarethusclothedindifferingrelationshipsofpriority,scope,dependence,anddetermination(ḥukm),entailment(luzūm),etc…Thismeans,forexample,thatinasubstance-accidentrelationshipsuchas“laughingman,”laughingdependsuponmanforitsexistence,oronecouldsaythatlaughingisaqualityofman.However,bothmanandlaughingareessencesormeaningsthattakeontheoneexistence,differingonlyintheirplaceintheontologicalhierarchy.Thisallresultsfromthe“spreadingthroughout”(sarayān)ofunifieddivineexistentialunion(al-jamʿal-aḥadīal-wujūdīal-ilāhī).72 Towardstheendofthefinalquotationhelinkssarayānwiththedifferentiationofexistencehewasjustdiscussing.WhenQūnawīdividesuptheoneexistenceintermsofpriorityandposteriority,orintermsofindependenceanddependenceasinthecaseofsubstanceandaccident,orintermsofcauseandeffect,encompassment,etc…heisusinglanguagewhichṢadrāwouldusecenturieslaterinhisexpositionoftashkīk,butQūnawīdoesnotdevelopthisideafurther.Forhim,itisaquestionofmakingsenseofappearances.Hedoesnotattempttoexplainitintermsofaconceptsuchastashkīk,whichwouldhavebroughtinotherimportantquestionssuchashowexistenceistheprincipleandobjectofdifferentiation.Ṭūsīdoesnotdothis. InarelatedwayinMiftāḥal-ghaybheisdiscussingthelevelsofcontingencyintermsofexisentiation(ījād).Otherfactorsmentionedherearepriorityandposteriori(taqaddum,taʾakhkhur)andconditionality(shurūṭ).Thingsarearrangedinahierarchywithinthedivineknowledgeinaccordancewiththeirreceptivityto“existentialidentification”(al-taʿayyunal-wujūdī).73Later,hestates,“Therealityofhierarchy(tartīb),whichentailstherealityofpriority,posteriority,andrelativeintermediation(al-
69Philosophicallymujarradusuallyreferstoaformonitsown,notinsomematter.Itcanbetranslatedasuncoupled.InthiscaseQunawīismostlikelynottryingtoevokethislimitedsense,sincethetakingonofexistenceisnotexactlythesameasaformappearinginsomesortofmatter.Heistryingtosaythatthingsare,beforetheyaregrantedexistence,pureessenceswithinGod’sknowledge.70AccordingtoIbnʿArabī’snotionoftheimmutableidentities,outwardexistenceisalreadyapartoftheiressence.GodsimplysaysKun!andtheyexistbyvirtueofwhattheyare.SeeTheRingstonesofWisdom,119-20.71Iʿjāzal-bayān127.72Ibid.,128.73Miftāḥal-ghayb32.
Page 67
55
tawassuṭal-nisbī),islikeeachidentityentailingitsstates.”74Qūnawīgivesspecialnoticethatthisisoneofthemostimpenetrableofmysteries.ThehierarchyexistsalreadyinGod’sknowledgeofHimself,whichistosaythatattheleveloftheimmutableidentitiestheseidentitiesalreadyhaverelationshipswithoneanotherwhichsetthemintoahierarchy.Whentheidentitiesaremanifestedasoutwardexistence,orcreation,thishierarchybecomesactualizedandthustherelationshipsofsubstanceandaccident,causeandeffect,priorandposterior,allcomeintobeing. Again,althoughfromtheseobservationsofthenatureofexistenceonecouldtakeananalysisafewstepsfurtherandarriveataconceptoftashkīk,Qunawidoesnotdoso.Whatheisdescribingcanalsobedescribedbytashkīk,andthetwoarenotcontradictory,meaningthattheunderlyingontologyisthesame:oneexistenceappearinginmanymodes.II.Wujūdassignifyingthecreatedorder
Asmentionedatthebeginningofthissection,onecandiscerntwomainsensesinwhichexistenceanditsrelatedconceptsareusedbyQūnawī.Thefirst,themysteriousoneexistencewhichissimultaneouslyallthings,hasjustbeendiscussed.Thesecondconsistsofthoseinstanceswhenexistenceandrelatedconcepts,especiallythederivativeconceptofexistentiation(ījād),areusedtorefersimplytothestatusofathingexistinginthecreatedorderasopposedtobeingwithinGod’sknowledgeorstateofnon-manifestation.Inthecaseofexistentiationitisquiteclearwhytheconceptsignifiestherealmofcreationandmanifestation,sincethenotionof“makingtoexist”(awjada)clearlymeansthatsomethinggoesfromonestatetoanother,andinthemetaphysicsoftheAkbarianschooltheonlyrealoptionintermsofchangingsomething’sstateintermsofitsexistenceistomakeanimmutableidentityinGod’sknowledgemanifestintheworld.ItisatermwhichappearsfrequentlyinQūnawī’swritings,andalwayscarriesthissenseofthemanifestationofimmutableidentitiesfromoutoftheKnowledgeofGodtotheworldofcreation,andindeedisoftenfoundtogetherwithmanifestation(ẓuhūr,iẓhār)anditsderivatives. However,fortheconceptsofexistence,existent(mawjūd),andexistential(wujūdī),moreclarificationisneeded.Letusbeginwiththederivativeword“existential.”Forexample,intheFukūkQūnawīspeaksof“existentialemanation”(al-fayḍal-wujūdī)75Healsomentionsthemysteryofthejourneyof“existentialandunseenself-disclosurefromtheSelfhood’sunseenness(al-tajallīal-wujūdīal-ghaybiminghaybal-huwiyyah)seekingtheperfectionofirradiation”.76Thisdoesnotseemtofitwithmygeneralargumenthereaboutthenatureofthequalifierwujūdī,butnoticeherethatinordertoexpressthemeaningofnon-manifestationthewordwujūdīneedsthequalifierghaybī.LaterhespeaksoftheFirstIntellectasthefirstexistential(wujūdī)andexistentiating(ījādī)cause(sabab),andasaconditionforthe“raisingup”ofthehouseofexistence.77 74Ibid.,47.75Kitābal-fukūk195Fayḍ,usuallytranslatedasemanation,isoneofthefamilyoftermstheAkbariansusetodescribethecomingoutofrealityfromnon-manifestationinGod’sknowledgeintothecreatedorder.Itisoftenusedsynonymouslywithtajallī(self-disclosure).76Kitābal-fukūk205.77Ibid.,211.
Page 68
56
Indiscussingthesymbolismofwritingandspeaking,thepaperandthebreathcorrespondto“thespreadingthroughofthe‘generalexistentiallight’(al-nūral-wujūdīal-ʿāmm)totheBreathoftheAll-Merciful”whereinarefound“theformsofexistentobjectsofknowledge(ṣuwaral-maʿlūmātal-mawjūdah).”78Hegoesontosaythatthenthingsenterintoexistencewhichhadpreviouslynotbreathedtheairof(lit.“smelled”)existence,thefamousphrasefromIbnʿArabī(mashammatrāʾiḥatal-wujūd).InIʿjāzal-bayānQūnawīsaysthattheworldisthegreatbookinrelationtothe“existentialidentities”(al-aʿyānal-wujūdīyyah),whicharelikewordsandletters.79Usingarelatedsymbolismheisspeakingofthevariouspresencesasbooks,andthenmentionsthe“existentialdifferentiatedlevels”(al-marātibal-wujūdīyyahal-tafṣīliyyah).Heretheexistentialityispairedwithunfolding,bothsignifyingthatweareintherealmofmanifestation,ofcreation.Thelastlevelisẓāhiral-wujūdor“whatismanifestofexistence.”Individualexistents(mawjūdāt)arelociofmanifestationforthedivinenamesandqualities.80Helaterlikensthespreadingoutoflettersandwordsonsomeone’sbreathtothespreadingoutofexistentsonGod’sbreath,andtheir“identificationintheexistentialhierarchy/levels”(taʿayyunfīʾl-marātibal-wujūdīyyah).81 Inapassagewhereheisdiscussingthenatureoflight,Qūnawīstatesthattherearetworelationshipsordeterminationsinlight,whichheidentifiesherewithknowledge.Theyaretheoutward(ẓāhir)andtheinward(bāṭin).The“existentialandvisibleforms”(al-ṣuwaral-wujūdīyyahal-mashhūdah)areunfoldingsoftheoutwarddetermination.Theinwardisthemeaningorspirit(maʿnā)oflight,whichhealsocallsthe“meaningofmanifest/outwardexistence.”82 Itisclearthatthesenseoftheword“existential”asQūnawīusesitinthesepassagescannotbetakenasadirectadjectivalderivativeofhismostprofoundunderstandingofthewordexistence,thewayforexamplethemeaningofimaginational(khayālī)canbederiveddirectlyfromimagination(khayāl).InQūnawī’susage“existential”doesnotsimplymean“pertainingtoexistence”or“ofexistence”purelyandsimply,becauseaswehaveseenabovehisconceptofexistenceismuchmoreembracingandfluidthantherangeofmeaningfor“existential”whichwecangleanfromthepassagesmentionedabove.Inthesequotations“existential”meansmanifestedorevenconcrete.Itispairedandassociatedwithself-disclosure,unfolding(tafṣīl),83 78Miftāḥal-ghayb97.79Iʿjāzal-bayān105-6.80Ibid.,99.81Ibid.,211.82Ibid.,154.83TafṣīlandijmālareimportantconceptsintheAkbarianschool.Theyrepresentontologicalstatesofthingsinthevariousdegreesofmanifestation.Forexample,inrelationtotheirstateinthepresenceoftheimmutableidentities,theessencesofthingsintheFirstIntellectaremufaṣṣalorunfolded.Onecouldalsotranslatetheseasexplicitandimplicitprovidedtheyareunderstoodproperly.LatermembersoftheschoolwouldrefinetheseconceptssuchthatessencesintheGreatSpiritwouldbemujmalinrelationtotheessencesintheUniversalSoul,althoughbothrepresentastateofexistenceabovetheworldofimaginationandtheworldofbodies.Thephilosopherswouldmakethissamedivision,exceptthattheywouldcalltheformertheFirstIntellectquaijmāl(ʿalāṭarīqal-ijmāl),andthesecondtheFirstIntellectquatafṣīl(ʿalāṭarīqal-tafṣīl).
Page 69
57
manifestation,form(ṣūrah),andlight,allofwhicharemeanttoindicatethecomingoutintothecreatedorder.84Itwouldappearthatthenominalwujūdallowsofbeingmodulatedtoincludebothordinaryexistenceasweknowitandtheprofoundsinglemysterycomprisingallthings,butwhenitcomestoemployingtheadjectivewujūdī,theordinarysensecreepsinanddominatestheusage.Inanycasethetermmawjūdisneverusedtoindicateanythingbuttheparticularexistenceofsomething.GodisneverreferredtoasamawjūdintheAkbarianschool.-Knowledgeexistenceandconcreteexistence
Itisalsoworthwhiletopointoutthedistinction,socentraltoAkbarianmetaphysics,betweenknowledgeexistence(al-wujūdal-ʿilmī)andconcreteexistence(al-wujūdal-ʿaynī).Thequalifier“knowledge”referstoGod’sknowledge,andhencetheimmutableidentities,whichareformspresentinGod’sknowledge.“Concrete”refersthentotheseidentitiesaftertheyhavebeenbroughtoutofGod’sknowledge.Itcanbemisleadingtotranslatethistermas“concrete,”sincefortheAkbarianstherealitiesinGod’sknowledgeareobjectivelyrealandinasensemorerealthanthe“concrete”existents.“Knowledge-”isnotthesameas“mental”becausethedifferencebetweenmentalexistenceandconcreteexistenceisthatbetweentheknowingsubjectandanobjectoutsideofhim;itisadifferencewithincreation.Thoughitcansometimesbeambiguousbecauseitcanalsobeusedlike“mental”(dhihnī),fīʾl-ʿilmistypicallymeanttodenoteadifferencebetweencreationandarchetype,inthatGod’sknowledgeisnotpartofcreation,whileourknowledgeis.God’sknowledgeisneverreferredtoas“mental”ordhihnī.Confusionalsoarisessincefīʾl-ʿaynisusedoppositebothofthem. Forexample,inMiftāḥal-ghaybhementionsthe“bringingout”(ibrāz)fromthepresenceofknowledge(ʿilm)tothepresenceofconcreteness(ʿayn).85InthesameworkhetalksaboutthemanifestationoftheobjectsofGod’sknowledge(maʿlūmāt,i.e.theimmutableidentities)intermsofgoingfromknowledgeexistence(al-wujūdal-ʿilmī)toconcreteexistence(al-wujūdal-ʿaynī).86Healsomentionsherethatthisprocesscannotberealizedexceptinsomematterorother. Indescribingthelevelsthatahumanbeingpassesthroughintheprocessofspiritualattainment,hementionsthecomingoutofknowledgeexistenceintoconcreteexistence.Priortoexistentiation,anybeingisin“theunseen,knowledge-,existentialpresence,”andits“existentiation”referstoGod’swillbeingdirectedtoitsidentityintheformofmanifestation(ẓuhūr).87Noticeherehowwujūdisusedinnon-manifestandmanifestsenses. InapassagediscussedaboveQūnawīsaysthattherearerealitieswhichareproperlyspeakingdependentorfollowothers.Whentheyenterintoconcreteexistence,theseformerlypuredisembodiedmeaningsbecome,forexample,theaccidentsofsubstances,orqualities,orentailmentsofthings.88
84ItisworthnotingthatQunawīalsouseswujūdītomeanthesameaspositiveorsubstantial.Forexample,hesaysthatarelationshipisdifferentfroman“existentialentity”(amrwujūdī)(Iʿjāzal-bayān,344).85Miftāḥal-ghayb97.86Ibid.,93.87Ibid.,104-5.88Iʿjāzal-bayān128.
Page 70
58
III.ThePhilosophicalExchangebetweenṬūsīandQūnawī QūnawīandṬūsīwerecontemporariesanddiedwithinayearofeachother.Theirphilosophicalcorrespondence89isimportantbecauseQūnawīwassuchamajorchannelfortheteachingofIbnʿArabī,andbecauseṬūsīwasamajorreviverofthetraditionofPeripateticphilosophy,especiallythroughhiscommentaryuponIbnSīnā’sal-Ishārātwaʾl-tanbīhāt.ThecorrespondenceconsistsofaletterwrittenbyQūnawītoṬūsīposingagroupofphilosophicalquestions,followedbyareplybyṬūsī,andfinallyafinalletterofQūnawīcommentingonṬūsī’sreplies.Theletterswerehighlycordialandmutuallysympathetic,andbothmentookpainstopraiseoneanother.QūnawīnotedthatṬūsī’sfamehadspreadthroughouttheworldandthathewastheforemostphilosopherofhisage.Hehadwantedtomeethimbutsincehecouldnothedecidedtobeginacorrespondence.ṬūsīinturnspeakshighlyofQūnawī’sspiritualstation“inglowinglanguage,whichonemightexpectfromoneofQūnawī’sdisciples,butwhichoneissurprisedtoseecomingfromthegreatestphilosopherandoneofthemostpowerfulpoliticalfiguresoftheage.”90QūnawīshowsarespectforPeripateticphilosophyanddemonstrateshisknowledgeofit,whileṬūsīshowsrespectfortheinsightsoftheSufisandanunderstandingoftheirdoctrines.Thecorrespondencetouchesonmanyquestions,includingthenatureoftheOne,emanation,substanceandattribute,formandmatter,andthenatureofquiddities.InthissectionIwillbefocusingontheircommentsregardingtherealityofexistenceandthewayṬūsīandQūnawīaddressthequestionofhowexistenceispredicatedofGodandthingsatthesametime.
InhisquestionstoṬūsīQūnawīwrites:Everythingtowhichtheintellectual,mental,imaginational,andsensorialperceptionsattach—collectivelyorindividually—isnothingmorethanuncoupledrealities(ḥaqāʾiqmujarradah)combined(taʾallafa)withasingleindivisibleexistence.Thustheymanifestin/tothemselves.However,inmanifestation,determination,91scope,andattachment,somearedependentuponothers.Thoseuponwhomothersaredependent(matbūʿ)becauseoftheaforementionedpriority(taqaddum)arecalledrealities,causes,andintermediariesbetweentheRealandwhatdependsuponthem…Thedependentarecalledcharacteristics(khawāṣṣ),entailments(lawāzim),attributes(ʿawāriḍ),qualities(ṣifāt),states(aḥwāl),
89AcriticaleditionhasbeenpublishedtogetherwithanintroductionanddiscussionbyGudrunSchubert,Annäherungendermystisch-philosophischeBriefwechselzwischenSadrud-Dīn-iQonawiundNaṣīrud-Dīn-iṬūsī(al-MurāsalātbaynaṢadral-Dīnal-QunawīwaNaṣīral-Dīnal-Ṭūsī),Beirut1995.Schubertdiscussesthetextin,“TheTextualHistoryoftheCorrespondencebetweenṢadral-DīnQunawīandNaṣīral-DīnṬūsī,”ManuscriptsoftheMiddleEast,3(1998),73-78.ThecorrespondenceisalsodiscussedbyWilliamChittick,“MysticismversusPhilosophyinEarlierIslamicHistory:Theal-Ṭūsī,al-QunawīCorrespondence,”ReligiousStudies17:1(1981),87-104.SeealsoNihatKeklik,IslamDunyasindaTesevvufveFelsefeArasandakiHesapla� malar,SadreddinKonavi-NasireddinṬūsīFelsefeleri,IstanbulÜniversitesiEdebiyatFakültesi,1962(DoctoralThesis).ThelatterarguesthatṬūsīwasnottheactualaddressee,althoughChittickandSchubertandothershavenotdoubtedthathewas.90Chittick,“MysticismversusPhilosophy,”101.91“Determination”ishowItranslateḥukm,animportanttermbutverydifficulttocaptureinEnglish.SeeTheRingstonesofWisdom,xxi-xxii.
Page 71
59
conditionedentities(mashrūṭāt)andthelike.Whentheserealitiesareconsideredbereft(mujarrad)ofexistenceandoftheconnectionofeachwiththeother,withnonebeingrelatedtotheotheratall,theybecomeemptyofname,quality,attribute,formanddetermination.Theyareempty[ofthem]actually,notpotentially.Toaffirmaname,anattribute,oraquality—throughcompoundingorasasimplex,inmanifestationorinhiddenness,inperceptionandbeingperceived,inuniversalandparticular,independentandtheobjectofdependence,andthelike—to92uncoupledrealitiescanonlybemadeafact(ṣaḥḥa)andappearinthefirstplacethroughtheapplicationofthedeterminationofexistencetothem;butthis[occurs],inthesecondplace,withrespecttoanidentificationofexistence[whichtakesplace]bymeansofamanifestationinandinaccordancewithsomelevel…throughtheconnectionofthedeterminationsofeachtotheother,andthroughthemanifestingoftheeffectofonewiththeotherthroughexistence.93Aswasdiscussedintheprevioussection,inspeakinginsuchtermsQūnawīis
describinganontologyofoneexistenceandmanyquiddities,thoughnotusingequivocality(tashkīk)orthephrasewaḥdatal-wujūdtoexplainit.Hereducesallobjectsofexperience(“everythingtowhich…perceptionsattach”)topureforms(“uncoupledrealities”),whicharethenseenascombinedwithexistence,andindoingsoheisstatingthedoctrinewhichlaterAkbarians,especiallyQayṣarī(chapter5),wouldarticulatebyspeakingofmanyquidditiesandtheoneexistence.Hereferstothemas“uncoupledrealities,”buthecouldjustaswellhavesaidessence(dhāt),quiddity(māhiyyah),or,usinghismorenativeterminology,immutableidentity(ʿaynthābitah).Hebuildsthispassageuponthefundamentalessence/existencemodel. Hegoesontoexplainthattoactuallycallanobjectsomething,toidentifywhatitis,itinfactmustexist—mustpossesswujūd(“…canonlybemadeafactandappearinthefirstplacethroughtheapplicationofthejudgment(ḥukm)ofexistenceto[it]”).However,thefactofanessencehavingexistenceisitselftheresultofexistencebeing“identified”(taʿayyun)—thatistosay,limitedorqualified—intovariouslevelsandmodes.Thisiswhattheconvolutedwordingofthesecondpartofthepassageismeanttoexpress.Wefirstperceiveessences,butthoseessencesarewhollyderivativefromanexistencewhichwemaynotcorrectlyperceive.Itisanontologywhereessencesareuncoupled(mujarrad,hereusedperhapsinaratheridiomaticsenseof“pure”or“noneotherthan”)andremainonlyessencesuntilexistenceinasensegivesthemlifeandgivesrealitytoalltheirqualitiesaswellastheirinteractionswitheachother.
Later,however,Qūnawīcomesbacktoexistence,andthistimewishestoexplorewithṬūsījustwhattheramificationsareofdealingwiththeconcept“existence”asapredicateofthings(“Godexists,”“thismanexists,”etc…).Specifically,howdoesexistenceasasingleconceptrelatetoessence?Hewrites,“Itisclearthattheconceptofexistence,withrespecttoitsidentificationinourintelligence,isasingleconcept.Now,thisconceptassuch,withoutanyregardforwhatisotherthanit,mustnecessarilybeattributed(ʿāriḍ)toathing’squiddity,ormustnecessarilynotbeanattributeofathing’squiddity,ormustnotnecessarilybeeitherofthetwooptions.”94 92“Toaffirmaname…touncoupledrealities,”isbrokenupbyalongparentheticalstatementsetoffbydashes.93al-Murāsalāt37-38.94Ibid.,96-97.
Page 72
60
Qūnawīexplainsthatinthefirstcase(“necessarilyattributedtoathing’squiddity”),existencewouldbeamereattributeofGod’srealityandnotbeintrinsicandessential.Inthesecondcase(“necessarilynot…anattributeofathing’squiddity”),onecouldneverhaveacasewheresomeexistence/existent(shayʾminal-wujūdāt)wouldbeattachedtoanyquiddity,thusdisallowingthatacontingentquidditywouldactuallyexist.Or,everyquidditywouldexistnecessarilyinthesensethatexistencewouldbethesameasitsreality;thentheconceptofwujūdwouldceasetobeasingleconceptbecauseofthemultiplicityofquiddities.Recallthatinthissecondcaseexistenceisneveranattributeofaquiddity,whichisanotherwayofsayingthattherearenosuchthingsascontingentquiddities;thatmeanseithertheyneverexistortheymustexist.Inthethirdcase,God’sexistenceisuniqueinbeingnecessary,buttheremustbesomethingthatdifferentiatesHisexistencefromcontingentexistences.Theresultsofthiswouldbeakindofdependenceuponthedifferentiatingfactor,leadingtothecontradictorynotionthatGodisnecessaryinHimselfandnecessaryowingtosomedifferentiatingfactor.
InhisresponsesonthissubjectṬūsīsays,Termswhichhaveonemeaningandaresaidofmanythingsareoftwosorts:Thefirstiswhenthatconceptisthesameintheindividualsofthatgroup,suchas“humanbeing”inZaydandAmr…andthesetermsarecalledunivocal,anditsdetermination,withrespecttowhatisimpliedbytheconcepts,isthesame…Thesecondsortiswhentheconceptisnotthesameintheseveralinstances.Rather,insomeitispriororposterior,stronger,ormore,suchas“white”forsnowandivory,or“existence”forsubstanceandattribute.Inthissortitdoesnothavetobethatthenecessaryimplicationswillbethesame;indeedtheymaydiffer.Forexamplethename“light”appliestosunlight,moonlight,andfirelight.Sunlightnecessarilybringsaboutthedisappearanceofnight,unliketheothers.Existenceisofthislattersort.Inthenecessaryitisself-subsistingwithoutitsbeingmadetheaccidentofaquiddity,andinthecontingentitismadetobetheattributeofaquiddity.95
Existence,theconceptofwhichappliestothenecessaryandthecontingentthroughtashkīk,isanintellectualentity,forwujūdcannot,concretely,occurinthingsthatshareinit.Thisentityissaidofthenecessaryexistencewhichisself-subsistinginitsessenceandwhichisnotmadeanaccidentofaquiddity,andalsosaidofotherexistents.Whentheirexistenceisconsideredinthemind,itiscontingentandnotnecessary.Thenamewujūdappliestothemandtothenecessaryas“Zayd”appliesinhisconcreteexistenceaswellashisname.Thatexistenceisanintellectualentity.Necessaryexistenceisunknowninitscoreandreality.Thisintellectualexistenceisunderstood(yuʿqal)fromit/Himinaqualifiednegativeway.96
[God’s]beingtheoriginofwhatisotherthanHimisduetohisconcrete,necessaryexistence(al-wujūbal-ʿaynī),notduetotheexistencesaidofHimand
95Ibid.,97-98.96Ibid.,99.
Page 73
61
ofwhatisotherthanHimthroughtashkīk,whichrationalthinkersspecifynegatively(bi-qaydsalbī)97”“‘Distance’and‘body’areusedforwhatfallsunderthemunivocally,unlikewujūdwhichissaidofthingsthroughtashkīk.98
OneofṬūsī’skeypointsisthat“theexistenceusedforexistentsthroughtakhkīkisatthelevelofgenus,andisqualifiednegativelyuntilitisspecific[toone],andisatthelevelofdifferentia.”IncommentingonQūnawī’seither/oraboutwujūdbeingintrinsicorextrinsictoGod,hesays,“Thisisanallusiontohisconcreteexistencewhichcannotbegraspedbyanyintelligence.99
Generalsharedexistenceisnotrealizedexceptintheintelligence,asisthecaseforany“generallyshared”entity(amr).Aconcretethingdoesnotoccurinmultiplethings.Ifitwereineachofthosethings,itwouldnotbeathinginitselfbutwouldbe[many]things.Ifitisinthetotalitywithrespecttoitsbeingatotality,andiffromthisperspectivethetotalityisasinglething,itdoesnotoccur,then,in[many]things.Ifitisinthetotalitymeaningitisdividedinitsindividuals,thentherewillbeapartofthatthingineachone,notthethingitself.Ifitisneitherinanindividualnorinthetotality,itdoesnotoccurinthem.Inshort,itsoccurringinwhatisotherthanitselftakesplaceonlythroughitsbeingpredicatedofthatother.Predication…takesplaceonlyintheintelligence.Generalsharedexistencecanonlybeintellectual(ʿaqlī).100
Ṭūsī’sremarkslargelyspeakforthemselves.Hisresponseisbasedonhisgeneraltheoryofequivocalpredicationdiscussedearlier.Hesaysthatwhileexistenceisindeedasingleconceptitisnotsoinaunivocalway,norinawaythatismerelyhomonymous.OnethusdoesnotrunintoanyoftheproblemswhichQūnawīpredictsifexistenceistakenasasingleconcept.AsaconceptexistenceisnotconstrainedtoapplytoGodandthingsinexactlythesamewayinallpossiblerespects,becauseofequivocality,andthustheuniquenessofGod’sexistenceremainsintact. ThesecondmajorpointinvolveswhatṬūsīsometimesreferstoasgeneralsharedexistence(al-wujūdal-ʿāmmal-mushtarak),whichisapurelymentalentitywithnoconcretecorrespondenceoutsideofthemind.Astheitalicizedsentencenotes,noconcretethingcanbepresentinmultiplethingsinarealway.Itwilleitherbeakindofpluralityofthingssuchasafamily,andhencenotconcretelyasinglething,oritwillbedividedupamongthingslikepiecesofapie.Itisthisgeneralexistence,thismentalcategory,whichispredicatedofthingsequivocally.WhenitcomestoGodorNecessaryExistence,acleardemarcationmustbemadebetweenGod’sindividualconcreteexistence,whichisanimpenetrablemysteryunknowablebythehumanmind,and“generalexistence”asitappliestoGod.ItisthelatterwhichismeantwhenthePeripateticssaythatGod’sexistenceisknowableapriori.Ashesays,itisknownfromtheunknowableexistenceina“qualifiedandnegative”way.However,itisbyvirtueofGod’sownindividualexistencethatHeistheoriginofthingsandtheirindividual 97Ibelievethe“which”referstotheformer,notthelatter98al-Murāsalāt100.99Ibid.,102.100Ibid.,107-8(italicsmine).
Page 74
62
existences.The“generalsharedexistence”isnotthemediumbywhichthiscausationoccurs,althoughmentallyitisthatwhichissharedbothbyGodandbyindividualexistents.
ComingbacktoQūnawī,hesaysofṬūsī:Asforhiscommentsregardingthenameappliedtoanyrealitythatissharedandwhichdiffersinbeinginathingmorestrongly,moreprior,moreintensely,ormoreprimarily:allthisrelatesback,intheviewofthemenofrealization(muḥaqqiqūn),tothemanifestation—notthemultiplication—takingplaceinthemanifestingreality,bethatreality“knowledge,”“existence,”orsomethingelse….Therankingandvariegationfoundbetweenitsmanifestationsisthemanifestingentitywhichdemandstheidentificationofthatrealityinsofarasitisanidentificationandmanifestationdifferentfromitsidentificationinsomethingelse.Thereisnomultiplicity,partitioning,ordivisionoftherealityassuch.101
Surprisingly,thisishisonlycommentontashkīk,despiteṬūsī’streatmentofit.Hedoesnotseeminterestedinpursuingthesubjectofequivocalpredicationanyfurther,rather,hebringsbackthefundamentaltruthforhimthatthereisnorealmultiplicityinthefirstplace.Itisonlyanillusioncreatedbythe“identifications”ofexistence.Whyhepassesoverequivocalityisunclear.DidhenotunderstandṬūsī’spoint,orisitapolitedismissalofanunconvincingidea?Thetextdoesnotprovideareadyanswer.
Thefollowingpassagesbringinepistemology,butaresignificantintermsofontology,aswewillsee:
TheidentificationoftheRealasbeingone,orthatHeisthesourceofallexistents,orthatHeislackinginanymultiplicityorpartnershipwithanythinginexistence,orthatitisimpossiblethatHeshouldhaveaquidditybeyondHisexistence:noneofthiscanbeafactexceptwithregardtoHisidentificationintherealmofcosmicintellection(al-taʿaqqulal-kawnī).102BycosmicintellectionImeantheintellectionoftheRealbywhatisotherthantheReal…Intellectionsofthissortare[never]freeofthecharacteristicsoflimitationandmultiplicitywhichhaveadetermininginfluenceonone’sintellection.[Thislatter]necessarilyimprintstheobjectofintellectionwithinit[i.e.theintellection]asdeterminedbythelocusofimprinting,evenifthelocusisspiritual(maʿnā).Whatcommonmeasurecantherebebetweentheintellectorandtheintellected?103
Anyqualifiedidentificationenclosestheunqualified[things]identifiedwithinit.Thesoundintelligencejudgesthatthisidentificationisprecededbynon-identification(lā-taʿayyun).WhenamanofrealizationsaysthattherealityoftheRealisunknownbuttheknowledge(maʿrifah)ofHimisattained,hedoesnotmeanbythatthattheRealhasarealitybeyondHisexistence.AllhemeansisthatwhentheintellectionoftheRealisconsideredas(iʿtibār)disengagedfromexistentialandrelational-notional(iʿtibārī)multiplicityandfromqualifyingintellectionsandidentificationsresultingfromHisbeingintellectedbyanotherthing,Heisunqualified(muṭlaq)by[any]identification,beitthroughattribution,
101Ibid.,166.102Kawnherereferringtotheworldofgenerationandcorruption,thecreatedworldofspaceandtime,theobjectbroughtintoexistencebythedivine“Be!”103al-Murāsalāt142-3.
Page 75
63
determination,orrelation,affirmativelyornegatively.Thisistheunqualified-ness(iṭlāq)oftheEssence,notqualifiedinanyway(biamrma)byanypercipient.Onedoesnot,inthisrespect,affirmthatHeistheSourceorthatHeemanatesexistence.Rather,theaffirmationofexistencetothatnon-qualification(iṭlāq)isthesameasitsnegationinrelationtoit,whichistosaythatHeisunqualified(muṭlaq)bybeingenclosedinanattributeordetermination,beitnegativeorpositive,oraunionofthetwo,oratotaltranscendingofthetwo(tanazzuhʿanhuma)…WhenamanofrealizationholdsthepositionthatHisrealityisunknown,allhemeansbythatisthattheReal,byvirtueofthisaforementionednon-qualification(iṭlāq)isnotidentified/ableinintellection,doesnotdiscloseItselfatanylevel,andisnotapprehendedbyanypercipient. …Therelationofquiddityis[tobeunderstood]inthisway,notthatHehasaquidditybeyondhisexistence.…TheidentificationoftheRealasbeingoneisanotionsubsequent(tālī)tothenon-identificationandnon-conditioning.104
InthesetwopassagesitisclearthatQūnawīisnotwillingtostraytoofarfromhisSufifundamentals,anddoesnotwanttogivethehumanintelligencetoomuchcreditforbeingabletoanswerthesekindsofquestionsinastandardphilosophicalway.Inanimportantsense,thesepassagesrelatetoepistemology,tellingusthatnomatterwhatthehumansubjectperceivesorthinksitperceives,anyperceptionofGodinanyrespectwillalwaysinvolvesomelimitationorqualificationofGod’stotalreality.“Cosmicintellection”meanshereanactofknowledgethatoriginatesfromwithinthecreatedorderandishenceconstrainedbytheconditionsofthatcreatedorder. Thereisasubtlepointthatheismaking,however.HeissettinghimselfapartfromṬūsī’spositionthatwecanknowthe“generalexistence”whenitcomestoGodbutthatwecannotknowHisownindividualexistence.WhentheSufis(“menofrealization”)makeasimilarsoundingstatementthatGod’srealityisunknownbutthatHecanbeknowninacertainway,thisisnotmeanttodrawalinebetweensome“generalexistence”and“individualconcreteexistence.”Thekeyistheconceptofno-identification(lā-taʿayyun)whichhesaysshouldbeapparenttoanyonewithasoundintelligence.Thatistosay,thefactofvariouskindsofidentification(taʿayyun)impliesarealityofwhichtheyareidentifications,whichwoulditselfbenon-identified.Thisnon-identity—theSupremeEssence,theSelf(al-dhāt—isbeyondalldualitiesofknowerandknown,subjectandobject,andisbeyondanysortofqualificationorlimitation.Thustoargueoverexistenceatthislevelisakindofphilosophicalredherring,astheattributionordenialofexistencetothisnon-identifiedessenceisanon-starter:itallowsofnoqualifications,attributions,ordenialsatall. Thereisafundamentaldifferenceinontologyhere,andattherootofthisdifferenceisthewayinwhichQūnawīandṬūsīsituatetheultimatemysteryofGod.ForṬūsī,whatismysteriousisnotthewayinwhichonecanpredicateexistenceofallthingstogetherwithGod,sincethatissimplyamatterofunderstandingthenatureofequivocalpredication.Neitheristhereagreatmysteryintheindividualexistenceofthings.Thereareessences,andtheseessenceseitherexistortheydonotexist,logicallyspeaking.Therealindividualexistenceofaparticularthingisneversaidtobefundamentally
104Ibid.,143-4.
Page 76
64
unknowable,forexample.TherealmysteryofexistenceforthePeripatetics,asmentionedbefore,isthesingle,individualexistenceofGodwhichHesharesinnowaywithanythingelse,althoughitistheoriginandcauseofotherexistentthings. FortheAkbariansthemysteryofexistenceisnotatalllimitedtoGodthecreatorandoriginofthings,butpervadesandpenetratesanythingthatissaidtoexistatall.Becausetheyareinsistentthatinrealitythereisonlyoneexistencebehindtheillusionofmanythings,thereisanunknowabilitythatispresentineverything,notonlyinGod’sindividualexistence.TheseparationbetweenconceptandrealityforṬūsīistheseparationbetweentheaprioriknowablegeneralexistenceontheonehand,sharedbyGodandthingsbutreallyonlyamentalabstraction,andtheparticularandconcreteexistenceofGodontheother.FortheAkbarians,thedifferencebetweenconceptandrealityrunsthrougheverything.Theideawehaveofhowthingsexistandpossessrealityisnotthewaytheyreallyareatall.Inreality,theyaremanifestationsofasinglereality,thoughinourmindsweassignthemeachtheirown,autonomousexistence. ItisbecausehelocateshismysteryonlywithintheconcreteexistenceofGodasseparatefromthingsthatṬūsībelievesthathisreasoningabouttheimpossibilityofasinglethingbeingsharedamongmultipleinstancesholdstogether.FromonepointofviewQūnawīwouldnotdisagreewithhim,becauselogicallyasingleconcretethingcannotbeinseveralotherconcretethings.However,asshouldbeevidentfromQūnawī’sbroadstrokesagainstcommonnotionsofexistenceandknowledge,thereisnoproblembecausethereareconcreteindividualsonlyfromthepointofviewoftheworld.Thisiscritical,becauseinAkbarianmetaphysicsthereisneveranassertionthatsomeobjectorotheruniteswithGodorbecomesonewithHim,meaningthatthecreaturecanneverunitewiththeCreator.TheargumentmadeisthatfundamentallytheseparationofCreatorandcreatureissupersededandovercomebytheultimaterealityoftheSelf,fromwhosepointofviewthereisonlytheSelf.
Page 77
65
ChapterThree:Jandī’sUseofwujūdandRelatedConcepts
Muʾayyidal-DīnibnMaḥmūdal-Jandī(d.1292)wasthestudentofQūnawīaswellasthefirstmemberoftheAkbarianschooltoauthorwhatcouldbetermedafullcommentaryupontheFuṣūṣal-ḥikam,entitledsimplySharḥfuṣūṣal-ḥikam.JandīhailedfromthetownofJandinKhurāsān,nearFarghāna,althoughtheexactdateofhisbirthandthedetailsofhisearlylifearenotknown.HegivesaspiritualautobiographicalaccountinhisNafḥatal-rūḥwa-tuḥfatal-futūḥ,wherehetellsofhisinitialaquanitancewithSuficirclesandhiseventualdedicationtotheSufiwayoflife.HeleftJandandbecamethepupilofQūnawīforaperiodoftenyears.BeforeQūnawī’sdeathJandīwenttoBaghdadwhereheassumedthefunctionofQūnawī’ssuccessor.Jandīwasindeedhisdisciple,butthereisnoevidencethatJandīinturnbecamean“initiatingmaster”tocontinuethelinefromIbnʿArabīandQūnawī.LaterhewenttoSinopandwrotetheaforementionedNafḥatal-rūḥatthebehest,itissaid,ofawomanwhowasinterestedinSufism.Thedatesgivenforhisdeathvaryfrom1292to1301,andtheplaceofhisdeathisnotknown.1
JandīwrotebooksbothinArabicandinPersian,andhiscommentaryupontheFuṣūṣwasaresultofhisstudyingthetextcloselywithhismasterQūnawī.HeclaimedthatQūnawī’steachingwasnotsimplyoral,butthatQūnawī“tookspiritualcontrolofhisunderstanding”2andtaughthimthemeaningofthebookinaninstant.ThiswasalsothewayQūnawīclaimedtohavelearnedthebookfromIbnʿArabī.Hiscommentaryisgenerallyconsideredtobethemostinfluentialoverall,evenifothershavebeenstudiedmorewidely.ThecommentariesofKāshānī,Qayṣarī,andʿAbdal-RaḥmānJāmīalldrawsignificantlyfromJandī’swork.AmongtheOttomans,MehmetYazıcıoğlu(d.1451)wroteacommentaryonJandī’scommentaryentitledal-Muntahā.HisNafḥatal-rūḥhasbeenpublished,andafewofhisworksexistinmanuscript,whileotherswhichareattributedtohimhavenotcomedowntous.TherehavethusfarbeennostudiesofJandīorhisthoughtinWesternlanguages.
InthepreviouschapterweexaminedhowQūnawītookthemetaphysicsofIbnʿArabīandattemptedtomoulditintoanontologyandepistemologythatcouldenterintodialoguewiththeprevailinglanguageofIslamicmetaphysicalthought.Foralltheirmerits,Qūnawī’sattemptsatsystematizationareonlyapartialsuccessatbest,ifweholduphisuseofcentraltermssuchasexistenceandexistential(wujūd,wujūdī)tothestandardofaphilosophersuchasṬūsī,andhisintellectualsuccessorswoulddepartfromhiswayofspeakingaboutthings.Insteadofrestatingtheirmasters’expositions,eachofthesuccessivethinkersintheAkbarianschoolmaketheirownoriginaladditions,andspeakabouttheirsubjectmatterinsignificantlydifferentways.AswesawwithQūnawī,forJandīthetermwujūddoesnotactasanindispensableaxisforhismetaphysics,andindeedothertermsareequallyandoftenmoreimportant.Infact,notonlydoesheemploywujūdinanon-centralway,butthewayheinwhichhedoesnotusewujūdisdifferentthanQūnawī,ifonecanbepermittedtospeakthisway.ThisdifferencebecomesapparentfromtheveryfirstpageofhiscommentaryupontheFuṣūṣ. 1See“Cendi,EbūAbdillāhMüeyyidüddinb.Mahmūdb.Sāidel-Cendi”İslamAnsiklopedisi,foralistofmanuscriptsandattributedworks.SeealsoW.Chittick,“TheSchoolofIbnʿArabī,”HistoryofIslamicPhilosophy,517-18.2Chittick,517.
Page 78
66
-Theuseofanniyyah3andhuwiyyah
AmongthetermsJandīmentionsintheopeningpagesofhisworkareanniyyahandhuwiyyah,whichalongwithwujūd,mawjūd,shayʾ,etc.makeupthesetofcentralontictermsinArabicphilosophicaldiscourse.Anniyyah4andhuwiyyah5cameoutofthetranslationsofAristotle’sMetaphysicsandthePlotinianwritingsattributedtoAristotleunderthenameTheTheologyofAristotle,alsoknownasLiberdecausis.AnniyyahisformedfromtheGreektotior“thatness,”meanttosignifythedifferencebetweenwhatathingis(totiesti)andthatitis.ItisaveryearlyArabictermwhichbecamelessimportantinlatercenturiesbutwhichplayedasignificantroleinthephilosophyofKindī,Farabi,andAvicenna.InMaqāṣidal-falāsifaGhazālīusedanniyyahwithmāhiyyahtomakethepointthatGod’sexistenceisnotseparatefromHisessence,althoughhedoesnotusetheterminTheIncoherenceofthePhilosophers,nordoesAverroesinhisresponse.IntheTheology,theGreekonandeinaiareconsistentlytranslatedbyanniyyah,althoughthesametermsintheMetaphysicsaresometimestranslatedbyhuwiyyah.ThetermisrarelyusedinanyimportantwayineitherIbnʿArabīorQūnawī.
IntheArabictranslationoftheTheology,huwiyyahisusedtotranslatetheGreektautosor“identity,”asopposedtoghayriyyahfortheGreeketeposor“otherness.”“Identity”and“otherness”aretwoofPlotinus’fiveintelligiblecategories,anniyyah(“being”or“thatness”)beingathird.HuwiyyahwasalreadyusedbyKindī,whowentsofarastoformatafaʿʿalaverb“tahawwā”outofthepseudo-maṣdarhuwiyyah.Forhimitseemedtocarrythesenseofsubstance,or“athingsubsistingbyitself.”Farabiopposedhuwiyyahtomāhiyyahinthecontextofansweringfirstthequestionofwhatathingis(māhiyyah)andthenansweringwhetheritis(huwiyyah).Thatistosay,themāhiyyahdoesnottellusanythingaboutthestatusofthehuwiyyah,adistinctionwhichwouldlaterbecomeuniversalizedinthedistinctionbetweenmāhiyyahandwujūd.InIbnSīnāitseemstocarrythesenseofsubstance,moreparticularlythesubjectasopposedtothepredicate,whichistosayinthesubstance“man”thehuwiyyahreferstothesubstancethatcanallowofseveralpredications,butnottothosepredicationsthemselves.IbnRushdthoughthuwiyyahwascoinedinordertoavoidtheambiguousnatureofthewordmawjūd,whichhadthemeaningof“finding”notfoundintheGreektoon.TheLatinrenderingsofhuwiyyahareidquodest,essentia,andidentitas.Itshouldbenotedthatthephraseusedtoexpressidentityinthesenseof“itself”(oautosandtoauto)inArabicishuwahuwaorhiyahiya,literally“itisit”.
Unlikeanniyyah,huwiyyahisacentralandubiquitoustechnicalterminmostAkbarianwritings,andlikemostimportanttermsinthisschoolitisdifficulttotranslate.BecauseIuse“identity”forʿaynandIfindthatChittick’srenderingof“he-ness”canbringupthird-personconnotationsinEnglishnotpresentintheArabic,Ichoosethe
3Thistermisreadasinniyyahbymany,butmuchofthescholarlyliteratureusesanniyyah,whichIuseconsistentlythroughout.4SeeS.vanderBergh,“Anniyyah,”inEI2.DavidBurrellinhis“AvicennaandGreekPhilosophy”(Mélanges,v.17:53-66,1986)alsocitesMarieThérèsed’Alverny,“Anniya-Anitas”(MélangesoffertsàEtienneGilson,Paris,1959,59-91)andRichardFrank,“Theoriginofthephilosophicaltermanniyya”(MuséeLavigerieCahiersdeByrsa6,Paris,1956,181-201).5SeeA.M.Goichon,“Huwiyyah,”EI2.
Page 79
67
translationof“selfhood.”6Goichonpreferred“ipseity,”whichisnothingotherthantheLatinateversionof“selfhood,”butIfindthattheAnglicizedtermismoreexpressiveoftherangeofmeaningofhuwiyyahinIbnʿArabī’sthought.ThisisimportanttonotebecausetheproblemoftranslatinghuwiyyahconceptuallyasselfhoodrunsintothetranslationofananiyyahoranaʾiyyahasI-ness,atleastwhilereadingJandī.Derivedfromanameaning“I”or“me,”thislatterterm,asweshallsee,ismeanttobesomehowopposedtohuwiyyah.ForJandī,tosay“I”isalreadytoassume“thou”andhenceaseparationandduality.Huwiyyahismeanttoexcludeanyrealseparationorduality.Itishopedthatusing“selfhood”forhuwiyyahand“I-ness”forananiyyahwillpreservethisdistinctionbetweendualityandidentity.Tomakethingsmorecomplicated,theuseofanniyahtogetherwithanāʾiyyahisclearlymeanttobeakindofwordplaywhichopposesthetruebeingorsubstanceofanniyyahtoanāʾiyyah,whichissimilarlywrittenandspoken.
LetuslookathowJandīconcretelyusestheseterms.Intheopeningpageshepraisesandglorifies“Hisgreatselfhood(huwiyyah)andsplendidbeing(anniyyah),”andsaysthat“theinwardnessofHisSelfhoodismanifestthroughHisI-ness(anāʾiyyah).”7Hecontinues:
TheidentificationofHisIdentityisHisbeing(anniyyah),andtheinwardofHisinwardnessisHisessence-ness(dhātiyyah).TheoutwardofHisinwardisHisI-ness,andtheoutwardofHisoutwardisHisdivinity(ilāhiyyah).Thevisibility(shahādah)ofhisoutwardnessisHislordliness(rubūbiyyah)andreality(ḥaqīqah),andtheoutwardnessofHislocusofmanifestationisthatoverwhichHeislord(marbūbiyyah)andHiscreation(khalqiyyah).AlltheserelationshipsareimplicitinHisreality.8
Thisisadensepassagetobesure,butunderstandableinlightofAkbarianmetaphysics.God’sI-nessisHisfirstidentification(taʿayyun),ortoputitanotherway,itisGodtheCreatorandLordasopposedtoGodtheEssence/Self.ItistheI-nessbecauseitrepresentsGod’sbeing“I”inrelationtotheworldwhich,fortheLordandCreator,isanobject—inotherwords,a“thou.”This“I”isthefirstmanifestationofthesuprememysteryofthehuwiyyah(selfhood)mentionedinthesamesentence.Asfarasessence-nessorbeing-an-essence(dhātiyyah)isconcerned,itisequivalenttotheselfhoodorhuwiyyahhere.Tosaythatthe“outwardofHisoutward”ishisilāhiyyahordivinityislikelytiedintoIbnʿArabī’simportantassertionintheFuṣūṣandinotherplacesthatinorderforGodtobeagod(ilāh)HemusthavesomethingoverwhichHeisgod—anobjectofdivinity(maʾlūh).TherelationshipofdivinitywiththeobjectofdivinityimpliescreationandhencetheexteriorizationofwhatispresentwithintheknowledgeofGod,metaphysicallyspeaking.TherestofthepassagethenexpandsuponGod’srelationshipwiththeworld. ItisactuallyonlyafterapageorsothatJandīevenmentionswujūd,andhedoessoaftermentioningtheproperrelationshipofGodtomultiplicityandoneness,absolutenessandrelativity,temporalityandeternity,andonlythenmentionsthat,“Hisexistenceisself-substistent(qayyūm);itneithercomestoexistnorismadetoexist.”Thustheentirefirstimportantmetaphysicalintroductionintheworkiseffectively 6ForadiscussionofselfhoodseeChapter2,note34.7Muʿayyidal-Dīnal-Jandī,Sharhfuṣūṣal-ḥikam,ed.Jalālal-DīnĀshtiyānī,Mashhad,1982,3.8Ibid.
Page 80
68
lackinginanyimportantreferencetoexistenceasaphilosophicalconcept,andinsteadreliesoninwardnessandoutwardness,aswellasvariousdegreesofselfhoodandidentity,toexplaintheunderlyingrealityoftheuniverse.Thisisnoteworthybecauselatercommentators,especiallyQaṣarī,beginwithexistencerightaway.
Thereareotherpassageswherethetechnicalusageofthesetermsisnotalwayssoeasytofollow:
[TheReal]isidenticalwithoutwardwitnessedexistenceitselfinHisbeinginward,becauseHeisidenticalwiththeinwardandtheoutward…ByHisdifferentitated,outwardbeing(anniyyah)thatisidentifiedthroughthebeings(anniyyāt)ofexistentthingsHeknowsandpraisesHisinward,unseen,individual(ʿaynī)selfhoods…Eventhoughtheidentities(aʿyān)arethemeanings(maʿānī)oftheselfhoods(huwiyyāt)oftheseI-nesses(anāniyyāt),theyaretheformsofthebeings(anniyyāt)oftheunseenessence.9
HeexplainsherethatthelociofmanifestationaretheformsoftheseI-nesses(anāniyyāt).InthissamepassagehesaysthatthrougheachimmutableidentityinGod’seternalknowledgeGodknowsandpraisesthelociofmanifestation“inexistence.”Notethatwujūdisonlyusedinreferencetomanifestation,andisindeedabsentintheentirediscussionotherwise.
Thesetermsalsoappearinpoeticform:HisSelfhoodsustainstheperishingofmyselfhoodAndIam,byHim,inHim,naughttoanyoneMybeing(anniyyah)perishedinaninvisibleEmbracing,EssenceSelfhood10
Inanotherpassage,whereJandīassignsontologicalsymbolismtovariouslettersoftheArabicalphabet,weencounterthefollowing:
Itthenisfreeofeverythingentailedbyexistence—namelylife,knowledge,will,power—anditsattributions,entailments,attributes,consequents;andalso[freeof]itsself(nafs),itsidentity(ʿayn),itsselfhood(huwiyyah),anditsanniyyah.11
IhavesometimesfounditdifficulttokeeptrackofJandī’smetaphysicalreasoninginthesepassages,especiallythelastonewherethetermsarerattledoffinsequence(“identity…selfhood…being”).Whensuchtermsashuwiyyahandanniyyahareusedthiswaytheprecisemetaphysicalargumentsarehardertoperceive.Settingasidetheiruseinpoetry,asintheexampleabove,onegetstheimpressionfromtheprosethattheseterms,asisoftenthecaseinAkbarianwritings,areheavilydependentoncontextandusage.Itispossibletouseanniyyahinsuchawaythatitrepresentssomethingmoreinwardormoresubstantial,butputittogetherwithhuwiyyahandsuddenlyanniyyahbecomesthatwhichismoreoutwardandhuwiyyahthemoretrueandmoresubstantial.Notonlydoesthepoet’sselfhoodperishinthedivineselfhood,butthepoet’sbeing(anniyyah)alsoperishesinthepoet’sselfhood.Thedifferencecanbehardtofollow,atleastforthisreader.
Aswithwujūd,andformostconceptsusedinametaphysicalway,theAkbarians(atleasttheearlyones)dependlessontheprecisecontentofaphilosophicaltermand 9Ibid.,20.10Ibid.,55.11Ibid.,52-53.
Page 81
69
moreontherelationalitybetweenthetermstobringouttheimpliedmetaphysicaldistinction.Thus,termssuchashuwiyyahandanniyyaharebothwhatmightbecalledfundamentalontologicalconcepts,likewujūdandḥaqīqah.ItwouldbefalsetosaythatallsuchtermsinAkbarianwritingscanmeananythingwewantthemtomean,becausetheydoindeedhaveaprecisemeaning,butthisprecisionoftendependsonthepresenceofotherconcepts.Thereareseveralkindsofḥaqīqah,severalkindsofwujūd,andseveralkindsofhuwiyyah,andalthoughthesetermsarenotsynonymoustheycansometimesrefertothesamethingdependingonhowtheyareused.Thatistosay,theycanattimespointtotheverysamemetaphysicalreferent,buttheypointtoitfromdifferentplaces.
IbelievethatsomeoftheambiguityinherentinthewritingsofIbnʿArabī,Qūnawī,andJandīstemsfromthefactthatphilosophicaldiscourseis,forthem,anadoptedmodeofwriting.Rememberthattheywerefirstandforemostmeninterestedinthepracticeofthespirituallife,andthatphilosophicalexplanationwasabranchofthatpractice.Theiruseofphilosophicalideas—eventhoseideasmostcloselyassociatedwiththeirschool,aswasthecasewithʿayn—wasoftenanexerciseintryingtobuildbridgestothelargercommunityofmetaphysicalthinkers.Fromthestandpointofsomeonereadingthesetextsseveralcenturieslater,itseemsclearthatanimportantpartoftheAkbarians’audiencewasmadeupoftheircolleaguesinthephilosophicalandtheologicalcamps.
IfinditunlikelythatmenasintelligentasQūnawīandJandī,nottomentionIbnʿArabī,couldnothavebeenmoresystematicintheirexpositions,inthemannerofthePeripateticsforexample,iftheyhadwantedto.TheywerefamiliarwiththeworksofthephilosopherssuchasIbnSīnā,andiftheywereinterestedinafull-fledgedconceptualsystemthatstoodonitsowntheycouldhaveproducedone,orattheveryleasttheywouldhaveproducedsomethingmuchdifferentthantheworkswhichhavecomedowntous.Touseacounterexample,Suhrawardīwasveryinterestedinconstructingsuchasystem,andevenwithhisquiteobviousmysticaltendencieshislevelofsystematizationgoesfarbeyondanythingfoundintheearlyAkbarianschool.InSuhrawardīwehaveverycleardefinitionsoftermsandconcepts,andindeedanalternativelogicandepistemologymeanttoreplacePeripetaticthought.TheearlyAkbariansdidnotseeminterestedinoverturningPeripetaticthoughtsomuchasturningitsrawconceptualmaterialandmodeofdiscoursetotheirownpurposes.-Taḥaqquq Buildingonwhatwassaidaboutwujūdabove,itisnotsurprisingthatJandīusesotherontictermswherehemighthaveusedwujūd.OnoneoccasionJandīspeaksofthingsobtainingtheir“realization”(taḥaqquq)intheiridentitiesthroughexistenceandexistentiation,12andlaterhehasthistosay:
Knowthat‘reality’canbevalidlyusedasageneralappellationforanythingthathasrealization(taḥaqquq).Now,thereisarealitywhoserealizationisfromitself(bi-dhātihi),andthisistherealityoftheReal.But,therecanbearealitywhoserealizationisnotfromitself,butwhoserealizationisbasedonwhatisrealizedinitselfandfromitself.Thiscanbeinknowledge,inconcreto,insomeofthelevels
12Ibid.,126.
Page 82
70
ofexistenceorinallofthem,perpetuallyornon-perpetually—orinonemomentratherthananother.Therefore,theappellation‘reality’isvalidfortheRealandforcreation,andforattributions,relationships,substancesandaccidents—ifwesaythatcreationhasrealizationorthat‘reality’canbeoneormany,unconditionedorconditioned.13
Taḥaqquq(“realization”),likeidentification(taʿayyun),isemployedbyJandīasaconcepthereatleastasfundamentalaswujūd.Aswasmentionedpreviously,taḥaqquqisacentraltermfortheschoolofIbnʿArabī,especiallysincethenamemostcharacteristicallyusedbyIbnʿArabīforthemenofthehighestspiritualrealizationismuhaqqiq,or“onewhorealizes.”Usuallyḥaqīqahisusedtodenoteathing’sessenceorimmutableidentity,buthereitseemstodenote,togetherwithtaḥaqquq,anythingthatisreal.-Existenceassignifyingmanifestationandcreation
AswesawwithQūnawī,oftenwhenusingthewordwujūdJandīisdenotingexternalizedrealityasopposedtoinward,non-manifestedreality.Letuslookatsomeexamples:
InaparagraphdiscussinghowtheworldofbodiesglorifiesGod,Jandīuseswujūdonseveraloccasionsassignifiersofthecreatedworld.ThesebodiesglorifyGod“inthemselvesandintheirexistences.”Hethenmentionstheexistentialityspecifictouniversalbodily-ness(al-wujūdīyyahal-khasisahbiʾl-jismiyyahal-kulliyyah).Alsointhissectionaretheexistences“oftheworldofcreationandgeneration”(al-wujūdātal-khalqiyyahal-kiyāniyyah).14Thislatterterm,kiyān,recallsIbnSīnā’ssamʿal-kiyān,whichreferstothegeneralnotionofphysics,thefirstthingsonehearsintheworldofexistencesuchas“body,”“essence,”“existence,”etc.Itisrelatedtokawn,whichphilosophicallyisoftenpairedwithfasādtotranslatetheGreeknotionoftheworldofgenerationandcorruption.InIbnʿArabī’smetaphysics,kawnhasasimilarmeaningofreferringtothecreatedorder,althoughmorebasicforhimisthemeaningofthatwhichresultsfromGod’scommandintheQurʾānKunorBe!ThisismentionedlaterwhereJandīspeaksofGodasbeing“theemanatorofexistence,[emanating]overthekiyānīquiddities.”15
Inthoseinstanceswheretheadjectival“existential”(wujūdī)isused,inalmostallcasesitbringswujūdtothelevelofmanifestation,creation,andmultiplicity.“Existential”doesnotcarrywithitthesenseoftheone,absoluteexistencetheAkbarians(includingJandī,seebelow)talkabout.Inadiscussioncomparingthenatureoftheworldasawholewiththenatureoftheperfecthumanbeing,Jandīofferstwopointsofview,thefirstinvolvingthe“existentialunfolding(tafṣīlwujūdī)intheworld,namelytheindividualinstances(mufradāt)ofexistence.”16Thisissetagainst“theunityofunion.”Elsewherehenotesthatstandingoppositepureonenessis“existentialandattributionalmultiplicity”(al-kathrahal-wujūdīyyahwaʾl-nisbiyyah).17InbothoftheseinstancesJandīplacesonenessorunityononeside,andplaces“existential”ontheother.Ifwe 13Ibid.,154.14Ibid.,22.15Ibid.,37.16Ibid.,24.17Ibid.,44.
Page 83
71
assumethat“existence”pertainstocreationandmanifestation,thismakessense.ConsiderthatJandīdescribesGodascomprisingbothunityandonenessontheonehandand“theexistentialandrelative(nisbī)multiplicity”ontheother.18Moreover,thedivineessenceisfreeofthe“existentialmultiplicityofthenames”(al-kathrahal-wujūdīyyahal-asmāʾiyyah),andhelatercallsit“theattributionalandexistentialmultiplicity”(al-wujūdīyyahwaʾl-nisbiyyah).19Thisisaquitedirectoppositionbetween“oneness”and“existence”fromamemberofaschoolknownfor“theonenessofexistence.”
Thenthereistheuseofexistentialwhencouplednotwiththestateofmultiplicitybutwiththeprocessofemanationormanifestation.Forexample,hespeaksof“theemanating,generous,existentialmercy”andthe“existentialemanation”uponthesoulsandspirits.20Theimmutableidentitiesreceivetheconcreteexistentialemanation(al-fayḍal-wujūdīal-ʿaynī),21whichismetaphysicallythesameastheideathatthereisaself-disclosureofexistenceoverthequiddities,22thelatterbeingphilosophicalinitsterminology.
Encounteringaphrasesuchas“theexistentialemanationandthegenerouslight”23iscommonwhenreadingJandī.Inthiscasetheterms“existential”(wujūdī)and“generous”(jūdī)areoftenpairedpoetically,denotinganoutward,manifestingtendency.
ReinforcingthenotionofexistenceasoutwardorcreatedisthesymbolismoftheBreathoftheAll-Merciful(nafasal-Raḥmān),amainstayofAkbarianthoughtandprevalentinJandī’swritings.ManypagesoftheFuṣūṣcommentaryaredevotedtothesymbolismofthealphabet,wherehedrawsacomparisonbetween“theformsofvisibility’sletters(al-ḥurūfal-shuhūdiyyah)”and“existentialwords(al-kalimātal-wujūdīyyah).”24Recallthatshahādahisusuallypairedwithghayb,thelatterreferringtotheunseenandtheformerthatwhichisseenormanifested.Also,“KnowthatexistenceistheoutwardoftheBreathoftheAll-Merciful,”and,“TheBreathoftheAll-Mercifulisthematterofallexistentialletters.”25Itakethewordmatter(māddah)tobeclearlyindicativeofthecreatedorder.-ExistenceastheTrueOneinMany AlthoughtheuseofexistencetoexpressthedualitybetweentheworldandGodispresentinJandī,themoreprofounduseofexistencetodenotethemysteriousonenessthatencompassesallrealityisalsoprevalent.Forexample,byvirtueoftheexistencemanifestthroughallandinall,Godisidenticalwithall(kawnal-ḥaqqbi-ʿtibaralwujūdal-ẓāhirbiʾl-kullfīʾl-kullʿaynal-kull).26“Theonetrueexistence”manifestsinmultiplicityinsuchawaythatitisaquiddityineachquidditythewaycolorisacolorineachcolor,thoughitisunconditionedinitself.27WhenJandīmentionstheonetrue
18Ibid.,65.19Ibid.,90.20Ibid.,70.21Ibid.,138.22Ibid.,80.23Ibid.,134.24Ibid.,46.25Ibid.,60.26Ibid.,23.27Ibid.,46.
Page 84
72
existence,itisoftenintertwinedwith“identification”(taʿayyun):“Theidentificationsofthetrueexistenceandthebranchingout(tanawwuʿ)ofitsself-disclosureanditsmanifestationinthereceptaclesofthenever-endingcontingentsis[itself]neverending.”28Andagain,“Identificationisaforminthatwhichisidentifiedthroughthatidentificationandinit.Ithasnoexistencewithoutsomethingbeingidentifiedinit,”29or,“Thefirstidentification,withoutrespecttothatwhichisidentifiedbyitandinit,namelythetrueexistence(al-wujūdal-ḥaqq),isonlyarelationship(nisbah)whichhasnorealizationwithoutthatwhichisidentifiedbyitandinit.”
Also,likeQūnawī,Jandīmakesuseoftheconceptofnon-identification.Forexample,hesaysthatGod
praisesHimselfinvirtueofHisownindividualandnon-identifiedSelfhood(huwiyyatihial-ʿayniyyahwaʾl-lā-taʿayyuniyyah)andHisabsolutenessandtheunseennessofHisessence…Thepraise,thepraiser,andthepraisedareunitedinthisstation,anditcannotbeconceivedthatthereshouldbeadistinctionbetweenthem.30
Herehealsostates,likeQūnawī,thatthefirstidentification,initsveryreality,pointstothefactthatitisitselfprecededbynon-identification(lā-taʿayyun).Thatistosay,whatisidentifiedoridentifiable(māyataʿayyanu)comesfromthatwhichisnot.InthepreviouschapterweencounteredQūnawī’suseofthephrasenon-identification(lā-taʿayyun),whichisthelevelofsupremerealityindependentevenofthedistinctionbetweenEssenceandattributes,andevenbetweenGodandtheworld.
Crucialtotheunderstandingoftheonetrueexistenceisthenotionof“level”discussedinthepreviouschapter,“Thelevelsqualevelshavenoexistenceexceptthroughtheidentificationshierarchicalizedinthem[thelevels]existentially,bywhichthey[thelevels]aredistinguishedfromthatwhichisidentifiedbythemandinthem.”31TheleveloftheRealisthe“necessityofexistence”whilethelevelofcreationis“theidentificationofexistenceinalllevels”inaccordancewithvariouskindsofcausation,needfulness,andcommandments.32Inanotherinstancehementionsthe“spreadingthroughout”(heresarāyahinsteadofsarayān)ofexistenceinthelevels,and“theoneexistence”bywhichthingsaremademanifest,existencetherebymanifestingbyandinthosethings.33Elsewherehediscusses“thetrueexistenceflowingthroughtherealitiesofexistents,”34andsaysthatattheleveloftheReal(ḥaqq)existenceisRealandatthelevelofcreation(khalq)existenceiscreation.
Inthelastchapterwesawhow“level”wasoneinafamilyoftermsdenotingtheessence-orquiddity-dimensionofreality,signifyingitsplaceinthehierarchyofexistenceasopposedtoexistenceassuch.Thisconceptualpairismentionedinthefollowingpassage:“Godisthebeginningandendofexistence….ItstartsfromHimandendswithHim.Heisthereceptacleinvirtueofhismanifestationandbeingalocusof
28Ibid.,127.29Ibid.,43.30Ibid.,18.31Ibid.,42.32Ibid.,26.33Ibid.,136.34Ibid.,43.
Page 85
73
manifestation(ẓāhiriyyah,maẓhariyyah)andHeiswhatisreceivedinvirtueofHisinwardnessandHimself(ʿayn)…Everythingfallsbetweenexistenceandlevel.Levelisthelocusofmanifestation,andthatwhichisidentifiedbyitistheoutward,true,inwardexistence.”35Speakingofman,“The‘affair’(amr,meaning“everything”)isencompassedinhisself,intermsofexistenceandlevel.”36Theentirenotionoftheidentitybetweentheoneandthemanydependsontheonenessofexistenceandthemultiplicityoflevelsoridentifications,whatlaterphilosopherswouldcallmodes(naḥw)ordimensions(wajh). WethusseeinJandīacontinuationofthegeneraltenorofQūnawī,althoughhistasteforphilosophicaltermsissomewhatdifferent.Althoughheusesphilosophicalterminology,itisnotclearthatJandīactuallydoesmuchtoadvancethemovementoftheAkbarianschooltowardsamorephilosophicalsynthesis.Theconceptofexistenceadaptstothecontext,retaininganeverydaysenseofconcrete,createdexistencewhenusedwithoutqualification,butbeingextendedtomeantheoneultimaterealitywhenthesituationcallsforit.Indeed,aswithhismasterQūnawīJandī’sworkisgearedtowardsmakingaconceptualopeningtowardsAkbarianideasforthoseoutsideoftheirschoolandtoprovidethemselveswithacreativewayofengagingwiththeirownworldview.Asweshallseeinthefollowingtwochapters,thewaytheAkbariansexplaintheirontologywillqualitativelychange.
35Ibid.,139.36Ibid.,129.
Page 86
74
ChapterFour:Kāshānī,Conditioning,andtheOntologicalArgument
Kamālal-DīnʿAbdal-RazzāqibnAbīʾl-GhanāʾimMuḥammadal-Kāshānī(d.1335)1wasastudentofJandīandwouldlaterbecometheteacherofQayṣarīinthefieldofIbnʿArabī’smetaphysics.KāshānītracedpartofhisspirituallineagetoShihābal-Dīnal-Suhrawardī.HefrequentedSuhrawardianmastersinKāshān,Shirāz,andBaghdad.ItislikelythathebecameamemberoftheschoolofIbnʿArabīafterthedeathofhismasterʿAbdal-ṢamadibnʿAlīal-Natanzī.BythetimewereachKāshānītheschoolofIbnʿArabīhasalreadystartedtobecomeakindofmeta-order,notitselfprovidingspiritualinititationbutexistingasaspecialdimensionwithinexistingorders.Thuslaterthetitleakbarī2woulddenotenotfollowersofaseparatespiritualorasceticdisciplinebutsomeoneidentifiedwiththeschoolofIbnʿArabī,whichmightalsoincludeclaimstoadirectspiritualinfluencefromtheIbnʿArabīhimself,inhisfunctionnotasmetaphysicianbutasagreatsaint.
LikehispredecessorsKāshānīwrotecommentariesonimportantSufiworksnotstrictlyintheschoolofIbnʿArabīsuchashiscommentaryontheManāzilal-sāʾirīnofʿAbdullāhal-Anṣārīal-Ḥarawī(d.1089).KāshānīwasalsotheauthorofaSuficommentaryupontheQurʾān,althoughforalongtimetheworkwasattributedtoIbnʿArabīandwasknownuntilrecentlyasTafsīrIbnʿArabī.3ForthefirsttimeintheAkbarianschoolhetriedtosystematizeanddefinethetechnicaltermssoimportanttounderstandtheAkbarianwritingsinworkssuchastheIṣtalāḥātal-ṣūfiyyah,laterexpandedunderthenameRashḥal-ẓulālfīsharḥalfāẓal-mutadāwilahbaynaarbābal-adhwāqwaʾl-aḥwāl,andtheLaṭāʾifal-iʿlāmfīishāratal-ilhām,whichcombinethegeneralmysticaltermsemployedbymostSufistogetherwiththeparticularmetaphysicalandcosmologicaltermsuniquetotheschoolofIbnʿArabī.HewroteaworkonspiritualchivalryentitledTuḥfatal-ikhwānfīkhaṣāʾiṣal-fityān,inkeepingwithhisbackgroundintheSuhrawardiyyahorderanditsemphasisonfutuwwah. However,aswasthecaseforhispredecessors,muchoftheimportantmaterialasitconcernsontologyandmetaphysicsandtheSuficontactwithphilosophyappearsinKāshānī’scommentaryupontheFuṣūṣal-ḥikam.4Herewehavethefirstfull-fledgedattemptatakindofmetaphysicalprimeratthebeginningofthecommentarywhichprovidesthereaderaphilosophicalframeworktoproceedwiththestudyofthetext.The
1FormorebiographicalinformationseeSüleymanUludaǧ,“Kā� ānī,Abdürrezzāk,”IslamAnsiklopedisi;D.B.Macdonald,“ʿAbdal-Razzāqal-Kāshāni,”EI2;WilliamChittick,“TheSchoolofIbnʿArabī,”HistoryofIslamicPhilosophy,518.2TheworksofMichelChodkiewiczbringoutthisdimensionoftheAkbariantradition.SeehisAnOceanWithoutShore:IbnʿArabī,theBook,andtheLaw(NewYork,1993),1-18.3SeePierreLory,LescommentairesésotériquesduCorand’ápresʿAbdal-Razzāqal-Qāshānī,Paris,1991;also,M.Valsan,“LecommentaireésotériqueduCoranparAbdu-r-Razzākal-Qāchānī,”Etudestraditionelles,LXX(1969),255-64.4ThisworkformsamajorbasisforT.Izutsu’sstudyofIbnʿArabīinhisSufismandTaoism(Berkeley,1984),althoughinthiscaseKāshānīisonlyusedinordertounderstandtheFuṣūṣ.InadditiontostudiesonhisQurʾāniccommentary,J.vanEsshaswrittenonKāshānī’sTuḥfatul-iḫwān,“DieTuḥfatul-ihwandesʿAbdurrazzāq-iKāšānī,einFutuvatnāmaderĪlḫānidenzeit,”ẒafarNāme,MemorialVolumeofFelixTauer,ed.R.VeselyanE.Gombar,Pragne,1996,85-99.AmorecompletebibliographycanbefoundintheİAarticle.
Page 87
75
introductoryremarksarerelativelyshortandmanyofthemostimportantcommentsKāshānīmakesdonotappearintheseopeningremarksbutinthefirstpartofthecommentaryuponthetext.Onecanperhapsseehere,however,akindofprototypeforthemasterpieceofphilosophyandmysticismthatKāshānī’sstudentQayṣarīwouldplacebeforehisowncommentaryupontheFuṣūṣ. InKāshānī’scommentarywefindanewlevelofsophisticationandanincreaseinthephilosophicalemphasis.Forexample,onpracticallythefirstpageKāshānīdescribesthedivineSelf(al-dhāt)asbeing“pureexistencequaexistence,notconditionedbynon-identificationandunconditionedbyidentification(al-wujūdal-baḥtminḥaythuhuwawujūdlābi-sharṭal-lā-taʿayyunwalābi-sharṭal-taʿayyun).”5ThisisperhapsthefirstinstanceoftheusageintheAkbarianschoolofthischaracteristictypeofphilosophicalconditioning(bi-sharṭ,lābi-sharṭ)meaningtobelimitedtoortobequalified,ornottobelimitedtoornottobequalifiedby,dependingonhowitisused.HereKāshānīissayingthattheSelfispureexistenceneitherbecauseitisthisorthat,norbecauseitisnotthisorthat;rather,itistakentobeaboveallsuchqualificationsanddualities.ThisisnotadeparturefromtheAkbarianpositionintheleast,butitisadifferentwayinwhichthemetaphysicalperspectiveisexplained.-Theconditioningof“existence,”theAkbarians,andthe“Pahlavī”Philosophers
InhisworkonSabzawarī’smetaphysics,whichisreallyabookonwhatmightbecalledtheschoolofMullāṢadrāingeneralorthe“Pahlavīphilosophers,”Izutsugivesusavaluablediscussiononthematureformofthelanguageofconditioningmentionedabove,asitappliestoontologyandtotheclassificationofessences:
Every‘quiddity’canbeconsideredinthreedifferentaspects:(1)as“purified”(mujarradah)or‘negativelyconditioned’,(2)as‘absolute’(muṭlaqah)or‘non-conditioned’,and(3)as‘mixed’(makhlūṭah)or‘conditionedbysomething’. A‘quiddity’inthestateofthenegativelyconditioned(bi-sharṭlā)is‘quiddity’consideredinitspurity:astateinwhicheverythingelse,includingeventhe‘existence’ofthe‘quiddity’,whetherexternalormental,iseliminatedfromtheconsciousness.The‘quiddity’quaitself,as,forexample,theconceptof‘animal’qua‘animal’,aloneisrepresentedinthemind,withnothingelseassociatedwithit.Ifwerelatesomeotherconcepttoa‘quiddity’inapurestate,forexample,theconceptof‘rational’,theresultcanonlybeacombinationoftwodifferentandindependentelements.Theoriginalconceptcannotthenbepredicatedofthecomposite.‘Animal’plus‘rational’issomethingmorethanpure‘animal’,andthelatterisnotpredicableoftheformer. Inthestateofthe‘non-conditioned’(lābi-sharṭ),a‘quiddity’isrepresentedinanambiguousortotallyindeterminateway.A‘quiddity’inthisstateisfree;itmayormaynotbeassocitatedwithsomethingelse.Ifwerelatesomeotherconcepttoa‘quiddity’insuchastateofindetermination,theresultingcombinationisaperfectunity.Theoriginalconceptcanstillbepredicatedofthisunity.‘Animal’plus‘rational’is‘man’;andanimal,ofcourse,ispredicableof
5Sharḥfuṣūṣal-ḥikam,Qom,1991(basedontheEgyptianlithographededition),4.
Page 88
76
‘man’.A‘quiddity’atthisstageisinitselfnotyetactualizedorspecified;itisstillindeterminatesothatitcanbepredicatedofmanydifferentthings. Inthestateof‘conditioned-by-something’[(bi-sharṭshayʾ)],a‘quiddity’isconsideredalreadyassociatedwithsomeotherconcept;e.g.‘animal’plus‘rational’.‘Animal’inthisstateisconsideredasalreadyactualizedandspecified.Thatistosay,‘animal’hereisnotconsideredqua‘animal’;ratheritis‘animal’insofarasitisassociatedwith‘rational’,i.e.qua‘man’…6
Thistripledivisionaccordingtoconditioningcanalsobeappliedtoexistenceaswell,insofarasexistencecanbehandledasaconceptoressence(quiddity)inthemind.AgainIzutsu:
Thehigheststage,i.e.theAbsoluteinitstranscendentalabsoluteness,istherealityof‘existence’inthestateof‘negativelyconditioned’.TheAbsolute,inotherwords,ispure‘existence’,i.e.therealityof‘existence’initsabsolutepurity,awayfromallpossibledeterminationsandlimitations.Itis‘existence’inthestateofpureandabsolutetranscendence. Inthenextstage,thatofthe‘non-conditioned’,‘existence’isinastateoffreedetermination,readytomodifyitselfintoanydeterminateformwhatsoever.Inthisstateiscomprisesinpotentiaallpossible‘existents’withinthesphereofitsunity.Itisherethat‘existence’isunityandmultiplicityatoneandthesametime.Thisisthestageof‘unfoldedexistence’andthe‘breathofMercifulness’. Attheloweststage,thatoftheconditioned-by-something,‘existence’appearsasalreadydeterminedthiswayandthat.Thisontologicallevelisthatofconcreteindividualexistents.Therealityof‘existence’hereisatthefarthestremovefromitsoriginaltranscendentalpurity,havingbecomeassociatedwithsomethingelse,i.e.‘quiddities’. Asaresultofthisdiscussionweobtainthefollowinghierarchyofstagesof‘existence’accordingtothePahlavīphilosophers:
I‘Existence’as‘negatively-conditioned’(al-wujūdbi-sharṭlā)II‘Existence’as‘non-conditioned’(al-wujūdlābi-sharṭ)III‘Existence’as‘conditioned-by-something’(al-wujūdbi-sharṭshayʾ)7
IfwereadKāshānī’sstatementaboutsupremeexistencecarefully,wenoticethatforhimnegativelyconditionedexistenceisnottheultimatestageatall.Rather,hisstatementthat“pureexistencequaexistence[is]unconditionedbynon-identificationandunconditionedbyidentification”soundsmorelikethesecondstageofthephilosophers,thatof“non-conditioned”(al-wujūdlābi-sharṭ).Recallthatidentification(taʿayyun)canbeseenasequivalenttobringingpureexistencetogetherwithsomeessence,whichiswhatconditioningorsharṭinthetripartitedivisionmeansinthiscontext.Thatistosay,“identification”means“existenceasthisorthat,”orasaparticularessenceorquiddity,whetherthatessenceorquiddityis“God”asthedivinityoftheworldorsomeparticularexistentwithintheworld.ThuswhenKāshānībanishesidentificationfromthescene,heiseliminatingthepossibilityofpackingtruerealityintoanysortofcontainer,andwhen
6ToshikoIzutsu,TheConceptandRealityofExistence(Tokyo,1971),145-6.7Ibid.,146-7.
Page 89
77
hethenbanishesnon-identificationor“identity-lessness”,heeliminatesthepossibilitythattruerealityisotherthanwhatthosesamecontainershold.Inshort,Godisunconditionedevenbynon-conditioning.Asopposedtonegativeconditioning,wherethephilosophersaysnotoeveryessence,andunlikeconditioned-by-somethingwherethephilosophersaysyestoanyvalidparticularexistent,innon-conditioningthephilosopherissayingbothyesandno,orneitheryesnorno. ConsideringhowsimilartheAkbarianschoolandMullāṢadrā(whomIzutsugroupswiththe“Pahlavī”philosophers)areintheirmetaphysics,thisisnounimportantdivergence.ItisespeciallysignificantsinceIampositinginthisthesisthattheAkbariansandṢadrāformacontinuumasfarasontologyisconcerned.Izutsuwasnotblindtothisdifference,althoughhespentonlyafewsentencesonit:
TheSufiviewimpliesapeculiarunderstandingoftheterm‘non-conditioned’.Theytakethetermtomeanabsolutely‘non-conditioned’thusdenyingeventheconditionofbeing‘non-conditioned’.Theconceptof‘non-conditioned’understoodinthiswayconstitutestheverysourceofthetripledivisioninto‘negativelyconditioned’,‘non-conditioned’—asunderstoodintheordinarysense—and‘conditionedbysomething’.‘Unfoldedexistence’can,inthisview,onlybe‘existenceasnon-conditioned’,understoodintheordinarysense,thatis,‘existence’asconditionedatleastbybeing‘non-conditioned’.8
Weoughttobeginbyrememberingthatthephilosophers,eversinceAvicenna,basedtheirontologyaroundwujūd,andwrangledwithitastheirprimaryconcept.AsinheritorsofthePeripateticlanguageofexistence,werethephilosophersinfluencedinawayfromwhichtheSufiswereimmune?Althoughthisisnotastudyoftheontologyofthephilosophersassuch,itisworthspendingsometimeonitsbasicoutline.Ṣadrā’sdoctrineofexistenceisbuiltupon1)itsfundamentality(aṣālah);2)itsoneness(waḥdah);and3)itsequivocality(tashkīk).Existenceisfundamentalbecauseitisthebasisofanythingandeverything,andistheconceptwhichexplainseverythingandisexplainedbynothing.Itisonebecausealltheparticularexistencesweseearereallymodalities(anḥāʾ)andlevels(marātib)oftheoneultimatereality.Thisnaturallyleadstothedoctrineofequivocality(tashkīk),whichallowsustopredicatetheoneexistencetrulyofmany(apparently)differentthings.SomuchforthebriefoutlineofṢadrā’sprinciplesofwujūd. AsIzutsucorrectlypointsout,inthissystemofexistence“betweenthehighestandthelowestthereisanuninterruptedlineofcontinuance.”9Thatistosay,theconceptualmovementfrom“absolute”to“non-conditioned”to“conditioned”—asoutlinedabove—doesnotinvolvewhatonemightcallanontologicaldiscontinuity.Theconceptofwujūd,accordingtoitsmostloftyunderstanding,ismeanttoencompasseverythingthatthemetaphysicsofPahlavīphilosophersiscapableofspeakingabout.Nothing,atleastconceptually,issupposedtosupercedeitordriftoutsideofitscompass.Atoneendofthespectrumaretheindividualexistentthingsandtheirindividualessences,whileattheotherendistheoneindivisiblereality.Itisasthoughthemindweremovingaprismacrosswhitelight,unfoldingarainbowatoneangleandthenslowlycongealingthosecolorsbackintowhitelightastheanglechanges.Thewhite
8Ibid.,148-9.9Ibid.,145.
Page 90
78
lightisabsoluteexistence,whilethecolorsareconditionedexistence.However,therangeofmovementoftheprismiswholeandcontinuous,withnobreaks,asisourunderstandingoftheconceptualgradationfromconditionedtoabsoluteexistence. AsIhavetriedtodemonstrateabove,thefollowersofIbnʿArabī,atleastuntilKāshānī,didnotconstrainthemselvesbyattemptingtoturnexistenceintoanall-explainingkeytounlockallofontology.Atbesttheytookthephilosophicallycommon-senseunderstandingofexistenceandsometimesextendedittoencompasstheultimaterealityoftheDivineEssenceorSelf.IfQūnawī’sexplanationofexistencewasnotfleshedoutsystematicallyinthemannerofaphilosopher,thiswouldnothavebotheredhimovermuch,sincetheworditselfcouldonlybe“approximateandpedagogical”.Inanycase,heandhissuccessorJandīseemedmorecomfortablerelyingonidentification(taʿayyun)asaconceptmoreinkeepingwiththeirownmetaphysicalspirit. Now,“identification”asunderstoodbytheAkbariansdoesinfactinvolveadiscontinuity.Theprocessofemanationorcreation,ifweunderstandthisintermsofidentification,canbeviewedascontinuous.FromtheformsinGod’sknowledge,tothoseformsintheGreatSpiritorFirstIntellect,tothoseformsintherealmofcreation,wecandiscernakindofontologicalcontinuityconsistingofthosesuccessivestagesofidentificationortaʿayyun.Thediscontinuityinthemetaphysicsofidentificationconsistsinthe“change”fromnon-identification(lā-taʿayyun)tothefirstidentification.InthesystemofIbnʿArabīnoteventhedivinity(ilāh)escapesidentificationsince,aspointedoutabove,inordertobeanilāh(notalwaystranslatedwellby“divinity”)thereneedstobeamaʾlūhsomewhere.Tospeakinmorecontemporaryterms,thepersonalGodcanonlybeapersonalGodbecauseHeissoforusandfortherestofcreation.ThispersonalGodisthedivinityofthefirstidentification,whoisnoneotherthantheimpersonalGodbutwithadifferenceinrelationorattribution. Thisrealmofidentificationfromnon-identificationisotherwiseexpressedbytheschoolofIbnʿArabīintermsofimagination(khayāl).Intermsofthehumanbeing,thefacultyofimaginationliesbetweenthefacultyofbodilysenseperceptionandthespiritualfacultyortheintellect.Itistheaspectofthesoulincontactwiththecorrespondingimaginationalaspectofthecosmos.Thatistosay,intheworldatlargethereisarealmbetweenthatofpurespiritandpurebodycalledthecosmicimagination.Theaspectofimaginationinthesoultogetherwiththerealmofimaginationintheworldatlargemakesuptheworldofimagination(ʿālamal-khayāl),whichhasitsplaceinthestrataofrealityalongwiththeworldofbodiesandtheworldofspirits.10 However,thereisabroadermeaningofimaginationforIbnʿArabīwhichgoesfarbeyondthisparticularmodeorsliceofreality.Theworldofimaginationasacosmicdivisioniscalledthequalifiedimagination(al-khayālal-muqayyad),orwhatwemightcallimaginationinalimitedsense.Absoluteorunqualifiedimagination(al-khayālal-muṭlaq)isnoneotherthantheentiretyofallpossibleidentifications—imaginationinthebroadestsense.Inthissenseof“imagination,”everythingotherthanthepureSelfisimagination,meaningthatitisillusoryinsomerespect.EventhepersonalGodor 10Thesoulasimaginationiscalledthecontinuousimagination(al-khayālal-muttaṣil)becauseitisconnectedtotherestofthehumanbeing’sfacultiesinakindofverticalarray.Thecosmicimaginationiscalledthediscontinuousimagination(al-khayālal-munfaṣil)becauseitisnotstrictlyspeakingconnectedtothehumanbeing,althoughthehumanbeingscanperceiveitthroughtheirimaginationalfaculty.
Page 91
79
divinitydoesnotescapebeingpartofthisgrandimagination.BecausetheultimaterealityofthingsisthatonlytheSelfisreal,anythingthatimpliesdualityorothernessmustbe,atleastinpart,an“imaginedthing.”Noticethatthisdefinitionofunqualifiedimaginationisnotsynonymouswiththeworldas“whatisotherthanGod”(māsiwāʾllāh),becausetheGodin“whatisotherthanGod”isthegod/divinityoftheworld(ilāh),orCreator.BoththeCreator(khāliq)andcreature(makhlūq)areincludedinthemetaphysicalconceptofabsolute/unqualifiedimagination.11 ThisinclusionofthedivineinarelativizingconceptsuchasimaginationisanotabledifferencebetweentheAkbarianand“Pahlavī”systems.Inthephilosophicalschemaofconditioningthereisnoconceptualdivisioninabsoluteexistence(al-wujūdal-muṭlaq)whichcorrespondstothedistinctionbetweenontheonehandtheGodwhoiswithintheuniversalimaginationandontheotherhandGodtheSelf.IntheTaoistsystem,forexample,theultimatereality(theTaowhichcannotbetalkedabout)isspokenofnotaspurebeingbutasnon-beingorbeyond-being.Forthephilosophers,iftheyaretohavethesamemetaphysicalconclusions,mustbeabletousetheirconceptofexistencetoincludewhatfortheTaoistsisbeyond-being,fortheVedantistspureĀtmā,andfortheAkbariansnon-identification.
Buttherearetwoproblemswiththishypothesisasstated:1)TheAkbariansoftenspeakofultimaterealityaspureexistenceand2)thephilosophersrecognizetheinherentlimitationsoftheconceptofexistence.
Asforthefirstpoint,Ihavetriedtoarguethatthe(early)Akbarianswerenotoccupiedwithsettingupexistenceassuchasamother-conceptuponwhichtohangallotherconcepts.ItisasthoughtheyrecognizedthefactthattheirfellowintellectualsweretalkingabouttherealityofthingsintermsofexistenceandtookthatconceptasfarasitwouldgoinordertofitthewaytheysawtheworldandGod.Thus,God’sexistencewouldhavetobesuperlativeineveryrespect,beingpure,incorruptible,andperfectlyunified.Moreover,itwouldhavetohavesomekindofidentitywithallthings,orratherallthingswouldhavetohavesomekindofidentitywithGod’sexistence.ButtheAkbarianswouldnotthensaythat,havingdescribedGodintermsofexistence,wehavesaidallweneedtosayaboutGodphilosophically.Thus,thereisnoprobleminreadinganAkbarianpassagethatdescribesGodaspureexistence,whileknowingthatwithinthatpureexistenceofGodtheyrecognizethatthepersonalGodandthepureSelfhaveadifferentmeaning.Thatfactthatthelanguageofwujūd(existence)maynotbeabletodojusticetothisdistinctiondoesnoterasethefundamentalinsightthatGodasilāhorgod/divinityispartoftheuniversalimagination.Butitshouldberecognizedthatthisisanimportantdifferencebetweenthemandthephilosophers,inthesensethattheAkbariansdonotpresumetomakeeverythingexplainableintermsofwujūd.Ifthisconceptisnotenough,theyareperfectlycontenttomoveontoanothermoreusefulidea,andusuallydo;theexampleofself-disclosure(tajallī)isasalientexample.
Now,thisdoesnotmeanthatthephilosophersdonotrecognizethissamedistinctionwithinthedivinerealitythattheSufisdo,butwhenwelookwefindthatthey 11Thisextendedunderstandingofimaginationcorrespondsexactly,inmyview,tothenotionofmāyāinthemetaphysicsofHinduAdvaitaVedānta.AswiththeAkbariansystem,assoonasweleavetheSelf(Arabicdhāt,Sanskritātmā),wehaveenteredintotherealmofillusionandunreality,andthefartherwejourneyfromtheSelfthefartherweenterintothatillusionandunreality.
Page 92
80
locatethediscontinuityinadifferentway.Forthephilosophers,oneofthemajordefiningfeaturesoftheirontologyandepistemologyisthedifferencebetweentheconcept(mafhūm)andreality(ḥaqīqah)ofexistence.Thisdistinctionisfoundational,anditiswherewecanfindthediscontinuityrepresentedbytheAkbarians’shiftfromtherealmofidentificationtonon-identification.Thesum-totalofeverythingthephilosophershavetosayaboutexistence,eventheloftiestmetaphysicsoftheunityandequivocalityofexistence,isstillobviouslyatthelevelofconcepts.Theirargumentissimplythatasaconcepttheirideaofexistencecorrespondsbestandmostperfectlytotheobjectivefactofexistence.However,totrulyunderstandtherealityofexistence,notjusttheidea,goesradicallybeyondthinkingcorrectlyaboutitsconcept.Incomparisontowhatahumanbeingcanfullyrealize,amentalunderstandingofexistenceisinherentlyandirredeemablyinadequate,usefulthoughitmaybeatitsownlevel.Onlythroughspiritualrealizationcanthehumansubjecttrulyknowandexperienceexistence.
Iwouldthusarguethatthemetaphysicsofexistenceelaboratedbythephilosopherswasforcedtorecognizethatsomethingbeyondeventheloftiestunderstandingof“existence”wasnecessarytotrulyacknowledgetheultimaterealityofGod.UnliketheAkbarians,whocouldcapturetheentiretyofdualisticreality(includingthepersonalGod)intheideaofuniversalimagination,thephilosopherswereself-limitedbytheirmetaphysicsofessence-existence.Theyaresaved,asitwere,bytheirassertionoftheincommensurabilityoftheconceptandrealityofexistence.Evenifthereisnoexplicitconceptsuchasnon-identificationorbeyond-being,thereisstillarecognitionthatthereissomethingbeyondourideaofbeingorexistence,andthatindeedthissomethingcanonlybeexperienced,notspokenabout.
* * *Ofcourse,thisentirediscussionbeganfromthedivergencebetweenthe
Akbariansandthephilosophersastotheultimatelevelofexistence:isitthewujūdofbi-sharṭlā(negatively-conditioned)orthewujūdofneithertaʿayyunnorlā-taʿayyun(neitherconditionednornegatively-conditioned)?Ifwewishtopreservethefundamentalsimilarityinmetaphysicalvisionbetweenthesetwoschools,wemustthenshowhowthelevelofnon-conditioningforthephilosophersisdifferentfromwhatKāshānīistalkingaboutwhenhediscussesthatwhichisconditionedneitherbyidentificationnorbynon-identification.
Thesecondstageofconditioning,calledal-wujūdal-munbasiṭ,whichIzutsutranslatesas“unfoldedexistence”andwhichIhavebeentranslatingas“spreading-throughoutexistence,”isdescribedbyIzutsuas“apureluminousradiationfromthesourceofLight.Thebeamoflightisstillpure,i.e.simple;itisstillaunitaryreality.Inaddition,however,itcontainsinitselfthecapacityforoverflowingandpouringoutinalldirectionssothatitmaybechanneledininfinitelydiverseways.Theologicallythisstratumistheself-revealingGod.”12
InAkbarianmetaphysicswhatIzutsuhasjustdesribedistheBreathoftheAll-Merciful(nafasal-Raḥmān)orUniversalNature(al-ṭabīʿahal-kulliyyah).Justashumanbreathhasthecapacitytovehicleallhumanspeech,sotoodoestheBreathofGodcontaintheentiretyofcreationwithinitself.This,however,issomethingdifferentthanwhatKāshānīisgettingat.His“neitherthisnorthat,neithernotthisnorthat”realityis
12ConceptandReality,147.
Page 93
81
nottheBreathoftheAll-MercifulorUniversalNature.TheBreathoftheAll-Mercifulisawell-definedideainAkbarianthought,andthe“neitherconditionednornon-conditioned”ideaisneverpartofittomyknowledge.
Moreover,thereistheproblemthattheconceptof“identification”isacentralpartofKāshānī’sdivisionofrealityintostrata,aconceptwhichisnotapartofthephilosophers’mannerofspeaking.Theyframethedivisionintermsofqualificationorlimitation,not“identification”,thelatterbeingapeculiarlyAkbarianterm.CanwesetthisdifferenceasideandsimplycomparetheSufisandthephilosophersbyvirtueofthecommonlanguageofconditioning(sharṭ)?Ibelieveweshouldnot,orattheveryleastshouldexaminethequestionfirst.
Itisinfacttheconceptofidentificationwhichmakesthedifference.RecallthattheAkbariansandthephilosophersinvestthemselvesintheconceptofexistencedifferently.AconclusionwecandrawfromKāshānī’sstatingthatGodispureexistence,andthatHeisconditionedneitherby“identification”or“non-identification,”isthatexistence(wujūd)comprisesboththerealmofidentificationandnon-identification.Thatistosay,thetruerealityofexistencecomprisesboththeundifferentiatedandpureSelfbeyondanyrelationality,andthepersonalGod.Ofcourse,sincefromtheperspectiveofthepureSelfthereisonlytheSelf,thismeansthatthetruerealityofwujūdcomprisesanythingandeverything,althoughwemightnotseeitthatwayinourordinaryexperience. Sofar,sogood,sincethissoundsexactlylikewhatthephilosopherssay.WearestillleftwithhowtomakesenseofthefactthatbothKāshānīandthephilosophersaremakingexistencethesupremething,butaretalkingaboutitslightlydifferently.AsImentionedabove,thephilosopherslackaconceptcorrespondingtothedifferencebetweenGodtheidentifiedandGodthenon-identified,transferringthisdifferencetothedistinctionbetweentheconceptandrealityofexistence.Becauseoftheirconceptof“identification”,theSufisareabletoextendtheirunderstandingoftheconceptof“existence”toexplicitlycompriseboththeidentifiedandthenon-identified.Ifmyanalysisofthephilosophersiscorrect,thentheirconceptof“existence”doesnotactuallygototheconceptualrealmtheSufiscallnon-identification.However,theirrealityofexistencecertainlymust.-Kāshānī,thePeripatetics,andtheOntological“Proof” The“existencequaexistence”mentionedearlieristhecentralconceptofKāshānī’smetaphysicalintroduction.ThiswujūdminḥaythuhuwawujūdistoKāshānīnoneotherthantheNecessary,andisneithersubstancenoraccident.AlthoughKāshānīdoesnotelaborateupontheconceptofsubstanceandaccidentasitappliestoGod,itissomethingQayṣarīwillenlargeuponinhisProlegomena.Expandinguponhispoint,hestatesthatanythingotherthanexistencequaexistenceispurenon-existence(ʿadamṣirf),andcallsthisnon-existenceano-thing(lā-shayʾ).Purenothingnessornon-existencecannotbeareceptacle(qābil)forexistence.Contrarily,pureexistencedoesnotneedsomethingelsetoexist,asitexistsinitself(mawjūdbi-dhātihi). ThisisanotableinstancefortheAkbarianswherethemeaningoftheword“existence”or“exists”comesintoplaywhendiscussingontology.Previously,inQūnawīandJandī,themodesofwujūdwereindeeddiscussed,butnotinawaythatmadetheunderstandingofmetaphysicsdependupontheanatomyofthewordorconcept.That
Page 94
82
istosay,thisfundamentalonticunit,wujūd,wastakenasakindofgiven.Whetherorhowsomethinginfactexistswasdiscussedbythemmoreorlessintermsofindependenceordependence,meaningthattheywereparsingouthowinfacttheexistenceofthingscomestobefromtheexistenceofGod,buteventhentheuseoftheword“existence”isonlyaninadequateapproximationtotherealityitself.WhatKāshānīissayinginhisshortstatementregardingpureexistenceisthatinusingtheterm“pureexistence”wearetalkingaboutpreciselywhatthistermsignifiesinandofitself,nothingmoreorless.Godisthatentity“whosetaskitis”(minshaʾnihi)toexist.Thequestionofpriorityoragreatchainofbeingisnotinplayhere;recallthathebeginsbysayingthatthepureSelfisnotthisorthat,nornotthisornotthat.Kāshānīisprovidingthephilosophicalideaofexistenceassuchasanentrytoconceptualizingthisutterlyself-subsistententity,thedivineSelf.ThisisdifferentfromotherphilosophicalproofsfortheexistenceofGod,orproofsregardingthenecessityofHisexistence,whichbeginfromthingsandproceedtotheoriginalentityassourceonpainofanunacceptableinfiniteregressorcircularity.Kāshānī’smentalmoveistonotthinkaboutanythingatall,exceptofcoursethathecannotavoidmakingthereaderthinkabouttheideaofexisting. Thisappearstobeakindofontological“proof,”ormorecorrectly“reasoning,”asopposedtothecosmologicalprooforreasoningwhich,asstatedabove,startswiththingsandthenproceedstotheirsourceortothatwhichliesbeyondthemontologically.Ofcourse,KāshānīwasnotthefirsttousesuchanargumentintheIslamiccontext.TobyMayerarguesthatIbnSīnāhadhisownversionoftheontologicalproof,althoughsomehavearguedthatthiswasreallyjustanewformofthecosmologicalproof.13WhetherIbnSīnā’sproofiscosmologicalorontologicaldoesnotchangethefactthathisviewofwujūdisfundamentallydifferentfromKāshānī’soranyoneelse’sintheschoolofIbnʿArabī.ForIbnSīnāandthePeripatetics,thefinalresultofanysuchproofwillbeaNecessaryExistent(wājibal-wujūd)whoseexistenceisstillsomethingdifferentthanthemultipleexistentstowhichitgivesrisethroughcreationoremanation.NecessaryexistenceissomethingpossessedbyGodalone,andinnowaydoesthisparticularandspecialnecessaryexistenceextendtoanythingelsewecanthinkof.AsṬūsīsays,theideaofageneralizedexistenceencompassingallexistencescanneverleavetheplaneofthemind.Now,thereisadegreetowhichtheAkbarianssharethisviewregardingnecessaryversuscontingentexistence.Forthemthisdivisionisvalidinsofarasitappliesthelogicalanalysisoftheobjectsofoureverydayexperience.WithinthedualitybetweentheworldandGoditisperfectlyvalidtosaythatthisisnecessaryandthatiscontingentorimpossible.However,necessaryandcontingentarereallyafterthefactclassificationsweusetomakesenseofourownideasabouttheworld.Itismorecorrecttospeakofexistenceassomethingsoself-subsistentandnecessarythateverythingotherthanitisactuallynothingatall:thereisno“otherofit”inthefirstplace.Weonlythinkthereisbecausewearetrappedinanillusion. OnceagainitbecomesclearthatthefundamentalmysteryatworkisdifferentfortheAkbariansthanforthePeripatetics,andthisaffectstheoutcomeoftheontologicalproofaswell.TheclassicalEuropeanversionoftheontologicalproofhadtheperfectionofGodasitsbasis,14whileIbnSīnābasedhis,characteristically,onthenecessityofGod. 13Foradiscussionofthispointandasurveyofthoseonvarioussidesoftheargument,seeTobyMayer,“IbnSīnā’s‘Burhānal-ṣiddīqīn’,”JournalofIslamicStudies12:1(2001),18-39.14Mayer,37.
Page 95
83
ThusIbnSīnā’sproofwouldbedifferentfromthosearisingfromtheEuropeanmilieu,butwillalsobedifferentfromanythingresemblinganontologicalproofcomingoutoftheAkbariantraditionbecauseoftheirfundamentallydifferentmetaphysics. Thedistinctionbetweenanontologicalproofandacosmologicaloneisthatthelatterbeginsfromthecosmos,takingthenatureofthecosmosanditsinabilitytostandaloneaswhatitisasanindicationofsomethingwhichgivesrisetoitandwhichdoesstandaloneaswhatitis.ForIbnSīnā,thecosmologicalproofsleadustoaNecessaryBeingwhogivesrisetothecosmosbutwhoseexistenceisfundamentallydifferentthantheexistencebelongingthecosmos.TheresultofthecosmologicalproofforIbnSīnāoranyPeripateticistheveryGodtheyspeakofintherestoftheirphilosophy—necessary,andwithallHisattributesandperfections,butseparatefromthecosmos. TheproblemwithtryingtousethedistinctionbetweencosmologicalandontologicalproofstounderstandAkbarianmetaphysicsisthattheveryseparationanddistinctionmadebetweenthecosmosandGodisseenasbeingpartlyunreal,unlikethePeripateticswhoseeitasbeingperfectlyreal.Thusanyproofwhichstartsfromthecosmos,reasoningfromtheimpossibilityofaninfiniteseriesofexistentsorthenecessityforsomethingwhichgivesexistencetoanessencewhichcouldorcouldnotexist(tarjīḥ,givingpreponderance),andendswiththesourceofthisseriesorthebestowerofexistencetotheessence,willstillendupwithacreativeoremanatingGod.However,aswehaveseen,boththecosmos(time,space,infiniteseries,non-necessaryessences,etc.)andthepersonalGodarepartofabsoluteimagination.ThetraditionalcosmologicalproofsthusdonotbringustotheSupremeRealityoftheSufis,buttoitsfirstself-determinationor“identification.”Suchaproofwouldbeillusionleadingtoillusionintheultimatesense,althoughwithintherealmof(absolute)imaginationthecosmologicalproofswouldhavevalidityinsofarasthedistinctionbetweenGodandtheworldisrealandnotillusory.Thisdistinctionhowever,isdependentlyreal—dependentupontheSupremeSelfinwhichthereisnodistinctionandwhichiswhollyself-sufficientandindependent. ForKāshānī,aswesawabove,existenceisthatwhichdoesnotneedsomethingelsetoexist,asitis(bydefinition,itwouldseem)existentinitself(mawjūdbi-dhātihi).Ingeneralthispureexistence(wujūdṣirf)isdescribednegatively.Itisneithersubstance,noraccident,becauseofthelimitationsandparticularizationssuchnotionsentail.Asubstanceissomethingthat“hasaquiddityotherthanexistence,bywhichitisdistinctfromotherexistents.”Anaccidenthasthesamelimitation,andadditionally“itneedsanexistentsubjecttodwellin.”
AnythingotherthantheNecessaryiseitherasubstanceoranaccident,andexistencequaexistenceisnototherthanthenecessary.Anyconiditionedexistenceisexistentthroughit[i.e.theNecessary].Indeed,itisItwithrespecttoreality,differingwithrespecttoidentification.Thereisnothing“other”withrespecttoreality.Itsexistenceisidenticalwithitsveryessence,sinceanythingotherthanexistencequaexistenceispurenon-existence(ʿadam).Initsbeingdistinctfromnon-existenceexistencedoesnotneedsomeentificationofnegationtopreventthetwosharinginsomething.Thiswouldbetodenytheabsurdityoftheirbeingcommontosomething,sincenon-existenceispurenothing(lāshayʾ).Itdoesnotreceivenon-existence,sinceotherwiseafterthisreceptiontherewouldbeanon-existentexistence.Likewise,purenon-existencedoesnotreceive
Page 96
84
existence.Ifeitherallowedofitscontrary(naqīḍ)itwould,withrespecttoitsactuality,beitscontrary,andthisisabsurd.
Receptivityrequiresmultiplicity,andthereisnomultiplicityintherealityofexistencequaexistence.Indeed,thereceptacleforbothconsistsintheimmutableidentitiesandtheirstates,immutableintheintellectworld.Theymanifestthroughexistenceandarehiddenthroughnon-existence.Anythingthatexiststhroughexistenceisnotidenticalwithexistence,andthusisnotexistence.Otherwise,whenitexistedtheexistencewouldhaveanexistencebeforetheexistingofitsexistence.Existenceisitselfexistent,soexistenceisitself(ʿaynuhu).Otherwise,itsquidditywouldbeotherthanexistenceandwouldnotbeexistence.Otherwise,whenitexisteditsexistencewouldhaveanexistencebeforeexistence,andthatisabsurd.Thus,existenceinitselfnecessarilyexistsonitsown,notthroughanotherexistence.Itiswhatmakesallotherexistentssubsist,becausetheyexistthroughexistence.Therewouldotherwisebepurenothing.Itisinitselfbeyond-needofeverything,andallareneedfulofit.15
Indeed,itseemsthatKāshānī’smainthrustisthatpureexistenceisthatwhichisnotnothingness(ʿadam),andwhichis“notnothing”ineveryconceivableway.Thusanythingthatpartakesofprivationorlimitationisnothinginsomewayandhenceisnotpureexistence.Iusetheword“nothing”insteadofnon-existencebecauseKāshānīhimselfglosses“purenon-existence”(ʿadamṣirf)as“no-thing”(lā-shayʾ).Thisnaturallybringsupthequestionofthingswhichdoexistbutwhichdonotseemtonecessarilyexist.EventheAkbariansdistinguishbetweennecessary,contingent,andimpossibleexistence.Themodalitiesinvolvedinmust,may,andcannotexistdonotreallyapplytotheSelfinitself.TheyonlyapplytoquidditiesandtoGodwhoseexistenceispartofHisessence/quiddity. Inanycase,somethingwhichmayormaynotexistcouldnotbepureexistence,sinceexistenceisessentiallyexistent.Clearlytheobjectsoftheworldarecontingentlyexistent,andanAkbarianwouldthusreasonthattheyarenotpureexistence.Thiswouldappeartobethebeginningofakindofcosmologicalproof,butitisquestionablewhetherthisisevenapossibilityfortheAkbarians.WhenKāshānīsaysthatsomeexistentisnotpureexistence,his“isnot”isnotthesameasthe“isnot”inaPeripateticproofthatmightread,“TheNecessarybeingisnotpartoftheseriesofcontingentbeings.”ForKāshānī,sayingthatsomeexistentisnotthepureexistenceis,fromonepointofview,anepistemologicalstatementaswellasanontologicalone,becausehismetaphysicsdemandsthebasicidentityofthemanyintheone,theoneinthemany.Ifweviewsomeexistentthingonitsowninaccordancewithordinaryhumanexperience,itisnotpureexistence,butifallexistenceisultimatelyoneandiscoterminouswiththerealityoftheSelf,thenthatsameexistentisnotwhollyotherthanpureexistenceeither. Atthispointitneedstoberecalledthatintheusualformsofthecosmologicalproofoneistalkingaboutexistentsandnotexistence,thedifferencebetweenmawjūdandwujūd.ForthePeripateticsthereisnoimportantdifferencebetweenthesetwo16concepts,forindeedthemanyexistentsofthecosmospointtoGod,whoisalsoexistent 15Sharḥfuṣūṣal-ḥikam,4.16HenryCorbindiscussesthequestionofmawjūdandwujūd,esseandens,inhisimportantintroductiontohistranslationofMullāṢadrā’aK.al-Mashāʿir,LeLivredePénétrationsMétaphysiques(Paris,1964),62-85.
Page 97
85
albeitinadifferentway.Godisnecessaryofexistence(wājibal-wujūd),allotherthingsbeingcontingentofexistence(mumkinal-wujūd),buttheycanallbecalledexistent.TheAkbarians,however,almostneverspeakaboutthepureexistent,butofpureexistence.ItisinfactoneofthegreatcontributionsoftheAkbarianstoIslamicmetaphysicaldiscoursetomakeanimportantdistinction,atleastintheirconventionalusage,betweenwujūdandmawjūd.TheAkbariansusemawjūdor“existent”asadescriptionofafact,namelythefactofbeingorhavingexistence.“Existence”istherealityitselfthatisbeingdelineated. ForthePeripatetics,Godismawjūdnecessarily,andtheworldismawjūdcontingentuponGod.Thephrasewājibal-wujūddescribesjustthat.Whenthephraseisshortened,itisthe“necessary”thatiskeptandthe“existence”dropped,aswhenonereferstoal-Wājib,meaningGodas“theNecessary.”TheexistenceinvolvedisuniquetoGod,andtheexistenceofthingsisuniquetothem.Aswesawinthefirstchapter,theprimacyof“necessity”(wujūb)asacoremetaphysicalconcernregardingthenatureofGodsupersededapreviousemphasisplacedon“eternity”(qidam)versuscomingtobe(ḥudūth),butinbothcaseswearetalkingaboutqualifiersthatdesignatethestatusofanexistentthing,notexistenceassuch.Anytalkof“existenceassuch”forthePeripateticsispurelymentaloutsideofagivenindividual.WecanisolatetheexistenceassuchofanindividualorofGod,butitwillbethatthing’sorGod’sparticularexistence;otherwiseitwillbethatgeneralcategoryof“existence”thathasnoobjectivecounterpart,aswasdiscussedatlengthinthepreviouschapter.Aparticularbeingisnotexistentthroughexistenceassuch,butratherthroughitsownparticularexistence. BecauseoftheepistemologicaldimensionsofAkbarianthought,whichassumethatourperceptionofseparateexistenceforeachandeverythingisinasenseunreal,the“existence”inanytypeofontological-styleargumentisgoingtobedifferent,andmustbeso.Indeed,evenacosmological-typeargumentisgoingtobedifferent,becauseanystepsleadingfromthecontingenttothenecessary,orfromtheimperfecttotheperfect,willbeasepistemologicalasontological.Ratherthanfollowthetrailwithintherealmofmultiplebeingstoarriveoutsideofthatrealm,wearefollowingthetrailtofindthetruenatureofthosemultiplebeingsthemselves. ButisKāshānītryingtoproveGod’sexistenceanywhereinthisreasoning,implicitlyorexplicitly?Ibelievethat,attheveryleast,whatheistryingtoshowisthatanycoherentaccountofexistenceandofGod’sexistencehastosomehowtakeintoaccounttheveryconcept“existence.”Existentandexistencearetakentobetwodifferentthings,theformertotallysustainedand“constituted”bythelatter.Ifexistenceistrulyoneandindivisible,Kāshānīissaying,bothinconceptandintheobjectiveworld,itcanonlybeexistenceandneveranythingelse.Itisnotexistentsometimes,non-existentatothers,sincepurenothingnesscanneverreceiveorbecomeexistence.Itisthebusinessofexistencetoexist,byitsverynature.Nothingelsecanmakethisclaim. Theepistemologicalelementcomesinsincewehavetoharmonizetheclaimthatexistenceneverdoesanythingbutexistwiththeexperienceofmanythingswhichseemtosometimesexistandatothertimesgooutofexistence,andwhichinanycasecandoeitherwithoutabsurdity.Thetreeexistsnow,butdidnotexistbefore.Ifithasexistencenow,thenwhatisthestatusofthatexistence?Sinceexistencedoesnotbecomenothingness,andneitherdoesnothingnessbecomeexistence(sincenothingcannotbecomesomethinglogically),itmustbethatthetree’sexistenceisnotquitewhatit
Page 98
86
appearstobe.Otherwisetheideaof“existence”fallsapart.ThesolutionforKāshānīisthattheexistenceofthetree,asanobjectthatisouttherebyvirtueofitsownexistence,isillusory,andthatthetreeissomehowamanifestationofone,unchangingexistence. Ifanontologicalproof“deducesfrom…aninnateconceptofexistence…theobjectiverealitycorrespondingthereto”,17thenthereisindeedsomethingoftheontologicalproofinKāshānī.However,whatit“proves”islimitedtothescopeoftheconceptofexistence,nomatterhowbroadandall-encompassingtheconceptisunderstood,andaswehaveseenbeforetheAkbarianslimited“existence”toanapproximateandpedagogicaltoolforunderstandingthings.WhatIbelievewecansayisthattothedegreethatanontologicalproofispossibleandvalidfortheAkbarians,itmustbeofthekindthatKāshānīprovides.Thatistosay,itwillnotonlyarriveattheexistenceofGod,butwillnecessarilyarriveattheconclusionthatallexistenceisreallytheoneexistence.Withoutthislatterconclusion,theKāshānīwouldsay,yougetasituationwhereexistencebecomesnon-existenceandexistencebecomesexistence,whichislogicallyimpossibleforthesetwoconcepts.
* * * InthischapterwehaveexaminedonedimensionofKāshānī’streatmentofontology.Hetakes“existence”beyondthedualusageweobservedinQūnawīandJandī,where“existence”alternatedbetweenthemeaningofmanifestationontheonehandandexpressionofthemysteriousunityontheother,andtriestomakesenseofthemysteriousunityofexistencebylookingattheveryconceptofexistenceitself.WhereQūnawīandJandīmadedeclarationsabouttheonetrueexistence,Kāshānītriestoprovidearationalargumentastowhyexistence,evenattherationallevel,demandsthatourunderstandingofitultimatelyleadtooneindivisibleexistence.Thislevelofengagementwithproperlyphilosophicalmodesofdealingwithontologyarenotoftenreflectedinhislargerbodyofwritings.WhenonereadsmorefullyinKāshānīonefindslanguageandusageverysimilartohispredecessorsQūnawīandJandī,especiallyintheuseoftheconceptofidentification(taʿayyun)andlevelsofinwardnessandoutwardness.Indeed,thereasoningaboutexistenceinthefirstpartsofhisFuṣūṣcommentarydoesnotundergirdmostofhiswritingsonmetaphysicalquestions,buthiscontributiondoesrepresentarealadvanceintheunderstandingbetweenphilosophyandmysticism.InthenextchapterwewillseehowDāwūdal-Qayṣarīwilltakethisunderstandingevenfurther.
17FrithjofSchuon,LogicandTranscendence(NewYork,1975),59.
Page 99
87
ChapterFive:QayṣarīandtheLanguageofPhilosophy Dāwūdb.Maḥmūdb.Muḥammadal-Rūmīal-Qayṣarī1wasbornapproximatelyintheyear1260A.D.inthecentralAnatoliantownofKayseri,inthegeographicalcenterofpresent-dayTurkey,whencecomeshisnameal-Qayṣarī.Littleisknownabouttheearlylifeofthismajorintellectualfigure.HebeganhisscholarlyeducationinKayseri.AtsomepointhespentseveralyearsstudyinginEgypt,butitisunclearexactlywhenheleft,withwhomhestudied,orwhenhereturnedtoAsiaMinor.HestudiedattheTokat-NiksarNiẓāmiyyahschoolunderMuḥammadibnSartakal-Marāghī,whowasastudentofNaṣīral-Dīnal-Ṭūsī’sfamousMarāghahobservatorywhileitwasstillunderthedirectionofṬūsī’sson.Morethananobservatory,Marāghahwasacenterofhigherlearningwheremathematicsandphilosophywerestudied.ItisthoughtthatduringhistimewithIbnSartakQayṣarībecameintimatelyfamiliarwiththephilosophicalwritingsoftheGreeksandsuchIslamicthinkersasIbnSīnā,Ṭūsī,andAbūʾl-Barakātal-Baghdādī,inadditiontogainingknowledgeofotherintellectual(ʿaqlī)sciencessuchasmathematics.IthasalsobeenthoughtbysomethathewasadirectdiscipleofṢadral-Dīnal-Qūnawī,butthisishighlyunlikely,sinceQayṣarīisnotknowntohavegonetoKonyatostudy,andconsideringtheagesofthetwomenhewouldhavebeentooyoung.HewasinfactthedirectstudentofʿAbdal-Razzāqal-Kāshānī.WeknownodetailsofthemeetingbetweenQayṣarīandKāshānī.ItisKāshānīwhomQayṣarīmentionsashisteacherintheSufipathintheprefacetohisowncommentary. In1336SultanOrkhānGhāzīappointedQayṣarītoheadthefirstOttomanschoolsystem.Heservedinthispostuntilhisdeathin1350,teachingthetraditionalIslamicsciences,fromlawandexegesistotopicsinlogicandphilosophy,allthewhilecomposingsomeofthemostprofoundandimportanttreatisesintheAkbarianschool,themostfamousofwhichisMaṭlaʿkhuṣūṣal-kalimfīmaʿānīFuṣūṣal-ḥikam(IntroductiontoSpecialTerms:TheMeaningofTheRingstonesofWisdom),whichishisaforementionedcommentaryuponTheRingstonesofWisdomofIbnʿArabī.OtherworksofQayṣarīincludecommentariesuponal-Qaṣīdahal-tāʾiyyahandal-Qaṣīdahal-mīmiyyah(TheWineSong)oftheSufipoetIbnal-Fāriḍ.HealsocomposedaseminaltreatiseonthenatureoftimeentitledNihāyatal-Bayānfīdīrāyatal-zamān(TheUtmostExpositionoftheUnderstandingofTime).OthertreatisesincludeaRisālahfīʿilmal-taṣawwuf(TreatiseontheScienceofSufism),aRisālahfīmaʿrifatal-maḥabbahal-ḥaqīqiyyah(TreatiseConcerningKnowledgeofTrueLove),theAsāsal-waḥdāniyyahwa-mabnāʾl-fardāniyyah(FoundationsofOnenessandtheStructureofSolitariness),andTaḥqīqmāʾal-ḥayāhfīkashfasrāral-ẓulumāt(ExplanationoftheWaterofLife,asitConcernstheUnveilingofDarkness). TheinfluenceofQayṣarīspreadthroughoutAnatoliaandbeyondinhisowntime.HiswritingshadagreatimpactontheintellectualtraditionoftheOttomanempire,includingsuchfiguresasMollaFenari,2andIsmailBursevi.3ThroughQayṣarītheideas 1SeeMehmetBayraktar,“Davud-iKayseri.”İslamAnsiklopedisi,Istanbul,1994,vol.9,32-35,andal-Rasāʾill-Dāwūdal-Qaysarī,ed.MehmetBayraktar,Kayseri1997,3-22.2MuḥammadHamzatal-Fanārī(d.1430-1)whowroteamajorcommentaryuponQunawī’sMiftāḥal-ghaybentitledMiṣbāḥal-uns(ed.MuḥammadKhwājāwī,Tehran1995or1996),andwasthefirstOttomanjuristtobecalledshaykhal-Islām(Şeyhülislam).3IsmailHakkiBursevi(d.1724-5),whowroteapopularcommentaryupontheFuṣūṣ.
Page 100
88
oftheAkbarianschoolgainedanearlyfootholdintheOttomanworld.Theshaykhal-IslāmIbnKemāl(d.1534)issuedfatwāsdeclaringtheorthodoxyandlegitimacyofSufismingeneralandIbnʿArabī’sschoolinparticular.HiscommentaryuponTheRingstonesofWisdomwasuseduntilthetwentiethcenturyintheOttomanschoolsystemtoteachthemetaphysicsofIbnʿArabī.HisinfluencewasalsogreatinthePersianintellectualtradition.QayṣarīiscitedofteninworksoftheShiʿitetheologianHaydarĀmulī,andhisideascanbeseenclearlyinthewritingsofMullāṢadrā,especiallyhismoreʿirfānīor“Gnostic”writingssuchasal-Shawāhidal-rubūbiyyah.AmongtheArabs,ʿAbdal-Ghanīal-Nābulusī4andAmīrʿAbdal-Qādiral-Jazāʾirī5wereinfluencedbyQayṣarī.
TheProlegomena(al-Muqaddimāt)isthefirstpartofQayṣarī’sMaṭlaʿkhuṣūṣal-kalim,6whichisfollowedbyalinebylinecommentaryuponthetextofIbnʿArabī’sTheRingstonesofWisdom.Althoughitclaimsnomorethanthestatusofintroductoryremarkstoacommentaryonanotherwork,theProlegomenaisitselfamasterpieceofSufimetaphysics.Ithasinfactbeenoccasionallyclassifiedasaseparatework,butthisseemsunlikelyconsideringtheprefacegiventoitbyQayṣarīandtheunceremoniousconclusion.IntwelvechapterstheProlegomenacoverstheentirecycleofʿirfān,orgnosis,beginningwiththemostbasicmetaphysicalprinciples,expandingupontheminadiscussionofcosmologyandcosmogenesis,andconcludingwithdiscussionofspiritualanthropologyandtheexperiencesofthemysticaltraveler.Unliketheworkwhosecommentaryitismeanttointroduce,theProlegomenaissystematicandpedagogical,writtenlargelyinaphilosophicalstyle,employingstockphilosophicalvocabularyalongsidesymbolsandtermsdrawnfromrevelationandtradition.Thelanguageisclearandunambiguous,withouttherebysacrificingtheprofundityofthesubjectsaddressed.
* * *
InQūnawī,Jandī,andKāshānīwesawincreasinglysystematicprimersforthemetaphysicsoftheAkbarianschool,butinallofthesecasestheinitialimpetustoprovideasystematicsynthesiswassoonerorlaterdissipated.EvenKāshānī,whohadgivenarelativelyrationalandphilosophicalaccountofexistenceinthefirstpartsofhiscommentaryupontheFuṣūṣ,didnotgive“existence”orstrictlyphilosophicalideasthesameprideofplaceinhisotherwritingssuchashisglossaryofSufiterms.Also,theremainderofhiscommentaryupontheFuṣūṣdidnotsustainthephilosophicaltoneofitsopening IarguethatQayṣarīisreallythefirstmemberoftheAkbariantraditiontoenterfullyintotherealmofphilosophicaldiscourse,asamasterofsynthesisbetweentheideasoftheʿurafāʾandtheḥukamāʾ.HisProlegomenaisnotonlyphilosophicalinitscontentbutalsoinitspresentation,anachievementofbothintellectualvisionandpersuasivepedagogy.ThisisnottodenytheintellectualachievementsoftheearlierAkbarians,but 4ForadiscussionofhisconnectiontoIbnʿArabīseeElizabethSirriyeh,SufiVisionaryofDamascus:ʿAbdal-Ghanīal-Nābulūsī,1641-1731(NewYork,2004),18-38.5SeeM.Chodkiewicz,TheSpiritualWritingsofAmīrʿAbdal-Kader(NewYork,1995).6Thereareseveraleditionsofthiswork.QuotationsarefromtheeditionofMuḥammadḤasanSāʿidī(Tehran1995).IalsousedBayraktar’seditionofal-Rasāʾil(Prolegomenaonly)andJalāl-al-DīnĀshtiyānī’sedition(Maṭlaʿkhuṣūṣal-kalimfīmaʿānīFuṣūṣal-ḥikam,Tehran1984).
Page 101
89
simplytoemphasizethecraftsmanshipthatisevidentinQayṣarī’swork.Althoughthisisonlyasubjectiveappraisal,onefeelstheeffectsofIbnʿArabī’spenchantfornon-linearexpressioneveninhisintellectualsuccessors.ChitticksaidthatIbnʿArabī’sideasalwaysappearedfullyformed,withnolead-inorbuildup,andalthoughthewritingsofQūnawī,Jandī,andKāshānīwerecertainlymorefriendlytothenewreader,theywerestilldifficultofaccesstothenon-specialistinSufism.IthinkitisfairtosaythatthisisoftentrueevenwhentheAkbariansaremakinggoodfaitheffortstoreachouttothephilosophersandtheologians. Qayṣarī’sworkisnoteworthyforaclaritythatremindsoneofthewritingsofṢadrācenturieslater.ThisnodoubthaseverythingtodowithQayṣarī’sintentioninwritingtheProlegomena:toprovidetheseriousstudentadoseofpreparationbeforetakingonthestudyofthenotoriouslydifficultFuṣūṣal-ḥikam.Aswillbecomeclear,however,Qayṣarī’smostimportantcontributionisnotpedagogicalbutphilosophical,andhebridgestheconceptualspacebetweenthephilosophersandtheSufismoresuccessfullythananyhaddonebefore. TheProlegomenabeginswithalonganddetaileddiscussionofexistence.Existenceisanalyzedandcommentedonmethodically,withanotablephilosophicalapproachthatisnotaspresentinourpreviousauthors.Itbeginsfrontandcenterandremainsso,notonlythroughtheendoftheProlegomenabutthroughoutQayṣarī’sentirecommentaryontheFuṣūṣandinhisotherworksaswell.-ViaNegativa
TheProlegomenaconsistsoftwelvechapters,beginningwithachapteronexistence,followedbychaptersonvariouslevelsofreality.Thelaterchaptersdealmorewithintegratingtheinsightsaboutthenatureofthingsofferedintheearlychapterswithadiscussionoftheprogressionofthespirituallife,thenatureprophecyandsainthood,andeschatology.Naturally,thechapteronexistencewillconcernusprimarilyhere,althoughtherearerelevantpassagesinotherpartsoftheProlegomenaandinQayṣarī’sothertreatisesaswell.
Qayṣarībeginsbydescribingexistenceapophatically,andassumesthatwearealreadyfamiliarwithvariouskindsof“existence.”
ChapterOne:Onexistence,andthatitistheReal. Letitbeknownthatexistenceassuchisneitherexternalexistencenormentalexistence,sinceeachisonekindofexistence.Existenceassuch,notconditioned,isnotqualifiedbybeingunqualified,norisitqualifiedbybeingqualified.Itisneitheruniversalnorparticular,neithergeneralnorspecific.Itisnotoneinthesensethatonenessisaddedto(zāʾid)itsessence,andneitherisitmany.Thesethingsareentailedbyitbyvirtueofitsvariouslevelsandstations,whicharespokenofinGod’sBookwiththewords,Hewhoraisesthedegrees,thePossessoroftheThrone(23:15).Anditisunqualifiedandqualified,universalandparticular,generalandspecific,oneandmany.ItisallofthesewithoutitsEssenceandRealitybeingtouchedbychange. Existenceisnotasubstance,becausethatiswhatexistsexternallyandinasubjectoraquidditywhich,whenitexists,isindependentofasubject.Existenceisnotlikethat,becauseitwouldthenbelikeallotheridentifiedsubstances,in
Page 102
90
needofanexistenceaddedtoitself,andinneedoftheentailmentsofthatexistence. Norisexistenceanaccident,becausethatreferstowhatexistsinasubject,oraquidditywhich,whenitexists,isfoundinasubject. Now,existencedoesnotexistinthesensethatithasexistenceaddedtoit,andcertainlynotinthesensethatitexistsinasubject.Rather,itsexistentiality(mawjūdiyyah)isbasedonitsentityandessence,notsomethingelsewhichdiffersfromitintellectuallyorexternally.Furthermore,ifitwereanaccident,itwouldsubsistinasubjectthatwasitselfalreadyexistent.Thiswouldentailthatathingprecedeitself,andmoreovertheexistenceofthesetwothingswouldbeaddedtothem.Existencecannotbeadded(zāʾid)toitself.Owingtothefactthatitismoregeneralthanthesetwothings,existenceispartoftheirdefinition,andisthereforeotherthanthem. Norisexistencesimplyanobjectofconsideration,asisbelievedbywrongdoers,sinceexistenceisrealizedinitself,independentlyofthosewhoconsideritand,needlesstosay,independentlyoftheiractofconsideringofit.Thecaseisthesameintellectuallyorotherwise.RecallthattheProphetsaid,“Godwas,andnothingwaswithHim.”….Existenceisnotaqualityintheintellectinvolvingexistence…liketherelationshipofnecessitytoanecessarything,norofcontingencytoacontingentthing…. Nothingismoreevidentthanexistence,neitherinbeing(anniyyah)norinrealization,somuchsothatwesaythatitisself-evidentlyknown(badīhī).Yet,itisalsothemosthiddenofthings,bothinitsquiddityanditsreality.TheProphet,whoknewmorethananycreature,spoketruthfullywhenhesaidinhissupplication,“TheydonotknowTheeasThoushouldstbeknown.”7
ThisfirstandseminalpassageintroducesustoQayṣarī’stheoryofexistence.Hebeginswithanegativedescriptionofexistence,butthenegationalreadyincludesdivisionssuchas“mental”(dhihnī)and“external”(khārijī)existence.Qayṣarīdidnotinventtheseterms,andwasnotthefirsttousethem,butheintroducesthemherefromtheverybeginningandthetermswillcontinuetobepartofthefabricofhisexposition.Aswewillsee,thisisonlyoneofmanyconceptuallineshedrawstosystematicallydivideuptheconceptofexistence. ItisnosurprisethatQayṣarīnegates“substance,”“accident,”“general,”and“particular”fromexistence,buthedispenseswiththemnowonlytoreintegratethemelsewhere,asisquitetypical(seebelow).Ingeneralhedevelopsthethemethatapparentmultiplicitymaskstrueunity.Godisnotanyofthethingslistedinthispassage,yetmysteriouslyallofthesethingsareaspectsofthedivinerealitywithoutthatrealitybecomingmultiplebecauseofthatidentity.
HecontinuesthethinkingoftheAkbarianschoolonthestatusofexistenceassomethingexistent,i.e.existencedoesnotexistbyvirtueofsomethingelse,butexistsbecauseexistingiswhatitis.Ifitdidnotexistitwouldbesomethingelse,notexistence,whichwouldbelogicallyabsurdaccordingtothisreasoning.
7Prolegomena,13-14.
Page 103
91
WhereQayṣarīdoessomethingdifferent,however,atleastfromtheAkbarianperspective,istogosofarastosaythatexistenceisself-evident(badīhī),meaningitdoesnotneedtobeexplainedbysomethingelseinordertobeknown.Ofcoursehefollowsthisbypointingoutthattheself-evidentdimensionofexistenceisonlythebeginning,andthattherealityisthegreatestofmysteries.Thisisimportantbecausetheself-evidentnatureofexistenceisamajorparameterinphilosophicaldiscussions,andbecomesespeciallysointhethinkingofṢadrā. Butarenottermssuchas“being”(kawn)and“realization”(taḥaqquq)alsoself-evident?Thefollowingpassageshedslightontheuseofwujūdassomething“self-evident”:
Existenceisnotatermthatmeans“being,”“actualization,”“realization,”or“immutability,”ifbythisoneissimplyreferringtotheverbalnoun(maṣdar),becauseifso,itwouldnecessarilybeanaccident.Ifbythesetermsonemeanswhatismeantbythewordexistence,thenthereisnoargument,aswhentheFolkofGodrefertotheworld’sexistenceas“being”(kawn).Noneofthesetermswouldthenbeasubstanceoraccident,asubjectwehavealreadydiscussed. Existence is not known with respect to its reality, though it is known with respect to its thatness (anniyyah). Verbal definition would have to be based on something more well-known than existence in order to yield knowledge. Now, existence is necessarily more well-known than “being” and the others.8
Whyis“existence”moreself-evidentthanthese,andwhyisitnotalsoanaccident?ThisisnotexplicitlyexplainedbyQayṣarī,althoughthekeyclueisgivenbythephrase“ifbythesetermsonemeanswhatismeantbythewordexistence.”Thisisdifferentthansaying,forexample,“Ifbythesetermsonemeansexistence,thenthereisnoargument.”Thereissomethingthatthewordexistencesignifies,andthatiswhatisself-evident,obviously,sincethewordwujūddoesnotexistinotherlanguagesbuttheself-evidentthingdoesexistbyvirtueofbeingself-evident. Thisstilldoesnottelluswhywujūdshouldhaveprideofplaceoverkawnandtaḥaqquq,amongothersuchterms,whenitcomestobeingself-evident.IhavetriedtoargueintheprecedingchaptersthattheearlyAkbarians(IbnʿArabī,Qūnawī,Jandī)gavenosuchprideofplacetoexistence,intermsofself-evidentness,inanyfundamentalsense.Indeed,thenotionofbeingself-evidentbecomesespeciallyusefulafteronebeginstoinvestimportanceintheconceptofexistenceitself,asKāshānīdidinhisontological-stylereasoningaboutexistence.WhatIbelieveQayṣarīisdoingisweddingmetaphysicalinsighttophilosophicalconvention.TheIslamicphilosophicalandtheologicaltraditionhadlongsincechosenwujūdasitscentralonticidea,leavingbehindothercontenderssuchasanniyyahandhuwiyyahtoasecondaryposition.InGreekorEnglish,thepresenceofthecopulagives“being”and“is”anaturalfundamentality,sincetheyareinextricablybuiltintothelanguage.Butwujūdisnot“builtin”inthesameway.Itisfairtosaythatitsclaimtobeingasignifierofthatself-evidentthingistheproductofphilosophicalusageandagreementasmuchasanythingelse,andthisisatleastpartofthereasonwhyitbecomesthemetaphysicaltermforQayṣarī.Hecallstheself-evidentthing“whatismeantbyexistence”andalsoallowstermssuchaskawntomeanthesamethingiftheyareusedproperly,whichamountstosayingthatthetermissecondarytothe
8Ibid.,17.
Page 104
92
self-evidentmeaning.Thismeaningcanbesignifiedbytermsotherthanwujūd,asQayṣarīhimselfadmits.Thisismorethanthemalleabilityofwordsintheordinarysense.Icannotsay,“Iceisfrozenmilkifby‘milk’onemeans‘water’,”sincethisisjustanabuseoflanguage.Theapparentinterchangeabilityofkawn,wujūdandtaḥaqquqisnotlikethat,becausetheyaretechnicaltermscreatedtosignifyacertainmeaning;theirtechnicalsignificance(fīʾl-iṣtilāḥ)iswhatmatters,nottheiridiomaticusage(fīʾl-lughah). Qayṣarī’sadoptionofwujūdinthisway,andhisrecognitionthatothertermscanindeedmeanthesamething,showsthatthereisapracticalaswellasphilosophicalelementtohisphilosophy.Thephilosophicalelementconsistsofthediscussionsoftheunity,fundamentality,perfection,etc.ofexistence(whichwillbediscussedbelow),whilethefactthatthesediscussionsareindeedaboutexistenceisthepracticalelement.-ViaPositivaandtheMysteryofExistence NaturallyQayṣarīspendstimedescribingexistencecataphatically,andthisdimensionofhisontologyismorestronglyimbuedwiththenotionofthemysteryofidentificationbetweentheoneandthemany.HedoesnotwaverinusingwujūdtoidentifyGod,unlikehispredecessorswhowouldhavementionedwujūdandthenmovedontootherideaswithinthespaceofaparagraphorevenasentence.HispositivedescriptionsarealsoareminderthatQayṣarīseeshisontologyasbeingfundamentallyQurʾānic,notrationalistic.Thefollowingaresomeexamplesofhispositiveontology:
Existenceispuregoodness.Whatsoeverisgoodcomesfromexistence,andis[good]throughit.Itsubsistsbyitselfforitself,becauseitstandsinnoneedofsomethingoutsideofitself.ItistheSelf-Subsistentimmutableinitelf,andgrantsimmutabilitytowhatisother[thanitelf]. Ithasnobeginning.Otherwiseitwouldstandinneedofanexistingcause,foritwouldthenbeacontingent.Neitherdoesithaveanend.Otherwiseitwouldbeanattributeofnon-existence,andwouldthusbequalifiedbyitsoppositeorwouldhavetoundergoatransformation.Itisbeginningless(azalī)andendless(abadī).AndHeistheFirst,theLast,theInward,andtheOutward(57:3).ThisissobecausewhatevermanifestsintherealmofwhatiswitnessedorlieshiddenintheworldoftheunseenultimatelyreturnstoHim.AndHehathknowledgeovereverything(57:3).ThisissobecauseHeencompassesallthingsinHimself….9 Existenceisasinglerealitywhereinthereisnomultiplicity.Themultiplicityofitsmanifestationsdoesnotimpingeonitsbeingoneinitself.Itsidentificationanddistinctionsarebasedonitself,notsomethingaddedtoit.Thereisnothinginexistencethatisotherthanexistence,wheresuchathingcouldparticipatewithitinsomethingorbedistinguishedfromitbysomethingelse.Thisdoesnotimpingeonthetruththatitsrealitymanifestsinitsidentifiedlevels.Indeed,itistheprincipleofallidentificationsoftheNamesandQualities,andistheoriginofallthelociofmanifestationinknowledgeandinidentities.Itpossessesaonenesswhichdoesnotstandoppositemultiplicity,anditistheprincipleofthatonenesswhichdoesstandoppostitemultiplicity.ThisonenessisidenticalwithitsfundamentalUnity.TheonenessoftheNameswhichdoesstand
9Ibid.,16
Page 105
93
oppositemultiplicity,andwhichistheshadowofthatoneness,isalsoidenticalwithUnityfromacertainaspect.Weshallsoongiveanexplanationofthis,ifGodsowills….10 AndthuswhenyouknowthatexistenceistheReal,youknowthesecretofHeiswithyouwhereveryouare(57:4).AndWearenighertoHimthanyou,butyoudonotseeUs(56:85).…Andinyourselves;what,doyounotsee?(51:21)AnditisHewhoinheavenisGod,andonearthisGod(28:84).GodistheLightoftheheavensandtheearth(24:35).AndGodencompasseseverything(4:126).“Iwillbehisvision,hishearing…”11ThenthereisthemysteryintheProphet’swords,uponhimbepeace,saying,“Ifyouloweredarope,itwouldalightuponGod.”Theseareseveralamongthemysteriesofunity,spokenofthroughthelanguageofsymbolism….12
-“Existence-as-fundamental” UptothispointwehaveseenhowQayṣarī,inkeepingwithAkbarianthinking,hasestablishedthatultimaterealityisnoneofthethingsweknow,andyetmysteriouslyeverythingweknowisidenticalwithultimatereality.InwhatfollowsIaimtoenlargeuponvariousfacetsofQayṣarī’sdoctrineofexistence.Here,althoughhedoesnotmakementionoftheword,whatQayṣarīisdiscussing,inthecontextofrelating“essence”to“existence,”iswhatlaterphilosopherswouldcallaṣālah,orfundamentality:
Whetheritbeintheintellectorexternally,nothingcanberealizedexceptthroughexistence.Initselfitencompassesallthings,andallthingssubsistbyit.Wereitnotforexistence,nothingthatiswouldbe,neitherintheintellectnorexternally.Existencegrantsthingstheirsubsistence;indeed,existenceisthoseverythings.Itdisclosesitselfbyitsvariouslevels,andthusitisthattheformsandrealitiesofthingsaremanifestinknowledgeandconcretely.Wecallthesequidditiesandimmutableidentities,subjectsweshalldiscussinthethirdchapterofthisbook,ifGodsowills.
Thereisnointermediatebetweenitandnonexistence,justasthereisabsolutelynointermediatebetween“existent”and“nonexistent.”Therealquiddity—whichisintermediatebetweenitsproperexistenceanditsnonexistence—andnotionalabsolutenesshavenoactualrealization(fīnafsal-amr).Whatwearetalkingaboutisthatwhichdoesactuallyhaverealization…. Existenceassuchisone.Itisimpossiblethatanotherexistenceshouldberealizedoppositeexistence.Itisthroughexistencethatoppositesarerealizedandlikeobjectsgiventheirsubsistence.Indeed,itisexistencethatismanifestintheformsofoppositesandintheformsofallotherthings.Existencethusnecessarilyleadstotheunionofcontradictories,sinceonecontradictorycallsforthenegationoftheother.Thedifferencebetweenthetwosidesresidesintheintellect;inexistence,allaspectsareunified.Manifestation,hiddenness,andindeedalloftheopposingqualitiesofexistencealldisappearintheSourceofexistence.Thereisnodifferenceexceptintheintellect….
10Ibid.,1611Bukhārī81:3812Prolegomena,18-19
Page 106
94
Negativequalities,thoughtheystemfromnonexistence,alsostemfromexistenceinacertainrespect.Withrespecttointellectualexistence,allthedistinctaspects[ofthings]areidenticalwiththeothers.Becausetheyareunifiedinexistenceitself(ʿaynuhu)theyarealsounifiedintheintellect,sincewereitnotfortheirexistencethereintheywouldnothavebeenunified.Theabsenceoftheirunification(ijtimāʿ)inexternalexistence—whichisonekindofunqualifiedexistence—doesnotnegatetheirunificationinexistenceassuch.Itneverallowsofdivisionorseparationintoparts,neitherexternallynormentally,owingtoitssimplicity.Itpossessesneithergenusnorspecificdifference,andthereforepossessesnologicaldefinition.13
HeisimmutableinHimself,andgrantsimmutabilitytowhatisotherthanHimself,andtowhomthedivinenamesareattributed.ItisHetowhomtheprophetsandthesaintsinviteus.HeguidescreationtoHisEssence,andthroughHisprophetsinvitesHislociofmanifestationtotheveryquintessenceofunionandthelevelofHisSelfhood.ThroughtheirspeechHetellsusthatinHisSelfhoodHeiswitheverything,andthatinHisRealityHeiswithalllife.Moreover,HehasmadeusrememberthetruththatHeisidenticalwiththingsbysaying,AndHeistheFirst,theLast,theInward,andtheOutward,andHehathknowledgeovereverything.HeisidenticalwiththingsbyvirtueofHismanifestationinthegarmentsofHisNamesandQualities,inthetwoworldsofknowledgeandidentity.Yet,HeisotherthanthingsbyvirtueofthehiddennessofHisEssence,byvirtueoftheQualitiesthatmakeHimtranscendentbeyondanythingthatmightcallfordeficiencyanddeterioration,bybeingsethighabovelimitationandidentification,bybeingsoholyastoremainuntouchedbythemarksofcomingtobe(ḥudūth),14byHisengenderingandexistentiatingallthings,andbythefactofHisbeingconcealedfromthingswhilebeingmanifesttothem. Hebringsthingstonon-existenceintheGreaterResurrectionthroughthemanifestationofHisUnity,andthroughvanquishingthembywithdrawingtheiridentificationsandmarksofoccurrence,andbymakingthemnothing.WereadofthisinGod’sBookwhereHesays,WhoseistheKingdomthisday?ItisGod’s,theOne,theVanquisher(40:16),andalsowhereHesays,AllthingsperishsaveHisFace(28:88).IntheLesserResurrection,it[i.e.thisbringingtonon-existence]consistsofHisself-transmutationfromtheworldofwhatiswitnessedtotheworldoftheunseen,orfromoneformtoanotherwithinasingleworld….15
Inlatercenturiesphilosopherswouldtendtounderstandthehistoryofphilosophyintermsofthequestion:whatismorefundamental,existenceoressence?Ṣadrāwasthegreatchampionofaṣālatal-wujūd,whileitissaidthatSuhrawardīwasthefounderofthetraditionofaṣālatal-māhiyyah.Thisisonlytrueinasense,sincethisclassificationintotwodifferentbrandsoffundamentalitybecametypicalonlymuchlater.EvensayingthatIbnSīnāupheldexistence-as-fundamentalwouldbelikesayingthatAristotlewasanti-Darwinist,whichisperfectlytruefromonepointofviewbutactuallymisleading.Thus, 13Ibid.,14-15.14Thequalityofbeingcreatedintime,asopposedtoeternity(qidam).15Prolegomena,17-18.
Page 107
95
althoughquiteclearlyQayṣarīcouldbecalledanupholderof“existence-as-fundamental,”hecertainlydoesnotframeitthatwayandinnowayarguesagainstanyotherestablishedpositiononthequestion.
For“existence-as-fundamental,”allessences/quidditiesareultimatelyexplainableanddependentuponexistenceforeverythingtheyare;essencesarenothingbutdifferentmodesorlevelsofexistence,andhavenorealityontheirown.Upholdersof“quiddity/essence-as-fundamental”see“existence”asaconceptwithoutanyrealcontent,andplacetherealityandexplanatorypoweronthesideofessence.ForQayṣarī,theclaimisquitedirect:allthingshavetheirrealizationandsubsistencethroughexistence.Moreover,oppositionandrelationalityarethemselvesbasedontheoneexistence,eventhoughoppositesapparentlydemandeachother’sabsenceornon-existence.Theapparentopposition,realatitsownlevel,isresolvedintotheoneexistenceofwhichtheoppositesaremodalitiesormanifestations.
Qayṣarīalsoextendsthis“fundamentality”intoepistemology.Knowledge,likeanyotherqualityofGod,isnotseparatefromGod’sexistence,andindeedbecauseofthefundamentalonenessofexistenceallknowledgeisactuallyGod’sknowledge.Fromthepointofviewofindividualknowers,then,knowledgeisdependentinadirectwayuponexistence:
Anysubjectthatknowscanonlyknowthroughthemediationofexistence.Existenceisprimaryinthis.Indeed,allperfectionsareentailmentsofexistence.AlloftheQualities,suchasLife,Knowledge,Will,Power,Hearing,andSight,subsistbyexistence.ExistenceistheLiving,theAll-Knowing,theWilling,thePowerful,theHearing,andtheSeeinginItsEssence,notthroughtheintermediationofsomeotherthing.Itisthroughexistencethatallthingsareassociatedwiththeirperfections.Indeed,itisexistencethatmanifests—throughitsself-disclosureanditsself-transmutation—indiverseformsthroughtheformsofthoseperfections.Itthusbecomesdependentupontheessences,fortheytooareparticularexistencesthatdisappearatthelevelofUnityandmanifestatthelevelofOneness.16 QuidditiesaretheformsofHisperfectionsandthelociofmanifestationforHisNamesandQualities.Theyarefirstmanifestinthepresenceofknowledge,theninthepresenceofidentities,allbyvirtueofHisloveformanifestingHissignsandraisingHisbanners.Theyaremultiplewithrespecttotheforms,andyetHeremainswhatHeis,inHistrueUnityandinHiseternalperfections.HegraspstherealitiesofthingsthroughthatbywhichHegraspstherealityofHisEssence,notthroughsomethingelsesuchastheFirstIntellect,becausethoserealitiesareidenticalwithHistrueEssence,althoughtheyareotherthantheEssenceintermsofidentification.ThatwhichisotherthanHimdoesnotgraspHim.WereadofthisinGod’sBookwhereHesays,VisiongraspethHimnot,butHegraspethallvision(6:103),andwhereHesays,TheycomprehendHimnotinknowledge(20:110),andwhereHesays,TheymeasurenotGodwithHistruemeasure(6:91),andwhereHesays,GodwarnsyouthatyoubewareofHim;andGodis
16Ibid.,16.
Page 108
96
gentlewithHisservants(3:27).HehaswarnedHisservants,outofsympathyandcompassion,tonotwastetheirlivesintryingtoattaintosomethingimpossible.17
Insayingthatknowledgedependsuponexistence,Qayṣarīiscreatinganintersectionbetweenepistemologyandontology,averitableprecursorofṢadrā’sstatementthatknowledgeisthepresenceofexistencewithoutveil.InamoregeneralsensewhatQayṣarīissayingisthatthereisnosuchthingasaquality,beitofGodorofparticularthings,thatisnotknownthroughexistenceandwhichisnotthroughexistence. God’s“grasp”orperception(idrāk)ofthingsisnecessarilynothingotherthanHisEssence,fromtheAkbarianperspective.Hedescribesquiddities(whichheusesinterchangeablyherewithidentities,seebelow)asbeingmanifest“inknowledge”whichisnoneotherthanGod’sknowledge.God’sknowledgeisasinglereality,andHedoesnotknowthroughquidditiesbecausetheveryrealityofquidditiesisconstitutedbyHisknowledgeofHimself.ThemysteryisthatallofGod’sknowledgeofthingsisreallynoneotherthanHisknowledgeofHimself,sincetheessenceorquiddityofeverythinghasasitsrootadivinename. Ihavebeentryingtoarguefortheimportanceoftheintersectionbetweenknowingandbeing,betweenepistemologyandontology,fortheAkbarians.Before,theinsightthatourperceptionofthingsmaskedtheirunderlyingidentityinformedtheideasaboutthebeingofthosethingsinrelationtothedivinereality.Thatistosay,theearlierAkbariansmouldedtheirdiscourseaboutexistencetotheirknowledgeclaimsabouttheonenessunderlyingmultiplicity.Here,Qayṣarīhastakenthedoctrineoftheonenessofexistencetoitslogicalconclusionandtheresultantontologynowdeterminestheformoftheepistemology,inthestatement,“Anysubjectthatknowscanonlyknowthroughtheintermediationofexistence.”-Light
ExistenceispureLight.Itismanifestinitself,andisalocusofmanifestationforwhatisotherthanitself,sinceitisbyexistencethatallthingsareperceived.Itilluminatestheheavensoftheunseenandspirits,aswellastheearthofbodies,becauseitisthroughexistencethattheyexistandarereal.Itisthewellspringofallspiritualandbodilylights,anditsrealityisnotknowntowhatisotherthanitself…. Thegeneralexistencethatspreadsovertheidentitiesinthepresenceofknowledgeisoneofexistence’sshadows,makingitrelativebyitsgenerality.Likewise,mentalexistenceandexternalexistencearetwoshadowsofthisshadow,reinforcingitsrelativity.ThereisreferencetothisinGod’sBook,DoyounotseehowyouLordextendeththeshadow?HadHesowilledhewouldhavemadeitstill(25:45).18
AlthoughitwouldseemthatQayṣarī’suseofLighttodescriberealityisnotnew,whatisdifferentisthatQayṣarīisnotsayingthatGodislight,butthatexistenceislight,andthedifferenceisimportant.RatherthanmakingexistenceandlighttwoconceptsbywhichGodisdescribed,existenceisgivenprideofplaceandlightisusedasasymboltopointtoitstruenature.Asasymbol,lightrepresentsthatwhichisluminousandthatwhich
17Ibid.,18.18Ibid.,17.
Page 109
97
illuminates.Forontologythatmeansthatexistenceisbothwhatweknowwhatweknowby.Qayṣarīexpandsuponhisthoughtsastotheself-evidentnatureofexistenceintermsofbeing“betterknown,”orintermsofitsdefinition.Becauseofwhatexistenceis,ithasnodefinition(seebelow),inthatexistenceistheexplanationforeverythingandisexplainedbynothing.Thatmeansthatthetermsofanydefinitionwouldbewhollydependentuponexistenceandhencethedefinitionwouldbecircularatbestandultimatelymeaningless. Althoughthelightsymbolismismystical,itisputattheserviceofaphilosophicalideaandhencebecomesphilosophicalitself.Needlesstosay,thelightsymbolismheredoesnotevenapproachthatofSuhrawardī,norisitexactlythesame.Thefirstideaisexistenceastheprimeconcept(“existenceispurelight”),followedbytheusageofmysticalsymbolismtomakethepointthatexistenceisself-evidentinaphilosophicallymeaningfulway,notonlyintermsofspiritualexperience.-NecessityandContingency(wujūb,imkān)
Existenceisnecessaryinitself.Ifitwerecontingentitwouldhaveanexistentiatingcause,whichwouldentailathingprecedingitself….19Anythingthatiscontingentallowsofnon-existence.Innorespectdoesabsoluteexistenceallowofit,forexistenceisnecessaryinitself.Letnoonesaythattheexistenceofacontingentthingallowsofnon-existence,forwesaythat“theexistenceofacontingentthing”isareferencetoitsactualizationintherealmofexternalsanditsmanifestationtherein.Itisanaccidentoftrueexistence,revertingbacktoexistencewhentherelationalityiseliminated,notwhenthecontinentthingitselfiseliminated.Moreover,thatwhichallowsofsomethingmustremainwithwhatisallowedof,butexistencedoesnotremaintogetherwithnon-existence.Thatwhichallowsofnon-existenceisthequiddity,notitsexistence.Letnoonesay,“Ifyoumeantosaythatnon-existencecannotbeascribedtoexistence,weagree,butwhythenisitnotpermissibleforexistencetodisappearandvanishinitself?”Wesaytothisthatnon-existenceisnotathing,suchthatitcouldbeascribedtoquiddityorexistence.Whenwesaythataquiddityallowsofnon-existence,wemeanthatitallowsofhavingexistencewithdrawfromit.Thisisnotpermissibleasconcernsexistence,forifitwasitwouldrequirethatexistencebetransformedintonon-existence.Moreover,thepossibilityofitsnon-existencewouldthenbeanecessaryaspectofitsessence,butexistenceinescapablyandessentiallyrequiresitself,aswehavesaid.Asinglethingcannotrequireitselfaswellasthepossibilityofitsownnon-existence.Itsdisappearanceisthereforenotpossible.Inreality,thecontingentthingdoesnotceasetoexisteither,butbecomeshiddenandentersintotheinwardfromwhenceitbecamemanifest.Hewhoisveiledbelievesthatitceasestoexist,andimaginesthattheexistenceofthecontingentthinghasceasedtoexistaswell.Thisstemspurelyandsimplyfrompostulatingthatexistencehasindividualsresembling,forexample,theindividualsofmanintheexternalrealm.Thisisnotthecase,forindeedexistenceisasinglerealitywhereinthereistobefoundnomultiplicity.
19Ibid.,19.
Page 110
98
Wespeakofitsindividualswithregardtoitsbeingputintorelationwithquiddities.Therelationisanobjectofthought,possessingnoindividualsthatcouldceasetoexistordisappear.Indeed,itistherelationthatdisappears.Itsdisappearancedoesnotnecessitatethattheexistenceceasetoexistordisappear,forthiswouldnecessitatethattherealityofexistencebetransformedintotherealityofnon-existence.Thedisappearanceofexistenceinafundamentalmannerispreciselyandinescapablynon-existence,andthisisclearlyerroneous.20
Asmentionedinthepreviouschapter,theAkbariansdoindeedusetheideasofcontingencyandnecessitytotalkaboutGodandtheworld,buttheirmetaphysicalvisionofexistenceobligesthemtocometodifferentconclusionsaboutthesecategories.Forthephilosophersandthetheologians,necessitymeansthatGodexistsnecessarily,whileallotherthingsmayormaynotexist.Toputitanotherway,nothingintheessenceorquiddityofthingssaysanythingaboutexistingornotexisting,whileGod’sessenceorquiddity(ifoneallowsGodtohaveaquiddity)istoexist.Ofcourse,toacertainextenttheAkbariansmustagree,butasItriedtoshowinthelastchapter,theymustunderstanditinafundamentallydifferentway.Qayṣarīfusestheconceptsofnecessityandcontingencywiththeself-evidentnatureof“existence”asthatwhichexistsandmustexist.Thatistosay,hereinterpretswhatitmeanstosaythatGodnecessarilyexistsandtheworldcontingentlyexistsinlightoftheAkbarianassertionthatthereisonlyoneuniqueexistencewhichcannotpossiblynotexist. Actually,onthequestionofnecessityQayṣarīdoesnotgiveusverymuch.Rather,hisdescriptionofGodasNecessaryhasmoretodowiththefactthatGodistheonetrueexistencethatisidenticalwithallthings,byvirtueofHisqualitiesofmanifestation.MuchmoreinterestingforourpurposesisQayṣarī’sdiscussionofcontingency.Hesaysthatthecontingentthing(mumkin)allowsofnon-existence,thisbeingtheverydefinitionofcontingency,buttheexistenceofthethingdoesnotallowofnon-existence.21Theexistenceofacontingentobjectis,forhim,aquestionofmanifestationandtheactualizationofarelationship.“Thatwhichallows”(qābil)and“thatwhichisallowedof”(maqbūl)canberenderedasreceptacleandcontent,andQayṣarī’sargumentisthatwhenareceptaclereceivessomecontent,itabideswiththatcontent.Existencecannotreceivenon-existence,butaquidditycan,becauseaquiddityisnotanexistentialthingbutanattributeorrelationship. Inreality,whenacontingentthingcomestobeandthenceasestobe,itdoesnotreallyceasetoexist(i.e.haveexistence)but“hides”intheinwardnessfromwhenceitcame.Inanycase,non-existenceisnotathingsuchthatitcanbeattributedtosomething.EchoingKāshānī,Qayṣarīsaysthatexistencecannothavethepossibilityfornon-existenceasapartofwhatitis,sinceitwouldleadtothelogicalabsurdityofathingrequiringbothwhatitisandwhatitisnot.ThekeytounderstandingQayṣarī’sconceptionofcontingencyistheerror,asheseesit,ofpostulatingthatexistencehasindividualsthesamewaythat“man”hasindividualsintheexternalworld.Thisorthat 20Ibid.,22-3.21ItisprobablethatQayṣarīisformulatinganon-existenttheoreticalpositionhere(atimehonoredpracticeinIslamicthought)soastomakehisownpositionclearer.Philosophicaltextsarequiteclearthatthecontingencyofathingreferstothestatusofitsquiddity,notitsexistence.Indeed,thosethingswhichactuallyexistaresaidtoexistnecessarily,butthisis“necessitythroughanother”(wujūbbiʾl-ghayr).
Page 111
99
“existent”or“existence”isreallyouractofrelatingexistencetoaquiddity,andhenceisonlyanobjectofthought.Anobjectofthoughtcannotconcretelyexistorceasetoexistbecauseitisnotconcrete.Indeed,noindividualthingreallycomestobeorceasestobeassuch,becausethenotionofanindividualthingisentirelyconditionedbyourthought. Putindifferentterms,whatisreallycontingentaboutthingsintheworldisnottheirexistence,buttheirmanifestation.Somethingthatwashiddenandinwardisnowmanifestandoutward,butthisdoesnothaveanything(really)todowithitsexistenceforQayṣarī.Tothedegreethatexistenceisinvolvedincomingtobeandceasingtobe,oneisunderanillusion.Wehavehereanexampleofanontologycollidingwithaconceptualdivisionthatdevelopedwithinthematrixofadifferentkindofontology.Thatistosay,thediscourseof“necessity”and“contingency”inintellectualcircleswasbasedupontheseparationbetweenGodasanexistentontheonehandandtheworldasanexistentorcollectivityofexistentsontheother.WhatisatplayforQayṣarīisnotbeing(ontology)butourperception(epistemology).Somethingischanging,butitisnotexistence;or,attheveryleast,thechangeisnotonethatrequiresanythingtoreallyexistafternothavingexisted.-Homonymy,Synonymy,andEquivocality
RecallthatṬūsīdevotedconsiderableattentiontotheconceptoftashkīkandbelieveditsolvedimportantquandariesaboutthepredicationof“existence”ofbothGodandthings.WesawthatQūnawīwasnotconvincedbytheargumentfromtashkīkordidnotconsiderittobeterriblyimportant,althoughhedidsometimesmakeuseoftheconcepthimself.BothJandīandKāshānīobviouslyknewofit,butdidnotmakemuchimportantuseofit.WeseeQayṣarīspeakingatgreaterlengthaboutequivocalityandtherelatedconceptsofhomonymyandsynonymy,butatfirstreadingonemaybesurprisedatwhatheactuallysays.FirstIquotethepassagesrelevanttotheseideas,followedbyananalysis.
Abranch:Sinceexistencedoesnothavetrueindividualswhicharedistinctfromthe
realityofexistence,itcannotbeageneralattributeofthem.Moreover,ifitwereageneralattributeofthem,itwouldeitherbeasubstanceoranattribute,andwehavealreadymadeclearthatitisneithersubstancenoraccident.Also,existenceassuchispredicatedofrelativeexistences,becausewecanvalidlysay,“Thisexistenceisexistence.”Betweenanysubjectandpredicatestheremustbesomethingwhichunitesthemandsomethingwhichdistinguishesthem.Whatunitesthemhereisnoneotherthanexistence,andwhatdistinguishesthemisnoneotherthantheveryquiddity.Itisthusclearthatexistenceassuchistrulythesameasrelativeexistences.Otherwise,itwouldhavetonotbeexistence.Ouropponentthinksmuchoftheproductsofhisintelligence,exceptthathewillusetheterm“existence”forboththemandexistenceassuchhomonymously,whichisclearlyincorrect.
Letitnotbesaidthatexistencedoesnotoccurinitsindividualsequally,foritoccursintheexistenceof“cause”and“caused”throughpriorityandposteriority,intheexistenceof“substance”and“attribute”throughprimacy/priorityorlackthereof,andintheexistenceofthe“static”and“non-static”throughintensityandweakness.Itisthussaidofthemequivocally
Page 112
100
(tashkīk).Thatwhichissaidequivocallyisneithertheveryquiddityofathingnorapartofthatthing.Ifonemeanstosaythatpriorityandposteriority,primacy/priorityandthelackthereof,andintensityandweaknessarewhattheyarewithrespecttoexistenceassuch,wesaythatthisisincorrect,becausethesearerelationalthingswhichcannotbeconceivedofwithoutoneanother,andbecausethatwhichissaidequivocallyissaidwithreferencetouniversalityandgenerality.Now,existenceassuchisneithergeneralnorspecific.Ifonemeanstosaythatthesethingsareconsequents(lāḥiq)ofexistencebyvirtueofquiddities,thenthatiscorrect.However,thisdoesnotentailthatexistenceassuchisthatwhichissaidofthemequivocally,sincetothinkabouttheattributions(maʿrūḍāṭ)isnottothinkaboutexistence. ThisistheverythingsaidbytheFolkofGod,fortheysaythatexistence,withrespecttoitsdescentthroughthelevelsofbeings,itsmanifestationinthethoughtsofcontingentthings,andthemultiplicationofintermediaries,becomesincreasinglyhidden,itsmanifestationsandperfectionsweakening.Withrespecttoitsrecovery/ascent(qallah),itsluminosityintensifiesanditsmanifestationstrengthens,itsperfectionsandqualitiesbeingmanifest.Itismoreproperlysaidof(iṭlāq)thestrongthantheweak.Tofullyrealizethis,youmustknowthatexistencehaslociofmanifestationintheintellectjustasithaslociofmanifestationexternally.Amongthemarethegeneralentitiesandtheuniversals,whichhavenoexistenceexceptintheintellect.Itisonlybyvirtueofthatintellectualmanifestationthatexistenceissaidequivocallyoftheindividualsthatonerelatestoquiddities. Itisforthisreasonthatexistenceisspokenofasanobjectofthought,becauseassuchitisnotsaidofthemequivocally;rather,itissaidofthembyvirtueofbeingapredicable,intellectualuniversal.Thismeaningdoesnotnullifyitsbeingtheveryquiddityofitsindividualsbyvirtueofitsnaturaluniversal.Thevariegationamongtheindividualsofexistenceoccurs,notinexistenceitself,butratherinthemanifestationofitsspecialcharacteristics,suchascausativeness(ʿilliyyah)andcausedness(maʿlūliyyah)inthecaseofacauseandsomethingcaused,byitssubsistinginthecaseofasubstanceandnotsubsistinginitselfinthecaseofanaccident,andduetotheintensityofitsmanifestationinwhatisstaticandtheweaknessofitsmanifestationinwhatisnon-static…. Thisisenoughforonewhopossessesdiscernmentwhenitcomestothissubject.HewhosevisionhasbeenilluminatedbyGod,whounderstandswhathasbeensaid,andwhodevoteshimselftoitsstudywillhavenotroubleinfendingoffthedoubtscausedbyhisimagination,norincounteringfalsearguments.
ItisinGodwhomweseekhelp,andinHimdoweplaceourtrust.22
Wehavealreadysaidthatallperfectionisassociatedwiththingsbytheintermediationofexistence.Existenceisexistentinitsessence.HeistheLiving,theKnowing,theWilling,andthePowerfulinHisEssence,notthroughsomequalitysuperimposeduponthisEssence.Otherwise,inorderfortheseperfectionstoemanatefromHim,Hewouldstandinneedofsomeotherlife,knowledge,
22Prolegomena,23-5.
Page 113
101
will,andpower,becauseathingcanonlyemanatefromthatwhichisqualifiedbythatthing.Whenyouknowthis,youwillknowwhatismeantbysayingthatHisQualitiesareidenticalwithHisEssence,andHisRealitywillshowitselftoyou.Indeed,youwillknowthatitisthisthatismeant,andnotthatthelife,knowledge,andpowerthatemanatefromHimandwhichareentailmentsofHimareidenticalwithHisEssence.Thisideahascometodominateovertheunderstandingofsomepeople,andalthoughitmaybetruefromonepointofview,neverthelessatthelevelofUnityallidentificationsperish,andthereinremainsneitherqualitynorqualifiedobject,neithernamenornamed;allthatremainsistheEssence.Now,atthelevelofOneness—theleveloftheDivineNamesandQualities—thereistobefoundqualityandqualifiedobject,nameandnamed.Thisisthelevelofdivinity.ItisthesameaswhenwesaythatHisexistenceisidenticalwithHisEssence,meaningbythisthatHeisexistentinHimself,notthroughanexistencethatemanatesfromHim,foritisHisveryEssence.ThusLife,Knowledge,Power,andalltheotherpositiveQualitiesareunified,justasqualityandqualifiedobjectareunified,atthefirstlevel.Theintellectjudgestheretobeadifferencebetweenthesetwointheintellectjustasitjudgestheretobeadifferencebetweenqualityandqualifiedobjectintheintellect,althoughtheyareunifiedinexistenceitself.Thatistosay,theintellectjudgesthatKnowledgeisdistinctfromPowerandWillintheintellect,justasitjudgestheretobedistinctionbetweengenusandspecificdifference.InexistencethereisnaughtbuttheEssenceofUnity,justasthegenusandspecificdifferenceareonethingintheexternalrealm,thatis,aspecies.ItwasonthispointthatthePrinceoftheFaithful,ʿAlī,mayGodhonorhiscountenance,said,“PerfectsincerityliesindenyingHimqualities.” Atthesecondlevel,KnowledgeisdistinguishedfromPower,andPowerfromWill;thustheQualitiesbecomemultiple.ThroughtheirmultiplicitytheNamesandtheirlociofmanifestationbecomemultiple,andtheDivinerealitiesaredistinguishedfromoneanother.TheEssencereceivestheappellationsofLife,Knowledge,Power,andtheotherQualities,asdoestherealityentailedbytheEssencewithrespecttoitsbeingdistinctfromItintermsof“homonymy”(ishtirāklafẓī).23Thisissobecausesuchrealitiesareaccidentsinonerespect,beingeitherpureactsofrelationorbeingatruequalityinvolvinganactofrelation.Fromanotherpointofviewtheyaresubstances,asinthecaseofuncoupledthings,sinceItsknowledgeoftheiressencesisidenticalwiththeiressencesinacertainrespect.SuchisthecaseforLifeandPower.ThatEssenceistoomajestictobeasubstanceoranaccident. TherealityofwhatismeantaboveshallbecomemanifestforhetowhomismanifestthetruththattheDivineSelfhoodflowsinallsubstances—theQualitiesbeingidenticalwiththesesubstances—andtowhomismanifestthereasonwhytheserealitiesareuniqueexistences.TheEssenceofUnityisabsoluteexistence.Therelativeistheabsolutewithanidentificationrelatedtoit.Itcanalsobesaidthattherelativeresultsfromtheself-disclosuresoftheAbsolute.Inthiscase,theyaresaidoftheserealitiesandtheEssencethrough“synonomy”
23Literally“sharingthesameterm”.ThismeansthatthisrealitydiffersfromtheEssenceinitsquiddity.
Page 114
102
(ishtirākmaʿnawi)24equivocally,andaresaidoftheindividualsofaspecies—suchastheidentificationsinknowledge,forexample—univocally.Theserealitiescanbesuchastobeneithersubstancenoraccident,beingeternalandnecessary;orcontingentsubstancesthatcometobe,ortheattributeswhicharedependentuponthesubstances.25Itallowsofneitherintensificationnorweaknessinitself,becausethesetwo[things]areinconceivableoutsideofanentitythatdwellsinsomethingstatic,suchaswhiteandblackindwellingintwoloci,orinsomethingnon-staticwhichpurposestowardssomeendconsistingofincreaseordiminution,suchasmotion.Increase,diminution,intensity,andweaknessoccurinit(wāqiʿʿalā)inaccordancewithititsmanifestationandhiddennessinsomelevel;anexampleofsomethingstaticinitselfbeingabody,andanexampleofsomethingnon-staticinitselfbeingmotionandtime.26
Inanotherofhistreatises(Asāsal-waḥdāniyyahwa-mabnāʾl-fardāniyyah),hewritesthefollowingabouttashkīk:
“Existence”issaidof(iṭlāq)variousmeaningshomonymously(ishtirāklafẓī),someofthemattribute(ʿaraḍ)andsomeofthemneithersubstancenorattribute.Itissaidofattainment(ḥuṣūl),manifestation(ẓuhūr),andrealization(taḥaqquq).Recallthatonesaysofathing,“itexists”(wujida)or,“itisrealized”(taḥaqqaqa)whenitexistsorisrealized.Itismanifestinthevisibleworldafterhavingbeenattainedintheinvisibleworld—theworldofuncoupledentities,theworldofspiritsthatistheworldofimages,sinceallspiritshaveformstherein.Accordingtothismeaning,“existence”issaidsynonymously(ishtirākmaʿnawī)ofallexistentsequivocally.Itis[also]saidoftherealitybywhichmental,externalandotherkindsofexistenceareconstituted/subsist(yataqawwamu).Thatexistenceisthetrueexistencewhichsubsistsby/constitutesitself,andgivessubsistencetowhatisother[thanitself].Thereisnodoubtthat“attainment,”“realization,”and“manifestation,”are[ofthecategoryof]attribute(ʿaraḍ),andthattherealitywhichsubsistsbyitselfandlendssubsistencetoeverythingotherthanitself—substancesandattributesandtheirknowledge-andconcreteexistences—isneithersubstancenorattribute.27
IfoneassumesthattheheartoftheontologylaterexpoundedbyMullāṢadrāisinessencethesameasthatoftheAkbarianschool,itwouldbereasonabletoexpectthatwhenoneofthemembersofthatschoolbegantomakeserioususeoftheconceptofequivocalityinhisontology,itwouldlooksomethingverymuchlikeṢadrā’suseofit.Againstthisbackground,ourfirstcauseforpuzzlementmightbeQayṣarī’sassertionthat
24Forexample,byvirtueofexistencebeingone,therealityofknowledgeisone.Inthestatement,“AisknowledgeandBisknowledge,”knowledgeisnotonlyacommonterm(ishtirāklafẓī)butacommonmeaning(ishtirākmaʿnawī).Thequidditiesaredifferentbuttherealityisone.Itsbeinggradated(mushakkak)doesnotnullifyitsoneness.25Prolegomena,27-9.26Ibid.,15-16.27Bayraktar,al-Rasāʾil,154.
Page 115
103
“existenceisspokenofasanobjectofthought(iʿtibārī),becauseassuchitisnotsaidofthem[differentmanifestations]equivocally;rather,itissaidofthembyvirtueofbeingapredicable,intellectualuniversal.”ThissoundssuspiciouslysimilartothePeripateticpositiononexistence,whichasṬūsīmadeclearmorethanonceonlyallowstheequivocalpredicationofexistenceifthat“existence”isthegeneralconceptinthemind,nottheconcretethingitself.ThisisechoedbyQayṣarī’s“predicable,intellectualuniversal.”Butthisisthesamewriterwhojustsaid,“Existenceassuchistrulythesameasrelative(muḍāf)existences.” ThekeytounderstandingQayṣarī’sapparentagreementwiththePeripateticsonthesubjectofequivocalityisthequalifyingphrase“assuch”(minḥaythuhuwa,orminḥaythuhuwawujūd).Thereareanynumberofwaystorenderthis,suchas“existencequaexistence”or“existencewithrespecttoexistence,”but“existenceassuch”worksinmostcases.Qayṣarīagrees(inpart)withṬūsīthatexistenceassuchcannotbethethingyoupredicateequivocallyofmanythings,buttheiragreementisaccidentalandonlyshowsthecontrastintheirunderlyingvisionsofontology.Qayṣarīwantstoprotectexistenceassuchfromequivocalpredicationbecauseexistenceis,inreality,one,whileṬūsīwantstoprotectexistencefromthesamepredicationbecauseexistenceis,inreality,notone.AsweobservedinthediscussionofpredicationbetweenṬūsīandQūnawī,andintheontologicalproofinKāshānī,thecrucialdifferenceinparsingQayṣarī’sviewsontashkīkandwujūdfromthePeripatetics’view—whichisIbelieverepresentedfaithfullybyṬūsī—isthestatusofexistenceaseitheroneconcreterealityormanyconcreteandirreduciblerealities. ItisinterestingthatQayṣarīreasonsthatequivocalpredication,performedcarelessly,willactuallynullifyhisdoctrinethatallexistencesareactuallytheoneexistence,forṬūsīalsoreasonsthatthiswouldextendaproperlymentalideaintoaconcreteone.Qayṣarīinsistsontheintegrity“existenceassuch”anddoesnotallowequivocalpredicationofitbecauseforhimitisnotexistencequaexistencethatisequivocalorgradated(mushakkak),butexistencequaquiddity.Inthepassagequotedabove,hedisallowstheideathatpriorityandposteriority,strengthandweakness,andsimilarsubdivisionsarepredicableofexistenceassuch,butheallowsitsolongasonemeans“consequentsofexistencebyvirtueofquiddities.”Quidditiesareobjectsofthought(iʿtibārī)orasIzutsumightsay,“fictional”entities,whichistosaythattheyaresomehowtheresultofmentaloperationsperformeduponexistence.The“existence”producedbythismentaloperationisonehalfoftheontologicalpairexistence-quiddity,anditistothismentalpairthatequivocalpredicationapplies. Now,strangelythereisabifurcationinQayṣarī’slanguageaboutthedifferentmodesofexistence.“Substanceandattribute”or“causeandcaused”arequalificationsthatseemtohaveadifferentstatusforhimthan“manifest/apparentandhidden”or“inwardandoutward”(ẓāhirandbāṭin).Thelatterconcepts,familiartousthroughoutthewritingsoftheAkbarianschool,appearinQayṣarītohaveanexplanatorypoweroverthemorephilosophicalideasofsubstance/accident,priority/posteriority,andthelike.Existence“manifests”concretelyandmentally,whichisthetrueexplanationfortheconceptualdivisionofexistenceintothesevariouskinds.Ifwetranslateẓuhūras“appearance”ratherthan“outwardness”or“manifestation”wecanperhapsunderstandwhyQayṣarīmightgiveitadifferentstatus.Tospeakaboutthewaysomethingappearstousistoaskaquestionaboutepistemology,notontology.Thatistosay,itisbyvirtue
Page 116
104
ofthewaythattheoneexistenceappearstousthatwearriveatthequidditiesof“substance”and“accident”andotherslikethem,andnotonlythesegeneralcategoriesbutthequidditiesofallparticularthings. ThiswouldbequiteinkeepingwithmygeneralcontentionthatAkbarianontologyhingesuponitsepistemology.Theequivocalpredication(biʾl-tashkīk)ofthingssuchassubstance,priority,andcauseisdependentuponourperceptionoftheoneexistenceasmanyexistences,andinthissenseconsistsoffalseattributionsbaseduponafalseperception.However,whenQayṣarīspeaksofexistence’s“perfections”and“appearance”tous,itseemstobeassumedthattheexistencewhose“luminosity”strengthensorweakensalongwithitsperfectionsisthatvery“existenceassuch”whichistrulyone,whereastheexistencewhichdividesupintosubstance,cause,etc.isnotexistenceassuchbutamentaluniversal.Thecentralproblemofperceptionarisesonceagain:whatwethinkofasbeingdistinctentitiesarenotultimatelyseparate.
Thisirreducibleaxiomof“theoneinthemany”inAkbarianthoughtguideseverythingtheycansayaboutontology.IbelieveQayṣarīallowsforamoresymbolicmodeoflanguage—anagogicalperhaps—inspeakingabouttheperfectionandluminosityofexistenceappearingtous,butstickstohishighlevelofintellectualrigorwhenhebringsthediscussionbacktotraditionalphilosophicalcategoriessuchassubstanceandcause.Thissymbolicmode,whichissimilartohispredecessors,isperhapsannouncedbyhissayingthat,“ThisistheverythingsaidbytheFolkofGod,”namelytheSufis,notthephilosophers(ḥukamāʾ).Ithinkthissymbolicmode—oremphasisuponthe“mystery”ofexistence—isimplicithere,becauseQayṣarīdoesnotannouncethatheischangingthemannerinwhichheistalkingaboutequivocalpredication.Rather,heusesthenotionofappearance(ẓuhūr),aconceptintimatelytiedupwithperception,tomakesureweassignequivocalpredicationtothe“intellectualuniversal”andnottotherealityitself.Ifweareclearthatwhatwethinkweperceive(themany)isnotthetruereality(theone),thenwecanuseequivocalpredicationproperly,assigningitto“existenceasuniversalconcept”andnot“existenceassuch.”
Butaproblemarises,becausethewayQayṣarīdiscusseshomonymyand
synonymymaymodifywhathesaidaboutequivocalpredicationabove.AtthelevelofUnity(aḥadiyyah),whichisthelevelofnon-identificationdiscussedinthepreviouschapterandinearlierchapters,questionsofpredicationdonotarisebecauseoneassertstotalnon-dualitybydefinition.Atthelevelofoneness(wāḥidiyyah),orthefirstidentification,thepersonalGod,distinctionsappearbetweenGodandtheworldandalsobetweenGod’svariousqualities.ThequalitiesofLife,Knowledge,andPowerarepredicatedoftheEssencequaEssence,buttheyarealsopredicatedoftheNamesandQualities.AccordingtoQayṣarī,inthispredicationonlytheterm(“Powerful,”“Living”)isthesame(ishtirāklafẓī),forthemeaningisdifferent.Inthiscase,QayṣarīisviewingtheNamesandQualitiesaskindsof“attributes”(aʿrāḍ),i.e.ofsomesubstance,becausetheyareeitherpurelyrelationalorhavesomekindofrelationality(iḍāfah)inthem.
Fromanotherpointofview,however,“power”and“knowledge”andsimilarrealitiesaresaidoftheEssence/SelfandthedivineNamessynonymously(ishtirākmaʿnawī)andequivocally(biʾl-tashkīk).ThebasisforthispointofviewisthedivineSelfhood’s(huwiyyah)flowing-throughout(sarayān)allsubstancesanditsbeingthoseverysubstances,orthefactthatthingsresultfromtheself-disclosureofthedivineSelf.
Page 117
105
Inthiscasetherealities(thingslikepower,knowledge,andlife)canbesaidofboththeEssence/Selfandotherthingsequivocallyandwithacommonmeaning.Moreover,theycanbesaidofothersubstancesandaccidentsinthesameway.
InthesecondquotationQayṣarīspeaksof“existence”itselfbeingpredicatedasacommontermofthingslike“attainment”and“realization”,andIassumewhathemeansisthatweoftenusetheword“exists”thewayweuse“isrealized”.Thenhespeaksabouthowexistenceissaidofallthings,asabove,asacommonmeaning(ishtirākmaʿnawī)equivocally(tashkīk).Ifwethinkofindividualexistentsasarisingfromhigherlevelsofreality,andultimatelyfromthetrueexistencewhichsubsistsonitsown,wecanthenpredicate“existence”equivocallyasacommonmeaning,andnotonlyacommonterm.
ThesearetheonlyinstancesinwhichIcanfindQayṣarītalkingaboutishtirāk(commonality,eitherverbalorinmeaning)inpredication,whichisintimatelyrelatedtothenotionofequivocality.VerbalcommonalityisusedinthecaseofdivineQualitieswhentheseQualitiesseenasattributes(ʿaraḍ).WhentheQualitiesareseenasconceptuallyseparatefromtheEssence/Self,theappellation“Living”isusedforeachofthembutthemeaningisdifferent;hencetheverbalcommonality.ButwhentheQualityisseenasbeingadimensionoftheEssence/Self,asaresultoftheSelfhood(huwiyyah)flowingthroughoutthings,thentheappellationalsocarriesthesamemeaningbutinadifferentway;hencethecommonmeaningwithequivocality,i.e.gradesofpredicationofthesamequality.
IhavedifficultyunderstandingwhatQayṣarīmeansinsayingthat“existence”issaidofattainment,realization,andmanifestationverbally(ishtirāklafẓī),exceptthatthismeansthatthesearewordsweordinarilyequatewith“existence”butwhicharenotthesame,sinceexistenceismorefundamental.Thusthe“existence”weequatewith“attainment”(ḥuṣūl)isonlyverballycommonwithtrueexistence;themeaningoftrueexistenceisdifferent.FromthewayQayṣarīspeaksofcommonmeaning(ishtirākmaʿnawī)Iunderstandthatthereneedstobeaspecialwayinwhichexistence(orsomeotherpredicate)isusedinorderforittobethesamemeaningthatispredicatedofseveralthingsequivocally.
Inthelaterformulationofthenotionofequivocality,asinMullāṢadrā,therearetwosensesoftheconcept.Oneisequivocalityorgradationinpredicationwherethatwhichdistinguishesthingsisdifferentthanthatwhichmakesthemthesame.Thisis“general”equivocality,andanexampleofitwouldbetheexistenceoftwomenwheretheyhave“existence”incommonbutaredistinguishedbyotherfactors.Anotherkindofgradationorequivocalityoccurswhenthatwhichdistinguishesthingsfromeachotheristheverythingthattheyshareincommon.Thisiscalled“special”equivocality.Light,forexample,differsinitskindsandintensitiesofluminosity,butluminosityisalsowhattheyhaveincommon.AsthiswouldbeappliedtoexistenceinṢadrā’sthought,theconcept“existence”waspredicatedinthegeneralmode,whiletherealityofitwaspredicatedinthespecialmode.Thismeansthatconceptuallywemakeaseparationbetweentheexistencepropertoatreeandtheexistencepropertoarock,andinourmindsconsiderthesetwoexistencestobeseparate,buildingourdistinctionontheiressences(treeness,rockness).Inreality,however,existencebeingexistenceiswhatmakesatreeatreeandarockarock,andessencesarejustformsweassigntothemanifoldmodesofexistence.
Page 118
106
Thequestion,then,iswhetherwecanobservethisdistinctioninQayṣarī.CertainlyQayṣarīdoesnotformulateafull-fledgeddoctrineofequivocality,anddoesnotmakeasmuchuseofitashetheoreticallycouldhave,althoughhedoessomuchmorethanhispredecessors.Ishis“predicationthroughequivocalcommonmeaning”(biʾl-ishtirākal-maʿnawīʿalāsabīlal-tashkīk)thesameasthelaterphilosophers’“specialequivocality”?Ibelievethatmustbewhatheissaying,althoughhedoesnotsayitaselegantlyandsystematicallyasitwillbesaidmuchlater.Imakesenseofitinthefollowingway:WhenQayṣarīdeniesthatexistenceassuchissaidofthingsequivocally,hemustmeanequivocalityinthegeneralsense,i.e.thesenseinwhicheachindividualobjectissaidtohaveexistencebutwherethedistinguishingfactorisnotexistenceitselfbutotherattributes.Thisisreallyjusttheordinaryconceptofexistence,andwhenweapplyitequivocallytomanythings,thisgradationinpredicationdoesnotstemfromexistenceitselfbutfromtheessencesofthosethings.Whenheusestheideaofcommonmeaningsaidequivocallyofthings,hemustmeanequivocalityinthespecialsense,becauseinbothcaseshementionsthisequivocalityinthecontextoftheonetrueexistence,itsself-disclosure(tajallī),oritsflowing-throughout(sarayān).Thisisnottheordinaryconceptofexistence,butitstruereality,whichistheveryrealityofallotherperceivedexistences.
IthinkQayṣarīdoesnotusetashkīkoftenenoughandclearlyenoughtocategoricallysaythathecompletelyanticipatedṢadrā’sdoctrine,butastrongargumentcanbemadethathedid.Heseemstorecognizethedifferencebetweenequivocalpredicationofasitrelatestoageneralconceptandequivocalpredicationasitrelatestothetruereality,andhedoessointheframeworkofacknowledgingthatexistenceisone,fundamental,andself-evident,allhallmarksofṢadrā’sontology.-LanguageofPhilosophyoverMysticalIdeas Notonlydoesthephilosophicallyunderstoodconcept“existence”takecenterstageforQayṣarī,butheadoptsmodesofexpoundinghismetaphysicsinwhichphilosophicalterminologyandconceptualdevicesactuallydisplacetraditionalAkbarianstructures.HealsoconsciouslycomparesthecategoriesofSufismwiththoseofphilosophy,andimpliesthatthevisionofrealitytheyexpoundisfundamentallythesame.InthefollowingpassageQayṣarīadoptsanewwayofgivinganaccountofthelevelsofreality,whichwouldotherwisehavebeenpresentedas“identifications”oreven“presences.”
Referencetosomeoftheuniversallevels,andtheterminologyoftheFolkofGodwhentheyspeakofthem: Whentherealityofexistenceisconsideredwiththeconditionthatnothingelsebewithit28,itisreferredtobytheFolkasthelevelofUnity,whereinalltheNamesandQualitiesdisappear.ThislevelisalsocalledtheUnionofUnion,theRealityofRealities,andtheCloud. Therealityofexistencecanalsobeconsideredasconditionedbysomething.Whenitisconsideredconditionedbyallthingsentailedbyit,betheyuniversalorparticular,itisthebearertheNamesandQualities.Thisisthelevel
28I.e.negativelyconditioned
Page 119
107
ofDivinity(ilāhiyyah),referredtobytheFolkasOneness(wāḥidiyyah)andtheStationofUnion.ThislevelisreferredasthelevelofLordshipwhenitisconsideredwithrespecttotheNames’lociofmanifestation(i.e.theidentitiesandrealities)attainingtotheperfectionsthatcorrespondtotheirpreparednessintheexternalrealm. Whentherealityofexistenceisconsideredneitherconditionednornegativelyconditioned,itiscalledtheSelfhoodthatflowsinallexistentthings. Whentherealityofexistenceisconsideredconditionedbytheimmutabilityofknowledge-realmformstherein(i.e.intherealityofexistence),itistheleveloftheNamestheInwardconsideredinanabsoluteway,29theFirst,theKnowing,andtheLordoftheimmutableidentities. Whentherealityofexistenceisconsideredconditionedbyonlytheuniversalsofthings,itistheleveloftheNametheAll-Merciful(al-Raḥmān),LordoftheFirstIntellect(al-ʿaqlal-awwal),whichlatterisreferredtoastheTabletofDecree(lawḥal-qaḍāʾ),theMotheroftheBook(ummal-kitāb),andtheExaltedPen(al-qalamal-aʿlā).Whenitisconsideredconditionedbytheuniversalsthereinbeingfixedandexplicit(mufaṣṣal)particulars,withoutbeingveiledfromtheiruniversals,itistheleveloftheNametheCompassionate(al-Raḥīm),LordoftheUniversalSoul(al-nafsal-kulliyyah).ThislatterisreferredtoastheTabletofOrdainment(lawḥal-qadar);itisthePreservedTablet(al-lawḥal-maḥfūẓ)andtheEvidentBook(al-kitābal-mubīn).Whenitisconsideredconditionedbytheexplicitformsbeingdifferentiatedparticulars,itistheleveloftheNamestheEraser,theAffirmer,theGiverofLife,andtheGiverofDeath,LordoftheImprintableSoul(al-nafsal-munṭabiʿ)intheuniversalcorporealbody(al-jismal-kullī).ThisImprintableSoulisreferredtoastheTabletofErasureandAffirmation(lawḥal-maḥwwaʾl-ithbāt). Whenitisconsideredconditionedbybeingarecipientforthespiritualandcorporealspeciesforms,itistheleveloftheNametheRecipient,LordofUniversalHyle(al-hayūlāal-kulliyyah),whichlatterisreferredtoasthebookinscribedandtheparchmentunrolled(52:2-3).Whenitisconsideredconditionedbybeingabletoeffectandbeeffected,itistheleveloftheNametheAgent,whichwealsorefertoastheExistentiatorandtheCreator,LordofUniversalNature(al-ṭabīʿahal-kulliyyah).Whenitisconsideredconditionedbythespiritualanduncoupledforms,itistheleveloftheNametheKnowing,theElaborator,andtheDirector,Lordoftheuniversalintellectsandrationalsouls. Whatisreferredintheterminologyofthephilosophersas“uncoupledintellect”(ʿaqlmujarrad)30isreferredintheterminologyoftheFolkofGodas“spirit,”andthusonecallstheFirstIntellecttheSacredSpirit.Whatthe
29Muṭlaq.“Absolute”isoftenusedinthesamesensethatonespeaksof“absolutenumber,”thatis,notsubjecttoanyrelationorrelativity.Thiswordcanalsobetranslatedas“non-delimited”or“non-determined.”Itisbasicallysynonymouswithbeingnegativelyconditioned,whereasbeingconditionedissynonymouswithbeingconsideredtogetherwithorinlightofsomethingelse,i.e.,asrelative.WereadlaterthattheNametheOutwardcanalsobeconsideredquaitsrelationtootherNames.30Uncoupledreferstotheseparationofformfrommatter.Uncoupledspiritsarecompletelyfreefromthematerialpoleofexistence.
Page 120
108
philosopherscall“uncoupledsoul”theFolkcall“heart,”sincetheuniversalsareexplicitinthissoul,andthissoulwitnessestheminidentity.Whentheysay“soul,”theyarereferringtotheanimalimprintablesoul. Whentherealityofexistenceisconsideredconditionedbythesensorialformsoftheunseen,itisthelevelofNameoftheGiverofForms,Lordoftheabsoluteandrelativeimaginalworlds.Whenitisconsideredconditionedbythesensorialformsoftherealmofwhatiswitnessed,itistheleveloftheNametheManifestconsideredabsolutely,andtheLast,Lordoftheworldofthekingdom. ThelevelofthePerfectManreferstotheunionofalllevels,[both]divineandoftherealmofbeing(kawn),oftheuniversalandparticularspiritsandsouls,andofthelevelsofnatureallthewaydowntothefinaldescentofexistence.ItisalsoreferredtoastheleveloftheCloud.Itcorrespondstothelevelofdivinity,andthereisnodifferencebetweenthemexceptthroughbeingLordandbeingvassal.ThatiswhyheistheVicegerentofGod.Whenyouknowallofthis,youwillknowthedifferencesbetweenthelevelsofdivinity,oflordship,andofbeing.31
AsIhavetriedtoemphasizeinthepreviouschapters,thenotionof“identification,”whichisnotaverycentraltermforIbnʿArabī,becomesanimportantconceptbywhichhissuccessorstrytocontructtheirmetaphysics.WhatstrikesusaboutQayṣarī’sexpositionofthevariousmodesorlevelsofrealityisthattheentirepassageismissinganyreferencewhateverto“identification”.Hediscussesidentificationlater,buttheseuniversallevelsareheredescribedinthelanguageofsharṭor“conditioning.”“ExistenceconsideredconditionedbyB”translates“al-wujūdidhāakhadhtabi-sharṭB”.Ibelieveacorrectwayofrenderingitmightalsobe“existencequaB,”suchthatidhāakhadhtaʾl-wujūdbi-sharṭshayʾcouldmean“existencequasomething.” ThetechnicalvocabularyusedhereisAkbarian(identities,names,immutability,selfhood),butthestructureintowhichQayṣarīputsthetermsisdifferent.InJandīorQūnawī,wecouldbecertainthatanysuchexpositionwouldbebasedonthevariouslevelsofidentificationstemmingfromthesupremenon-identification.InthepreviouschapterwesawhowKāshānīusedthissamelanguageofconditioningtodescribethenatureofsupremeexistence,buteventhereitwasintimatelytiedupwiththeconceptofidentification.Qayṣarī’smovementawayfromthattypicalAkbarianlanguageismorecomplete. Wenoticehereagaintheinseparabilityofepistemologyandontology.Ratherthandescribeaprocessofidentifications(taʿayyun)happeningtoexistencedetachedfromaknowingsubject,Qayṣarīadoptstheperspectiveofapercipientencounteringtheonerealityofexistenceindifferentways.Bymodulatinghisreasoningthroughvariousqualitativewaysofseeingexistence(quaimmutability,quaallthings,quaneithernothingnoranything,etc.),hereaffirmshisfundamentalprinciplethatexistenceisasinglerealitywhichisbrokenupintolevelsandkindsbyamentalactadequatedtoexistence’sself-disclosures. Qayṣarīalsotellsusinthispassage,innouncertainterms,thatphilosophers’uncoupledintellectisthesameastheSufis’spirit,theuncoupledsoultheheart,andsoonforotherterms.Otherdefinitionsofthesetermscanexist;forexamplelaterphilosophers
31Prolegomena,25-27.
Page 121
109
wouldspeakonlyoftheintellect,thesoul,andthebody,wheretheintellectisbifurcatedintotwoconceptsotherwisereferredtoas“intellect”and“(uncoupled)soul,”andwhere“soul”referstotheanimicsubstancethatispartofspaceandtime.TheSufis,fortheirpart,canhardlybecalledconsistentintheirdescriptionofthehierarchyoflevelsofheart,intellect,spirit,etc.Thisdoesnotnegatethepointthattheunderlyingstructureisexactlythesame.Thatistosay,eveniftheterminologyshifts,theSufisandthephilosophersareabledescribethesamebasicontologicalhierarchy.Ifby“spirit”and“heart”Iamreferringtotwodimensionsofthesinglerealitythephilosopherscall“intellect,”thenitissimpleenoughtodescribethisfact,sinceitisenoughtosaythatthisthingisuncoupledfromeitherpsychicorbodilymatter,andthatthislevelofuncouplednessfurtherdividesintouniversalsandparticulars.Thetwodifferentconceptualhierarchiesdivideupthesamepieindifferentways.Theslicesarenotidentical,putwhenputtogetherthewholeis.Thereareotherexamplesofthisinterchangeabilityofterminology:
KnowthattheDivineNamespossessintelligibleformswithinGod’sKnowledge,becauseGodknowsHisEssenceforthesakeofHisEssence,andknowsHisNamesandQualities.Theseknowledge-forms,withrespecttobeingidenticalwiththeEssenceself-disclosedinacertainidentificationandspecificrelationship(nisbah),bearthenamefixedidentities.IntheterminologyoftheFolkofGod,theyaresonamedwhethertheyareuniversalorparticular.Amongthephilosophers,theuniversalsamongthemarecalledquiddities(māhiyyah),whiletheparticularsamongthemarecalledselfhoods(huwiyyah).ThequidditiesaretheuniversalformsoftheNames,formsidentifiedinthepresenceofKnowledge,thisbeingaprimaryidentification.32
ThisquotationappearsattheheadofQayṣarī’sthirdchapterintheMuqaddimāt,whichisdevotedtoanexplanationoftheimmutableidentities(al-aʿyānal-thābitah).AfterdescribingthemintheAkbariantermsofHolyEmanation(al-fayḍal-aqdas)andHoliestEmanation(al-fayḍal-muqaddas),hethenbeginstoexplainthenatureoftheidentitiesintermsofnecessity,contingency,andimpossibility.Thatistosay,hetreatsthemasthoughheweretalkingaboutquiddities,whichaccordingtohimheis:
With respect to thepossibilityor impossibilityof theirexistence in theexternalrealm, the identities can be divided into two groups. The first consists ofcontingent things, while the second consists of impossible things. This secondgroup can be further divided into two groups. The first consists solely ofpostulations made by the intellect, such as “God’s partner,” “the union ofcontradictories,”“thepresenceofoppositesinacertainsubstrateorlocus,”andsoforth. These are imaginary, resulting from an intellect polluted by imaginings.God has knowledge of this sub-division by virtue of His knowledge of theintellect, the imagination (wahm), and that which is a consequent of them—namely, the imagining of that which has neither existence nor identity. ThatintellectandimaginationshouldpostulatethemdoesnotoccurbyvirtueofthesenotionshavingessencesorformsofNamesintherealmofknowledge…. Thesecondconsistsof thosewhicharenotsimplypostulationsmadebythe intellect, and which are indeed fixed aspects of objective reality (al-amr fīnafsihi),existentintherealmofknowledge,entailedbytheEssenceoftheReal,
32Ibid.,45.
Page 122
110
becausetheyareformsoftheNamesoftheUnseen,peculiartotheInwardwithrespect to itsbeing theoppositeof theOutward. TheInwardhasanaspect thatcomes together with the Outward, and an aspect that does not. The first is thedomainparticulartocontingentthings,whilethesecondisthedomainparticulartoimpossiblethings. OftheseNamestheShaykhsaid,“AsforthoseNamesfallingoutsideofthedomainofcreationandrelationships,noneknowthembutHe,becausetheyhavenoconnectionwithbeing(akwān).”TheProphetmadereferencetotheseNameswhenHesaid,“OrwhomThouhasttakenuntoThyselftoknowThineunseen.”SincetheseNamesintheiressenceyearnfortheinwardandfleetheoutward,theyhavenoexistencetherein.TheformsoftheseNamesareknowledge-existencesforwhichqualificationbyconcreteexistenceisimpossible.Theoreticalthinkersareunawareofthissub-division,fortheintellecthasnoaccesstoit.Thelikesoftheseideascanonlybeattainedfromthenicheofprophecyandsanctity,andfromfaithinbothofthem.33
ThusQayṣarīisusingthemodaldivisionofquiddities,butmodifiesittoincludeacategorythephilosophers(theoreticalthinkers,ahlal-naẓar)donot.Somethingwhichisimpossible-to-exist(mumtaniʿal-wujūd)isordinarilythoughtofasthatwhichislogicallyabsurd,suchastwoabsolutebeings,orasquarecircle.TheotherkindofimpossibilityQayṣarīispositingisnotlogicallyabsurdbutmetaphysicallyuntenable.Asquarecirclecouldneverberealatanylevelandhencecouldnotexist,becauseitisinherentlyabsurd,butwhatQayṣarīispointingtoisanessencewhichisperfectlyrealbutwhichdoesnotexistforus.Itisimportantthatitdoesnotexistintheexternalrealm(fīʾl-khārij),butexistsasaforminGod’sknowledge,whichistosay,itisawayinwhichGodhasknowledgeofoneofHisownqualitiesornames.Thereare,however,NamesofGodwhichonlyGodknowsandwhichnooneelsewilleverknow,inthesensethatGod’srelationshipwiththeworlddoesnotexhaustHisreality.“Metaphysicallyuntenable”heremeansthatitissimplynotthenatureofGodandofthisworldthatweshouldeverexperiencetheseNames. ItthusfollowsthatbecauseoftheiruniqueontologytheAkbariansalsomustinevitablymodifythelogicthatdevelopedinthecontextofPeripateticthought,whereunmanifestedNamesofGodwerenotpartofthesystemfordecidingwhatisnecessary,orcontingent,orimpossibleinitsexistence.Wearriveattheordinaryknowledgeoftheimpossibleinapositiveway;sinceweknowwhatacircleandsquareareandthatathingcannotbeboth,ourknowledgeofthisotherkindofthingwhichcannotexist(externally)comesvianegativaandthroughrevelation.Wedenythatitcanexistonthebasisofametaphysicalprinciplethattherearecertainmysterieswhichareunavailabletous.
Qayṣarīthenmovesontodividetheidentities,whichagainheistreatingasquiddities,intosubstanceandaccident.Heintroducesthediscussionhere,althoughhehasbeenmentioningsubstanceandattributethroughouthisdiscussionofexistence,andhewillinfactbedevotingthenextfullchaptertoadiscussionofthem:
Contingentidentitiescanbegroupedintosubstancesandaccidents.Thesubstantialidentitiesarealldependedupon,whiletheaccidentalidentitiesarealldependent.Thesubstancesconsistsofthosethataresimpleandspiritual,suchas
33Ibid.,45-6.
Page 123
111
theuncoupledintellectsandsouls;thosethataresimpleandcorporeal,suchastheelements;thosethatarecompoundedintheintellectbutnotintheexternalrealm,suchasthesubstantialquidditiescomposedofgenusandspecies;thosethataresimpleintheexternalrealmbutnotintheintellect,suchassimplecorporealbodies;andthosethatarecompoundedinbothrealms,suchasthemembersofthethreekingdoms.Allsubstantialandaccidentalidentitiesarefurthergroupedintotheidentitiesofexaltedgenera,intermediategenera,andlowlygenera.Eachoftheseisdividedintospecies,thespeciesintoclassesandindividuals.34
Thisisfairlystandard,andcouldhaveappearedinmostbooksofphilosophyandtheology,atleastonceonegetspasttheuncoupledspirits.Typically,however,heextendsthediscussionofsubstancewhiletryingtoremainwithinthephilosophicallycoherentconceptofit.Hismodificationoftheideaofsubstanceisbased,again,onAkbarianontology:
Thosewhicharedependedonaresubstances,whilethosewhicharedependentareaccidents.Existencebringsbothtogether,sinceitisexistencethatself-disclosesintheformofeach.Substancesareunifiedintheveryquintessenceofsubstance,whichisasinglereality,alocusofmanifestationfortheDivineEssencewithrespecttoItsSelf-subsistence(qayyūmiyyah)anditsReality.Similarly,accidentsarelociofmanifestationfortheQualitiesthataredependentuponIt.NotethefactthattheEssenceisalwaysveiledbyQualities.Likewisesubstanceisalwaysenclosedbyaccidents.JustastheEssenceconsideredwiththeadjunctionofoneofItsQualitiesisaDivineName,bethatNameuniversalorparticular,sotoodoessubstance,whenconsideredwiththeadjunctionofauniversalmeaning,becomeauniquelocusofmanifestationforauniqueuniversalName,andisindeedidenticalwithit;withtheattributionofaparticularmeaningitbecomesaparticularsubstance,suchasanindividual.JustasthecomingtogetherofuniversalNamescanbegetotherNames,sotoocanthecomingtogetherofsimplesubstancesbegetothersubstancesthatarecompoundedofthem.JustassomeNamesencompassothers,sotoodosomesubstancesencompassothers.JustastheMothersoftheNamesarelimitedinnumber,sotooarethegeneraandspeciesofsubstanceslimitedinnumber.JustastheramificationsoftheNamesareinfinite,sotooareindividualsinfinite.IntheterminologyoftheFolkofGodthisrealityiscalledtheBreathoftheAll-Merciful(nafasal-Raḥmān)andUniversalHyle.ThatwhichisidentifiedbyitandbecomesexistentwecalltheDivineWords.…Substance,withrespecttoitsreality,isselfsamewiththerealitiesofsimpleandcompoundsubstances.Itistherealityofrealities.TheyalldescendfromtheWorldoftheEssence’sUnseentotheworldofthesensorial[and]witnessed.Itismanifestineachworldinawayappropriatetothatworld.35
Inanearlierchapter,QayṣarīprovidesawayoflookingattheNamesofGodwhich,whilenotdirectlyphilosophical,isneverthelessadmirablyclearinitspresentationofwhattheseNamesmeanfortheAkbarians.
34Ibid.,47.35Ibid.,57-8.
Page 124
112
KnowthatbetweeneachpairofopposingNamesthereisanotherNamethatpossessesbothaspectsandisbegottenofthem.Itisanisthmus(barzakh)betweenthem.Thesameholdstrueforoppositequalities:betweenthemthereisaqualitythatpossessesbothaspectsandisbegottenofthem.WhenNamesareunitedwithoneanother,betheyoppositeornot,theybegetinfiniteNames,andeachoftheseNameshasalocusofmanifestationintheexistenceoftherealmofknowledgeandintheexistenceofidentities.36
Whilewecanspeakabouttheninety-ninenames,ortheSevenMothers,ortheFirst,Last,Inward,Outward,wearealwaysspeakingaboutafinitesetofnameswhicharesupposedtorepresentaSelfwhichisbothperfectlyoneandhasinfinitenamesandqualities.Qayṣarīthusspeaksaboutnames“begetting”names,notontologically,butthroughthesamementaloperationthatallowsustosaythatbetweenanytwopointsonalinethereisamidpoint,andbetweenthatmidpointandoneoftheendpointsthereisanothermidpoint,andsoonadinfinitum. Heextendsthisontologyofdivinenamesandqualitiestothephilosophicalnotionofsubstance.JustasallexistencesarereallyExistence,sotooareallsubstancestruly“Substance.”Qayṣarīreasonsthatwhatwecallsubstanceisreallyamanifestationofthedivinenameal-Qayyūm,theSelf-subsistent,thesamewayallmercyisreallyal-Raḥmān(theAll-Merciful),andalllifeisal-Ḥayy(theLiving).Thenotionthatthereareseparatesubstances—thisman,thattree—isjustasillusoryasthenotionthattherearemultipleandseparateexistences.Indeed,eachsubstancecanbeseenasthecombinationofothersubstances.Forexample,amountaincanbeseenasthecombinationofthestone,soil,plants,etc.whichmakeupthemountain.Itisnotthecasethatsubstancesarecombiningto“beget”othersubstances,sincethedistinctionbetweensubstancesisonlyperceptual,justasthecombinationofnamesisnotanobjectivejoiningbutaconceptualdevicetohelpidentifydifferentaspectsoftheoneEssence/Self. Ṣadrāwillspeakaboutsubstanceanditsrelationtodivinenamesinmuchthesameway,inasectionfromal-Shawāhidal-rubūbiyyahdevotedtocomparingsubstancesandGod’squalities:
There isnothing in theworld thatdoesnothave itsprinciple inGod. Anythingthathasa specificdefinition—namely these things in theworld—isconfined tothe ten categories [i.e., “substance” plus the nine kinds of attribute], since theyexistintheimage(ṣūrah)oftheirExistentiator. ThesubstanceoftheworldisanimageandlikenessoftheEssenceoftheExistentiator, as its accidents are of His Qualities: its time of His eternity; itslocationofHismounting theThrone; itsquantityof thenumber (ʿadad)ofHisNames;itsqualityofHisgood-pleasureandwrath;itspositionofHissubsisting(qiyām)inHisEssencewithHistwoHandsoutspread;itspossessionofHisbeingPossessorofDominion;itsrelationofHisdominicality(rubūbiyyah);itsactivityofHisexistentiation;and itspassivityofHisresponding to theonewhoasksofHim;andanalogouslyforthegenera,species,andindividualsofthecategories…. However,onemustconceiveofandbelieve inwhat is there in themostnobleandexaltedway,forHisEssence isof theutmostunityandmajesty. Heresembles nothing, and nothing resembles Him, not in any way. He is not a
36Ibid.,37.
Page 125
113
substance. Otherwise He would have a quiddity and would participate in thecategory of substance, being distinguished by a specific difference, and HisEssencewouldbecompounded,whichisabsurd.HisEssenceisnotqualifiedbyanyqualitysuperimposedupon it,asyouhavecome toknow,soexaltedbeHeabovehavingquality(kayf),quantity,position,location,time,possession,activity,orpassivity.37
RecallthatQayṣarīwasveryclearinanearlierchapterthatGodisnotasubstance,eventhoughhethengoesontorelatesubstancetointrinsicaspectsofGod.Ṣadrāwilldothesame,andgoesevenfurtheranddelineateshoweachattributeofsubstance—usingtheestablishedAristoteliancategories—isamanifestationofadivinequality.Thequasi-illusorycharacterofthiscomparisonispresentinṢadrāaswell,sinceeventhoughsubstanceisliketheEssence/Self,andisamanifestationofit,“Heisnotasubstance.”Thesetwoperspectivescanonlyco-existbecauseofthefundamentalintersectionofepistemologyandontology.Wecansayapparentlycontradictorythingsbecauseourfirststatement,“Substance-attributeisamanifestationofEssence-quality,”ismadefromthepointofviewofduality,while“Godisneithersubstancenorattribute”ismadefromtheperspectiveofunity.ThisisofcourseonlyoneexampleofacomparisonbetweenQayṣarīandṢadrā.Afullanalysisofthesimilaritiesbetweenthetwoandtheextentofdirectinfluencewillhavetowaitforaseparatework.
* * *
Thischapterhadtwomaingoals.ThefirstwastoshowhowQayṣarī’smetaphysics,althoughessentiallythesameashispredecessors,wasasignificantstepforwardinjoiningthatmetaphysicstotheworldofphilosophyandtheologythroughasystematiclanguagebasedontheconceptofwujūdor“existence.”ThesecondwastoshowthatthissystematizationresultedinadoctrineoftheonenessofexistencewhichisidenticaltothelaterontologyofṢadrāinitsbasicdimensionsofoneness,fundamentality,andequivocality.AlthoughthephilosophicaldimensionofQayṣarī’swritingswasemphasizedhere,itisimportanttorememberthathiswritingsarenotdrylyconceptual.Rather,heisabletoshiftbetweenphilosophicallanguageandaddressingspiritualquestionssuchasdreaminterpretationandprayer,butallwithacoherencethatdemonstrateshismasterybothofphilosophyandmysticism,andhisskillinblurringthelinebetweenthemandviewingthemratherastwopolesofasinglecontinuum.
37al-Shawāhidal-rubūbiyyah,ed.Jalālal-DīnĀshtiyānī(Mashhad,1967),1:3:6.
Page 126
114
ConcludingRemarks
Thisworkbeganwithadiscussionoftheboundariesbetweenmysticism,philosophy,andtheology.Ihavepositedtwobenchmarkthinkers,IbnʿArabīandMullāṢadrā,andhavearguedthatintheinterveningcenturiesthereisacontinuoustraditionofbothdoctrinallyarticulatemysticsandmysticallymindedphilosopherswhosecommonontologicalvisionallowsthemtobecalledtheschoolofwaḥdatal-wujūd. Throughoutthesechapterswehaveencounteredarecurringtheme,namelytheinterpenetrationofepistemologyandontologyamongsttheAkbariansastheygrapplewithontologicalideas.Therealdifferentiatingfactorbetweenmysticismandphilosophy,atleastasconceivedofbysome,isthequestionofknowledge:whatdoweknow,andhowdoweknowit?
ThefundamentalobjectionofGhazālītothephilosopherswashisdenialoftheirclaimknowcertainthingssolelythroughtheworkingsofhumanreason,whichisanotherwayofsayingthatwecannothaveknowledgeofthetruenatureofthingssimplybythinkingabouttheminacommonplacerationalway;somethingbeyondreason—thoughnotnecessarilycontrarytoit—isnecessary.YetitwasalsoGhazālīwhowasinstrumental,alongwithotherssuchasIbnSīnā,inensuringthevictoryofthePeripateticessence-existence/necessity-contingencymodelofdiscussingphilosophicalandtheologicalquestions.Moreover,Mishkātal-anwārsuggeststhathewasnotopposedtoakindof“emanationist”ontology,andtheIḥyāʾshowsclearlythathisviewsonhowhumanbeingscanknowGodareneitherAshʿaritenorPeripatetic,butSufi.TheIḥyāʾandtheMishkātal-anwārareverydifferentworks,however,andthelinksbetweenepistemologyandontologyandnotformalized.
IfwecanacceptthatIbnSīnāacknowledgedthevaliditySufismonitsownterms(thisisnotasettledquestion),thenwecanarguethatIbnSīnā’sviewsonepistemologyallowforatranscendentmodeofknowingthatisnotlimitedtothecombinationofrationalintuitionandsyllogism.Thatistosay,ifIbnSīnāacceptsratherthandebunksSufism,thegeneralabsenceofSufithinkinginhiswritingmightonlymeanthathewasnotapracticingSufiandthathemighthavebeenambivalentaboutsomeSufiknowledgeclaims.Itisdifficulttosaywhetherhewasambivalent,accepting,orsuspicious,butitisdoubtfulthathewasrejectionistwhenitcametoSufism(ormysticismingeneral).Thereissimplynoevidenceforitandmuchtosuggestotherwise.However,thereisnoevidencethattheepistemologyofmysticismhadanyformativeinfluenceonIbnSīnā’sontology.Rather,anyconnectiontomysticismwouldbeevidentmoreinethics,butaswesawinthefirstchapterIbnSīnādoesnotdiscussethicsextensivelyinanycase.
AlthoughthescopeofthisthesisdidnotallowforanextensivetreatmentofSuhrawardī,hisacknowledgementofmysticalmodesofknowledgecannotbedoubted,whichdoesnotnegatehisphilosophicalcredentials.Moreover,hisepistemologystronglyinformedhisontology,andsincehisepistemologyincludedamysticalelementhisontologyincorporatedanelementofillusion.Forhim,thetruenatureofthingswashiddenundertheirappearancesasitwasfortheSufis.TherearetwokeydifferencesbetweenhimandtheAkbarians,however.ThephilosophicalsystemputforthbySuhrawardīcreatesawholenewbodyoftechnicaltermsformedaroundlightanddarknessveryunlikethePeripatetic-theologicalconsensusprevalentatthetime,andseesitselfasacontinuationofapre-Islamicperennialtradition.TheIslamicrevelationisnot
Page 127
115
denied,ofcourse,butilluminationistphilosophyishardlyrootedintheQurʾānandḥadīth.
Withthesequestionsinmind,IarguethatuniquetotheAkbariantraditionistheunionof(1)theIslamicrevelationandpersonalinspirationinthecontextofthatrevelation;(2)aconceptualvocabularywhichretains,inamodifiedform,theprevailingphilosophical-theologicallanguageofIslamicintellectuallife;and(3)anepistemologywhichjoinstogethertheinsightsgrantedthroughmystical“unveiling”—modesofknowledgebeyondreasonbasedonQuranicrevelation(waḥy)andpersonalinspiration(ilhām)—withanontologythatharmonizeswiththatepistemology.Thatistosay,theAkbariansjointogetherIslamic/orthodox,philosophical,andmysticalcredentials. ThedifferencesbetweenthisAkbariantraditionandPeripateticthoughthavebeendiscussedextensivelyintheprecedingchapters,andarebaseduponthePeripatetics’denialofaconcreteexistenceencompassingallexistences/existents,andtheAkbarians’assertionthatindividualexistencesareanillusionandthatthetruerealityisasingleexistence.Thisdimensionofillusion,absentinPeripateticthoughtinthesensethattheAkbariansbelievethattruerealityofthingsisaccessibleonlytoaselectfewwhoseconsciousnesshasdevelopedtothelevelofsainthood,becomespartandparcelofAkbarianontology.Moreover,eventhoughthePeripateticsdiscussprophecyandevenwrotecommentariesuponQurʾānicverses,theorthodoxcredentialsofthephilosopherswereweakandremainedsoafterGhazālī’sattackuponthem. TheAkbariansaresetapartfromIlluminationistphilosophyinbeingamanifestationofSufism,whoseindigenousidentityaspartofIslamicreligiouslifeenabledthemtoidentifywithasignificantsectorofIslamiccivilization,whereastheIlluminationistscouldonlybeseenasmembersofaphilosophicalelite.Althoughthephilosophicalandsystematizingdimensionhasbeenbroughtoutinthisthesis,oneshouldnotforgetthattheAkbarianwritings,fromIbnʿArabīthroughQayṣarī,arefilledthroughandthroughwithQurʾānicthemesandaconsciousself-identificationwiththeconcernsofSufis;thephilosophers(ḥukamāʾ)areatbestworthycolleaguesamongtheahlal-naẓar. Fortheirpart,thetheologianssharethesameconcernswhenitcomestoIslamicthemes,butkalāmisquitedifferentinitsintentionfromeitherSufimetaphysicsorphilosophy.Allpiouseuphemismsaside,kalāmbeginswithcertainpremisestobedefendedforthesakeofIslam,andisboundupwithpoliticalaswellas“pastoral”concernsforthegreatercommunity.ThevoluntarismandatomismofAshʿaritetheologyforexample,stemsfromasensibilitythatseekstopreservethewillandpowerofGodoverallthingsandtoremovetheroleofnaturalcauses.Byvocationandalmostbydefinitionthemutakallimlacksthephilosopher’sfreedomtodelveintofundamentalpremisesaboutthenatureofthings,eventhenatureofreligionandrevelation.ThereisanelementofdogmatismpeculiartokalāmwhichisnotpresentintheAkbarianwritings. “TheSchooloftheOnenessofBeing,”anamewhichderivesfromacertainkindofontology,alsorepresentsanewsynthesisofdisciplineswhichbegantheirlifeinIslamiccivilizationseparately.IsQayṣarīamutakallim?aSufi?aphilosopher?ThereisnodoubtthatheisaSufi.HeisnotamutakalliminthestrictsenseofbeingaconfessionalMāturīditeorAshʿarite,buthisdiscussionofthedivinenamesandqualities,prophecy,eschatology,andethicscoverallthesubjectsatheologianwouldaddress,andwithasimilarreligioussensibility.Heisnotaphilosopherinthesensethatheisneithera
Page 128
116
Peripatetic,noranIlluminationist,butasIattemptedtoargueinthelastchapterheadaptedphilosophyinasystematicwaytohisepistemology.HislinktoMarāghahandhiseducationinphilosophyandmathematicsallowedhimtomovehisexpositionofmetaphysicsbeyondadhocassertionsusingphilosophicalideas. Threehundredyearslater,Ṣadrāwouldtakethissynthesismuchfarther,includinginhisvisionnotonlywhatQayṣarīsoughttobringtogether,butalsoIlluminationistphilosophyandancientGreekthought.ThepresentworkleavesoffwithQayṣarīasaturningpointintheunionofmysticismandphilosophy,butinordertoreachṢadrāanotherstoryneedstobetold:theadoptionbyphilosophersandtheologians,especiallyShīʿiteones,ofthemysticaldoctrinesoftheschoolofIbnʿArabī.Aswasmentionedintheintroduction,figuressuchasʿAllāmahal-HillīandIbnTurkahal-Iṣfahānīcarriedouttheirownbrandsofsythesisbetweendisciplines.Indeed,Ṣadrādidnotproducehisal-ḥikmahal-mutaʿāliyahinanintellectualvacuum;butadiscussionofthestepsleadinguptoitwillhavetowaitforanotherstudy.
Page 129
117
BibliographyAddas,Claude.QuestfortheRedSulphur,Cambridge,1993.Ahsāʾī,MuḥammadibnAbīJumhūr.Kashfal-barāhīnfīsharḥrisālātZādal-musāfirīn.
Beirut,2002.Alper,Omer.“Gazālī’sviewofthePhilosophicalTradition:WasHeReallyAgainst
Philosophy?”İstanbulÜniversitesiIlāhiyatFakültesiDergisi,vol.4,87-107.d’Alverny,MarieThérèse.“Anniya-Anitas,”MélangesoffertsàEtienneGilson,Paris,
1959,59-91.AminRazavi,Mehdi.“TheSignificanceofSuhrawardī’sPersianSufiWritingsinthe
PhilosophyofIllumination,”TheLegacyofMediaevalPersianSufism,ed.LeonardLewisohn,London,1992,259-283.
Ansari,AbdulHaq.“TheDoctrineofDivineCommand:AStudyintheDevelopmentof
Ghazālī’sViewofReality,”IslamicStudiesvol.xxi(1982),1-47.Askar,Mustafa.MollaFenariveVahdet-ivucudanlayisi.Ankara,1993.Bayraktar,Mehmet.LaPhilosophiemystiquechezDawuddeKayseri,Ankara,1990.————.KayseriliDawud,Ankara,1988.————.(ed.)al-Rasaʾill-Dawudal-Qaysari.Kayseri,1997.————.“Davud-iKayseri.”IslamAnsiklopedisi.Burckhardt,Titus.IntroductiontoSufism.SanFrancisco,1995.————.TheWisdomoftheProphets(Fususal-Hikam),Gloucestershire,England,
1975.Burrell,David.“AvicennaandGreekPhilosophy,”Mélanges,v.17:53-66,1986.Chittick,WilliamC.TheSufiPathofKnowledge:Ibnal-ʿArabī’sMetaphysicsof
Imagination.Albany,1989.————.TheSelf-DisclosureofGod:PrinciplesofIbnal-ʿArabī’sCosmology.Albany,
1998.————.“Rūmīandwaḥdatal-wujūd.”PoetryandMysticisminIslam:TheHeritageof
Rūmī.AminBanani,RichardHovannisian,andGeorgesSabagh,eds.Cambridge,1994.
————.“IbnʿArabī.”HistoryofIslamicPhilosophy.SeyyedHosseinNasrandOliverLeaman,eds.London,1996,pp.497-509.
————.“TheSchoolofIbnʿArabī.”HistoryofIslamicPhilosophy.SeyyedHosseinNasrandOliverLeaman,eds.London,1996,pp.510-23.
————.ImaginalWorlds:IbnʿArabīandtheProblemofReligiousDiversity.Albany,1994.
Page 130
118
————.“IbnʿArabīandhisSchool.”IslamicSpirituality:Manifestations.S.H.Nasr,ed.NewYork,1990,pp.49-79.
————.“TheFiveDivinePresences:Fromal-Qūnawītoal-Qayṣarī.”TheMuslimWorld72(1982),pp.107-128.
————.“TheLastWillandTestamentofIbnʿArabī’sForemostDiscipleandSomeNotesonitsAuthor,”SophiaPerennis,4:1(1978),43-58.
————.“TheCentralPoint:Qūnawī’sRoleintheSchoolofIbnʿArabī,”JournaloftheMuhyiddinIbnʿArabīSociety,xxxv(2004),25-45
————.“MysticismversusPhilosophyinEarlierIslamicHistory:Theal-Ṭūsī,al-QūnawīCorrespondence,”ReligiousStudies17:1(1981),87-104.
Chodkiewicz,Michel.AnOceanWithoutShore:IbnArabi,theBook,andtheLaw.
Albany,1993.————.TheSealoftheSaints.Cambridge,England,1993.————.TheSpiritualWritingsofAmirʿAbdal-Kader.Albany,1995.————.AnOceanWithoutShore:IbnʿArabī,theBook,andtheLaw,NewYork,
1993.Chodkiewicz,Michel,W.C.Chittick,CyrilleChodkiewicz,DenisGril,JamesW.Morris.
LesIlluminationsdeLaMecque/TheMeccanIlluminations:TextesChoisis/SelectedTexts.Paris,1988.
Corbin,Henry.CreativeImaginationintheSufismofIbnʿArabi.Princeton,1969.————.LeLivredespentrationsmetaphysiques.Tehran-Paris,1964.————.Terrecelesteetcorpsderesurrectiondʾapresquelquestraditionsiraniennes.
Paris,1961.————.“LaplacedeMollaSadradnaslaphilosophieiranienne.”StudiaIslamica,vol.
XVIII,pp.81-113.————.AvicennaandtheVisionaryRecital,NewYork,1960.Dagli,Caner.TheRingstonesofWisdom,Chicago,2004.Dalal,Ahmad.“GhazālīandthePerilsofInterpretation,”JOAS,122:4,773-787.Elmore,Gerald.“Sadral-Dīnal-Qūnawī’sPersonalStudyListofBooksbyIbnal-
Arabi,”JournalofNearEasternStudies,56:3(1997),161-181Fakhry,Majid.AHistoryofIslamicPhilosophy,NewYork1970.Farābī,AbūNaṣr.Kitābal-ḥurūf,ed.MuhsinMahdi,Beirut1970,71RichardFrank.al-GhazālīandtheAshʿariteSchool,Durham,1994.————.“Theoriginofthephilosophicaltermanniyya”(MuséeLavigerieCahiersde
Byrsa6,Paris,1956,181-201).Gairdner,W.H.T.al-Ghazālī’sMishkātal-Anwār(“TheNicheforLights”),Lahore,1952
Page 131
119
-----“al-Ghazālī’sMishkātal-AnwārandtheGhazālīProblem,”DerGhaẓalī,AbūḤāmid.TheIncoherenceofthePhilosophers.TranslatedbyM.Marmura.
Utah,1997————.DeliverancefromError,tr.RichardMcCarthy,Louisville,KY,1999.————.TheNicheofLights,ed.D.Buchman,Utah,1998,34————.Mishkātal-anwār,ed.Abū’l-ʿAlāʾʿAfīfī,Cairo,1964.————.Miʿyāral-ʿilmfīʾl-mantiq,Beirut,1964.————.Maqāṣidal-falāsifah,ed.SulaymānDunyā,Cairo,1960.Gianotti,Timothy.al-Ghazālī’sUnspeakableDoctrineoftheSoul:Unveilingthe
EsotericPsychologyoftheIḥyāʾ,Leiden,2001.Gilis,Charles-Andre.LeLivredesChatonsdesSagesses.Beirut,1997.Gutas,Dimitri.AvicennaandtheAristotelianTradition,Leiden,1988.————.“IbnṬufaylonIbnSīnā’sEasternPhilosophy,”Oriens,34:222-41.————.“Avicenna’sEastern(‘Oriental’)Philosophy.Nature,Contents,Transmission,”
ArabicSciencesandPhilosophy,vol.10:159-180.————.“TheHeritageofAvicenna:TheGoldenAgeofArabicPhilosophy,1000—ca.
1350,”inAvicennaandHisHeritageeditedbyJ.JanssensandD.DeSmet,Leuven,2002.
al-Ḥakīm,Suʿad.al-Muʿjamal-ṣūfī,Beirut,1981.ḤaydarĀmulī.Asrāral-sharīʿahwa-aṭwāral-ṭarīqahwa-anwāral-ḥaqīqah.Editedby
MuḥammadKhwājawī.Tehran,1982.————.InnerSecretsofthePath(Asraral-shariʿah,English).Translatedby
Assadullahal-DhakirYate.Shaftesbury,England,1989.————.Jamiʿal-asrarwamanbaʿal-anwar.EditedbyHenriCorbinandOsman
Yahya.Tehran,1969.————.Tafsiral-muhital-aʿzam.Editedbyal-SayyidMuḥsinal-Mūsawīal-Tabrīzī.
Tehran,1993.Heath,Peter.AllegoryandPhilosophyinAvicenna(IbnSīnā),Philadelphia,1992,151.Hertenstein,StephenandM.Tiernan(eds.)MuhyiddinIbnʿArabī:ACommemorative
Volume.Shaftesbury,1993.Ibnal-ʿArabi,Muyhiʾl-dinMuhammad.Fuṣūṣal-ḥikam,ed.byA.ʿAfīfī,Beirut,1946.————.al-Futūḥātal-Makkiyyah,ed.OsmanYahia,Cairo,1972—(incomplete);
Beirut:Daral-Fikr,1994.————.al-Tadbīrātal-ilāhiyyahfīiṣlāhal-mamlakahal-insāniyyah,ed.ḤasanʿĀsī,
Beirut,1993.IbnSīnā,AbūʿAlī.K.al-Shifāʾ,ed.IbrāhīmMadkūr,Cairo,1991.
Page 132
120
————.al-Ishārātwaʾl-tanbīhāt,Qum,2002.Inati,S.C.RemarksandAdmonitions(al-Ishārātwaʾl-tanbīhāt),Toronto,1984.————.IbnSīnāandMysticism,London,1996.al-Iṣfahānī,ʿAlīibnMuḥammad(IbnTurkah).Tamhīdal-qawāʿid(Beirut,2003)Izutsu,Toshihiko.SufismandTaoism.LosAngeles,1983.————.TheConceptandRealityofExistence.Tokyo,1971.Janssens,Jules.“al-Ghazālī’sTahāfut:IsitreallyarejectionofIbnSīnā’sphilosophy?”
JournalofIslamicStudies,12(2001),1-17.al-Kāshānī,ʿAbdal-RazzāqibnMuḥammad.SharḥFuṣūṣal-ḥikam.Cairo,1966.————.Rashḥal-ẓulalfīsharḥal-alfāẓal-mutadāwilahbaynaarbābal-adhwāqwaʾl-
aḥwāl.EditedbySaʿīdʿAbdal-Fattāḥ.Cairo,1995.————.Sharḥmanāzilal-sāʾirīn.Beirut,1995.————.Kashfal-wujūhal-ghurrli-maʿānīnaẓmal-durr:sharḥTāʾiyyatIbnal-Fārid.
Tehran,1901or02.————.Sharḥfuṣūṣal-ḥikam.Cairo,1966.Keklik,Nihat.IslamDunyasindaTesevvufveFelsefeArasandakiHesaplaşmalar,
SadreddinKonavi-NasireddinṬūsīFelsefeleri,IstanbulÜniversitesiEdebiyatFakültesi,1962(DoctoralThesis).
Kilic,MahmudErol.“Fususuʾl-hikem,”IslamAnsiklopedisi.————“el-Futuhatuʾl-Mekkiyye,”IslamAnsiklopedisiKnysh,Alexander.IbnʿArabiintheLaterIslamicTradition.Albany,1999.Lory,Pierre.LescommentairesésotériquesduCorand’ápresʿAbdal-Razzāqal-
Qāshānī,Paris,1991.Marmura,M.“PlottingthecourseofAvicenna’sthought,”JOAS,111[1991].————.“GhazālīandDemonstrativeScience,”JournaloftheHistoryofPhilosophy,
Oct1965,183-204.————.“Ghazālī’sAttitudetotheSecularSciencesandLogic,”EssaysinIslamic
PhilosophyandScience,ed.G.Hourani,Arberry1975.————.“GhazālīandAshʿarismrevisited,”ArabicSciencesandPhilosophy,vol.12
(2002),91-110.Mayer,Toby.“IbnSīnā’s‘Burhānal-ṣiddīqīn’,”JournalofIslamicStudies12:1(2001),
18-39.Morris,James.“IbnʿArabiandhisInterpreters.”JournaloftheAmericanOriental
Society106(1986),pp.539-51,733-56;107(1987),pp.101-19.
Page 133
121
————.TheWisdomoftheThrone.Princeton,1981.Nasr,S.H.ThreeMuslimSages,chapter3.NewYork,1976.————.Ṣadral-DīnShīrāzīandHisTranscendentTheosophy.Tehran,1997.————.IslamicSpirituality:Manifestations(ed.S.H.Nasr,NewYork,NY,1991).Netton,RichardIan.“TheNeoplatonicSubstrateofSuhrawardī’sPhilosophyof
Illumination:FalsafaasṬasawwuf,”TheLegacyofMediaevalPersianSufism,ed.LeonardLewisohn,London,1992,247-260.
al-Qayṣarī,Dāwūd.Maṭlaʿkhuṣūṣal-kalimfīmaʿānīfuṣūṣal-ḥikam,ed.Muḥammad
Ḥasanal-Sāʿidī,Iran,1995.————.Sharḥ-ifuṣūṣal-ḥikam,ed.Jalālal-DīnĀshtiyānī,Tehran1996.al-Qūnawī,Ṣadral-DīnMuḥammadibnIsḥāq.Miftāḥal-ghayb.EditedbyMuḥammad
Khwājawī.Tehran,1995or96.————.Kitābsharḥal-ḥadīthal-arbaʿīnal-nabawī,Cairo,1906or07.————.MurāsalātbaynaṢadral-Dīnal-Qūnawīwa-Naṣīral-Dīnal-Ṭūsī.Editedby
GudrunSchubert.Beirut,1995.————.Fukūkfīasrārmustanadātḥikamal-Fuṣūṣ.EditedwithPersiantranslationby
MuhammadKhwajawi.Tehran,1992.————. Iʿjāz al-bayān fī taʾwīl umm al-Qurʾān. Edited by ʿAbd al-Qādir
AḥmadʿAtāʾ.Cairo,1969.————.al-Nafaḥātal-ilāhiyyah(Persian).EditedandtranslatedbyMuḥammad
Khwājawī.Tehran,1996.Radtke,BerndandJohnO’Kane.TheConceptofSainthoodinEarlyIslamicMysticism:
TwoWorksbyal-Ḥakīmal-Tirmidhī,Richmond,Surrey,1996.Rahman,Fazlur.ThePhilosophyofMullaSadra.Albany,1976.Rosenthal,Franz.“IbnʿArabībetween‘Mysticism’and‘Philosophy’,”Oriens,vol.31
(1988),18-19.Schimmel,Annemarie.MysticalDimensionsofIslam,ChapelHill,1975.Schubert,Gudrun.Annäherungendermystisch-philosophischeBriefwechselzwischen
Sadrud-Dīn-iQonawiundNaṣīrud-Dīn-iṬūsī(al-MurasalatbaynaSadral-Dīnal-QūnawīwaNaṣīral-Dīnal-Ṭūsī),Beirut1995.
————.“TheTextualHistoryoftheCorrespondencebetweenSadral-DīnQūnawīandNaṣīral-DīnṬūsī,”ManuscriptsoftheMiddleEast,3(1998),73-78.
Sirriyeh,Elizabeth.SufiVisionaryofDamascus:ʿAbdal-Ghanīal-Nābulūsī,1641-1731,
NewYork,2004.
Page 134
122
Tahrali,Mustafa.“MuhyiddinIbnArabiveTurkiye’yeTe’sirleri.”KubbealtiAkademi
Mecmuasi.23:1,pp.26-35.al-Tilimsānī,ʿAfīfal-DīnSulaymānibnʿAlī.Dīwān.EditedbyYusufZayd.Cairo
1989?.————.SharḥMawāqifal-Niffarī.EditedbyJamālal-Marzūqī,Cairo,1997.Valsan,M.“LecommentaireésotériqueduCoranparAbdu-r-Razzākal-Qāchānī,”
Etudestraditionelles,LXX(1969),255-64.vanderBergh,S.“Anniyyah,”EI2.vanEss,J.“DieTuḥfatul-ihwāndesʿAbdurrazzāq-iKāšānī,einFutuvatnāmader
Īlḫānidenzeit,”ẒafarNāme,MemorialVolumeofFelixTauer,ed.R.VeselyanE.Gombar,Pragne,1996,85-99.
vonSchlegell,Barbara.PrinciplesofSufism,trans.,Berkeley,1992.Walbridge,J.TheWisdomoftheMysticEast,“Ghazālī,theGhostatSuhrawardī’s
Feast.”NewYork,2001.————.TheLeavenoftheAncients:SuhrawardīandtheHeritageoftheGreeks,New
York,2000————.TheScienceofMysticLights,Cambridge,MA,1992.Watt,W.M.IslamicPhilosophyandTheology,Edingurgh,1985.————.“AForgeryinal-Ghazālī’sMishkāt?”JournaloftheRoyalAsiaticSociety,
1949,5-22Wisnovsky,R.Avicenna’sMetaphysicsinContext,London,2003.Ziai,H.andJ.Walbridge.ThePhilosophyofIllumination,Provo,Utah,1999.