Toshihiko Izutsu Sufism And Taoism P1.Ch01 Part I - Ibn 'Arabi 1 Dream and Reality

SUFISM AND TAOISM: A Comparative Study of Key Philosophical Concepts

by Toshihiko Izutsu 1983

First published 1983 by Iwanami Shoten, Publishers, Tokyo
This edition is published by The University of California Press, 1984,
Rev. ed. of: A comparative study of the key philosophical concepts in Sufism and Taoism. 1966-67.

=====

Contents

Preface by T. Izutsu

Introduction

Part I - Ibn 'Arabi

I Dream and Reality

II The Absolute in its Absoluteness

III The Self-knowledge of Man

IV Metaphysical Unification and Phenomenal Dispersion

V Metaphysical Perplexity

VI The Shadow of the Absolute

VII The Divine Nam es

VIII Allah and the Lord

IX Ontological Mercy

X The Water of Life

XI The Self-manifestation of the Absolute

XII Permanent Archetypes

XIII Creation

XIV Man as Microcosm

XV The Perfect Man as an Individual

XVI Apostle, Prophet, and Saint

XVII The Magical Power of the Perfect Man

Part II - Lao-Tzii & Chuang-Tzu

I Lao-Tzu and Chuang-Tzu

II From Mythopoiesis to Metaphysics

III Dream and Reality

IV Beyond This and That

V The Birth of a New Ego

VI Against Essentialism

VII The Way

VIII The Gateway of Myriad Wonders

IX Determinism and Freedom

X Absolute Reversai of Values

XI The Perfect Man

XII Homo Politicus

Part III - A Comparative Reftection 

I Methodological Preliminaries

II The Inner Transformation of Man

III The Multistratified Structure of Reality

IV Essence and Existence

V The Self-evolvement of Existence

===

Part I

I] Dream and Reality

So-called 'reality', the sensible world which surrounds us and which

we are accustomed to regard as 'reality', is, for Ibn 'Arabi, but a

dream. We perceive by the senses a large number of things, distinguish them one from another, put them in order by our reason, and thus end up by establishing something solid around us. We call that construct 'reality' and do not doubt that it is real.

According to Ibn 'Arabi, however, that kind of 'reality' is not

reality in the true sense of the word. In other terms, such a thing is

not Being ( wujüd) as it really is. Living as we do in this phenomenal

world, Being in its metaphysical reality is no less imperceptible tous

than phenomenal things are in their phenomenal reality to a man

who is asleep and dreaming of them.

Quoting the famous Tradition, 'All men are asleep (in this

world); only when they die, do they wake up,' he remarks:

The world is an illusion; it has no real existence. And this is what is meant by 'imagination' (khayal). For you just imagine that it (i.e., the world) is an autonomous reality quite different from and independent of the absolute Reality, while in truth it is nothing of the sort 1 •

. . . Know that you yourself are an imagination. And everything that you perceive and say to yourself, 'this is not me', is also an imagination. So that the whole world of existence is imagination within imagination. 2

What, then, we do, if what we have taken for 'reality' is but a

dream, not the real form of Being, but something illusory? Should

we abandon once for ail this illusory world and go out of it in search

of an entirely different world, a really real world? Ibn' Arabi does

not take such a position, because, in his view, 'dream', 'illusion' or

'imagination' does not mean something valueless or false; it simply

means 'being a symbolic reflection of something truly real'.

The so-called 'reality' certainly is not the true Reality, but this

must not be taken to mean that it is merely a vain and groundless

thing. The so-called 'reality', though it is not the Reality itself,

vaguely and indistinctively reflects the latter on the level of imagina-

tion. It is, in other words, a symbolic representation of the Reality.

[8]

All it needs is that we should interpret it in a proper way just as we

usually interpret our dreams in order to get to the real state of affairs

beyond the dream-symbols.

Referring to the above-quoted Tradition, 'All men are asleep;

only when they die, do they wake up', Ibn 'Arabi says that 'the

Prophet called attention by these words to the fact that whatever

man perceives in this present world is to him as a dream is to a man

who dreams, and that it must be interpreted' .3

What is seen in a dream is an 'imaginai' form of the Reality, not

the Reality itself. All we have to dois take it back toits original and

true status. This is what is meant by 'interpretation' (ta'wïl). The

expression: 'to die and wake up' appearing in the Tradition is for

Ibn' Arabi nothing other than a metaphorical reference to the act of

interpretation understood in this sense. Thus 'death' does not mean

here death as a biological event. It means a spiritual event consisting

in a man's throwing off the shackles of the sense and reason,

stepping over the confines of the phenomenal, and seeing through

the web of phenomenal things what lies beyond. It means, in short,

the mystical experience of 'self-annihilation' (fanii').

What does a man see when he wakes up from his phenomenal

sleep, opens his real eyes, and looks around? What kind of world

does he observe then - that is, in the self-illuminating state of

'subsistence' (baqii')? To describe that extraordinary world and

elucidate its metaphysical-ontological make-up, that is the main

task of Ibn 'Arabi. The description of the world as he observes it in

the light of his mystical experiences constitutes his philosophical

world-view.

What, then, is that Something which hides itself behind the veil of

the phenomenal, making the so-called 'reality' a grand-scale net-

work of symbols vaguely and obscurely painting to that which lies

beyond them? The answer is given immediately. It is the Absolute,

the real or absolu te Reality which Ibn' Arabi calls al-haqq. Thus the

so-called.'reality' is but a dream, but it is nota sheer illusion. It is a

particular appearance of the absolu te Reality, a particular form of

its self-manifestation (tajallï). It is a dream having a metaphysical

basis. 'The world of being and becoming (kawn) is an imagination',

he says, 'but it is, in truth, Reality itself' .4

Thus the world of being and becoming, the so-called 'reality',

consisting of various forms, properties and states, is in itself a

colorful fabric of fantasy and imagination, but it indicates at the

same time nothing other than Reality - if only one knows how to

take these forms and properties, not in themselves, but as so many

manifestations of the Reality. One who can do this is a man who has

attained the deepest mysteries of the Way (tarïqah).

[9]

Prophets are visionaries. By nature they tend to see strange

visions which do not fall within the capacity of an ordinary man.

These extraordinary visions are known as 'veridical dreams' (ru'yà

$iidiqah) and we readily recognize their symbolic nature. We ordi-

narily admit without hesitation that a prophet perceives through

and beyond his visions something ineffable, something of the true

figure of the Absolute. In truth, however, not only such uncommon

visions are symbolic 'dreams' for a prophet. To his mind everything

he sees, everything with which he is in contact even in daily life is

liable to assume a symbolic character. 'Everything he perceives in

the state of wakefulness is of such a nature, though there is, cer-

tainly, a difference in the states'. 5 The formai difference between

the state of sleep (in which he sees things by his faculty of imagina-

tion) and the state of wakefulness (in which he perceives things by

his senses) is kept intact, yet in both states the things perceived are

equally symbols. 6

Thus, a prophet who lives his life in such an unusual spiritual state

may be said to be in a dream within a dream all through his life. 'The

whole of his life is nothing but a dream within a dream' .7 What Ibn

'Arabi means by this proposition is this: since the phenomenal

world itself is in truth a 'dream' 8 (although ordinary people are not

aware of its being a 'dream'), the prophet who perceives unusual

symbols in the midst of that general 'dream' -context may be com-

pared to a man who is dreaming in a dream.

This, however, is the deepest understanding of the situation, to

which most people have no access, for they are ordinarily convinced

that the phenomenal world is something materially solid; they do

not notice its symbolic nature. Not even prophets themselves - not

all of them - have a clear understanding of this matter. It is a deep

mystery of Being accessible only to a perfect prophet like

Mutiammad. Ibn 'Arabi explains this point taking as an illus-

tration the contrast between the prophet Yüsuf (Joseph) and the

Prophet Mutiammad regarding their respective depth of

understanding.

It is related in the Qoran (XII, 4) that Joseph as a small boy once

saw in a dream eleven stars, and the sun and the moon bowing down

before him. This, Ibn' Arabi observes, was an event which occurred

only in Joseph's imagination (khayàl). Joseph saw in his imagina-

tion his brothers in the form of stars, his father in the form of the

sun, and his mother in the form of the moon. Many years later,

before foseph, who was now a 'mighty prince' in Egypt, his brothers

fell down prostrate At that moment Joseph said to himself, 'This is

the interpreted meaning (ta'wïl) of my dream of long ago. My Lord

has made it true!' (XII, 99).

The pivotai point, according to Ibn' Arabi, lies in the last phrase:

[10]

'has made it true' .9 lt means: 'God has made to appear in the

sensible world what was in the past in the form of imagination'. 10

This implies that the realization or materialization in a sensible form

of what he had seen in a dream was, in the understanding of Joseph,

the final and ultimate realization. He thought that the things left the

domain of 'dream' and came out to the level of 'reality'.

Against this Ibn 'Arabi remarks that, as regards being sensible,

there is fundamentally no difference at all between 'dream' and

'reality'; what Joseph saw in his dream was from the beginning

sensible, for 'it is the fonction of imagination to produce sensible

things (ma}J,süsizt), nothing else'. 11

The position of Muhammad goes deeper than this. Viewed from

the standpoint of the prophet Muhammad, the following is the right

interpretation of what happened to Joseph conceming his dream.

One has to start from the recognition that life itself is a dream. In

this big dream which is his lif e and of which Joseph himself is not

conscious, he sees a particular dream (the eleven stars, etc.). From

this particular dream he wakes up. That is to say, he dreams in his

big dream that he wakes up. Then he interprets his own (particular)

dream (the stars= his brothers, etc.). In truth, this is still a continua-

tion of his big dream. He dreams himself interpreting his own

dream. Then the event which he thus interprets cornes true as a

sensible fact. Thereupon Joseph thinks that his interpretation has

materialized and that his dream has definitely corne to an end. He

thinks that he stands now completely outside of his dream, while, in

reality, he is still dreaming. He is not aware of the fact that he is

dreaming. 12

The contrast between Mu}).ammad and Joseph is conclusively

summed up by al-Qâshâni in the following way:

The difference between Mubammad and Joseph in regard to the

depth of understanding consists in this. Joseph regarded the sensible

forms existing in the outer world as 'reality' whereas, in truth, ail

forms that exist in imagination are (also) sensible without exception,

for imagination (khayal) is a treasury of the sensible things. Every-

thing that exists in imagination is a sensible form although it actually

is not perceived by the senses. As for Mubammad, he regarded the

sensible forms existing in the outer world also as products of imagina-

tion (khayalïyah ), nay even as imagination within imagination. This

because he regarded the present world of ours as a dream while the

only 'reality' (in the true sense of the word) was, in his view, the

Absolute revealing itself as it really is in the sensible forms which are

nothing but so man y different loci of its self-manifestation. This point

is understood only when one wakes up from the present life- which is

a sleep of forgetfulness - after one dies to this world through self-

annihilation in God.

[11]

The basic idea which, as we have just observed, constitutes the very

starting-point of Ibn 'Arabi's ontological thinking, narnely, that

so-called 'reality' is but a dream, suggests on the one band that the

world as we experience it under normal conditions is not in itself

Reality, that it is an illusion, an appearance, an unreality. But

neither does it mean, on the other hand, that the world of sensible

things and events is nothing but sheer fantasy, a purely subjective

projection of the mind. In Ibn' Arabi's view, if 'reality' is an illusion,

it is not a subjective illusion, but an 'objective' illusion; that is, an

unreality standing on a firm ontological basis. And this is tan-

tamount to saying that it is not an illusion at all, at least in the sense

in which the word is commonly taken.

In order that this point become clear, reference must be made to

the ontological conception peculiar to Ibn 'Arabi and his school of

the 'five planes of Being'. The structure of these 'planes' (IJ,a<J,arizt) 13

,îs succinctly explained by Al-Qâshâni as follows. 14 In the Sufi

world-view, five 'worlds' ('awizlim) or five basic planes of Being are

distinguished, each one of them representing a Presence or an

ontological mode of the absolute Reality in its self-manifestation.

(1) The plane of the Essence (dhizt), the world of the absolute

non-manifestation (al-ghayb al-mu(laq) or the Mystery of

Mysteries. 15

(2) The plane of the Attributes and the Na mes, the Presence of

Divinity (ulühiyah) .16

(3) The plane of the Actions, the Presence of Lordship

(rubübiyah).

( 4) The plane of Images (amthizl) and Imagination (khayizl). 11

( 5) The plane of the sen ses and sensible experience

(mushizhadah).

These five planes constitute among themselves an organic whole,

the things of a lower plane serving as symbols or images for the

things of the higher planes. Thus, according to al-Qâshâni, what-

ever exists in the plane of ordinary reality ( which is the lowest of all

Divine Presences) is a symbol-exemplification (mithizl) for a thing

existing in the plane of Images, and everything that exists in the

world of Images is a form reflecting a state of affairs in the plane of

the Divine Names and Divine Attributes, while every Attribute is

an aspect of the Divine Essence in the act of self-manifestation.

Details about the five planes will be given in the following chap-

ters. Suffice it here to note that the whole world of Being, in Ibn

'Arabi' s view, consists basically of these five levels of Divine self-

manifestation, and that there exists between the higher and lower

levels such an organic relation as has just been mentioned. With this

in mind, let us return to the problem of our immediate concern.

[12]

Anything that is found at the lowest level of Being, i.e., the

sensible world, or any event that occurs there, is a 'phenomenon' in

the etymological meaning of the term; it is a form ($ürah) in which a

state gf affairs in the higher plane of Images directly reveals itself,

andindirectly and ultimately, the absolu te Mystery itself. To look at

things in the sensible world and not to stop there, but to see beyond

them the ultimate ground of all Being, that precisely is what is called

by Ibn' Arabï 'unveiling' (kashf) or mystical intuition. 18 'Unveiling'

means, in short, taking each of the sensible things as a locus in which

Reality discloses itself to us. And a man who does so encounters

everywhere a 'phenomenon' of Reality, whatever he sees and hears

in this world. Whatever he experiences is for him a form manifesting

an aspect of Divine Existence, a symbol for an aspect of Divine

Reality. And in this particular respect, his sensory experiences are

of the same symbolic nature as visions he experiences in his sleep. 19

In the eyes of a man possessed of this kind of spiritual capacity,

the whole world of 'reality' ceases to be something solidly self-

sufficient and turns into a deep mysterious forét de symboles, a

system of ontological correspondences. And dreams which arise in

the 'imaginai' plane of Being turn out to be the same as the things

and events of the world of sensory experience. Both the world of

sensible things and the world of dreams are, in this view, the same

domain of symbols. As al-Qâshânï says, 'Everything which cornes

manifesting itself from the world of the Unseen into the world of

sensible experience - whether it manifests itself in the senses or

imagination, or again in an image-similitude - is a revelation, an

instruction or communication from God' .20

The symbolic structure of the world here depicted, however, is

accessible only to the consciousness of an extremely limited number

of persans. The majority of people live attached and confined to the

lowest level of Being, that of sensible things. That is the sole world

of existence for their opaque consciousness. This lowest level of

Being only, being tangible and graspable through the senses, is real

for them. And even on this level, it never occurs to them to 'inter-

pret' the forms of the things around them. They are asleep.

But since, on the other hand, the common people, too, are

possessed of the faculty of imagination, something unusual may -

and does - occur in their minds on rare occasions. An invitation

from above visits them and flashes across their consciousness like

lightning when it is least expected. This happens when they have

visions and dreams.

Ordinarily, imagination or fantasy means the faculty of producing

in the mind a deceptive impression of the presence of a thing which

is not actually there in the external world or which is totally non-

existent. With Ibn 'Arabï, it has a different meaning. Of course in

[13]

his theory, too, imagination is the faculty of evoking in the mind

those things that are not externally present, i.e., things that are not

immediately present in the plane of sensible experience. But it is not

a wild fantasy or hallucination which induces the mind to see things

that are nowhere existent. What it produces is not a groundless

reverie. It makes visible, albeit in an obscure and veiled way, astate

of affairs in the higher planes of Being. It is a fonction of the mind

directly connected with the 'world of Images'.

The 'world of Images' ('iilam al-mithiil) is ontologically an inter-

mediate domain of contact between the purely sensible world and

the purely spiritual, i.e., non-material world. It is, as Affifi defines it,

'a really existent world in which are found the forms of the things in

a manner that stands between "fineness" and" coarseness", that is,

between pure spirituality and pure materiality' .21

All things that exist on this level of Being have, on the one hand,

something in common with things existing in the sensible world, and

resemble, on the other, the abstract intelligibles existing in the

world of pure intellect. They are special things half-sensible and

half-intelligible. They are sensible, but of an extremely fine and

rarefied sensible-ness. They are intelligible, too, but not of such a

pure intelligibility as that of the Platonic Ideas.

What is commonly called imagination is nothing but this world as

it is reftected in the human consciousness, not in its proper forms,

but obliquely, dimly, and utterly deformed. Images obtained in such

a way naturally lack an ontological basis and are rightly to be

disposed of as hallucinations.

Sometimes, however, the 'world of Images' appears as it really is,

without deformation, in the consciousness even of an ordinary man.

The most conspicuous case of this is seen in the veridical dream. The

'world of Images' is eternally existent and it is at every moment

acting upon human consciousness. But man, on his part, is not

usually aware of it while he is awake, because his mind in that state is

impeded and distracted by the material forces of the external world.

Only when he is asleep, the physical faculties of his mind being in

abeyance, can the faculty of imagination opera te in the proper way.

And veridical dreams are produced.

However, even if a man sees in his sleep a veridical dream, it is

always presented in a series of sensible images. And it remains

devoid of significance unless it be 'interpreted'. Ibn 'Arabi sees a

typical example of this in the Biblical-Qoranic anecdote of

Abraham sacrificing his son.

Abraham once saw in a dream a sacrificial ram appearing in the

image of his son Isaac (Isb.âq). In reality, this was a symbol. It was a

symbol for the first institution of an important religious ritual; [14]

namely, that of immolation of a sacrificial animal on the altar. And

since this ritual itself was ultimately a symbol of man's offering up

his own soul in sacrifice, Abraham' s vision was to be interpreted as a

sensible phenomenal form of this spiritual event. But Abraham did

not 'interpret' it. And he was going to sacrifice his son. Here is the

explanation of this event by Ibn 'Arabi. 22

Abraham, the Friend (of God), said to his son, 'Lo, I have seen myself in my dream sacrificing thee'. (Qoran XXXVII, 102). Dream, in truth, is a matter, pertaining to the plane of Imagination. 23 He, however, did not interpret (his dream). What he saw in the dream was a ram assuming the form of the son of Abraham. And Abraham supposed his vision to be literally true (and was about to sacrifice Isaac). But the Lord redeemed him from the illusion of Abraham with the Great Sacrifice (i.e. the sacrifice of a ram). This was God's

'interpretation' of the dream of Abraham, but the latter did not know it. He did not know it because all theophany in a sensible form in the plane of Imagination needs a different kind of knowledge which alone makes it possible for man to understand what is meant by God through that particular form ....

Thus God said to Abraham, calling out to him, 'O Abraham, thou hast taken the vision for truth' (XXXVII, 104-105). Mark that God did not say, 'Thou has grasped the truth in imagining that it is thy son'. (The mistake pointed out here) arose from the fact that Abraham did not 'interpret' the dream but took what he had seen as literally true, when all dreams must of necessity be 'interpreted' ... If what he imagined had been true, he would have sacrificed his son. 24 He merely took his vision for truth and thought that (Isaac, whom he had seen in the dream) was literally his own son.

In reality, God meant by the form of his son nothing more than the

Great Sacrifice.

Thus He 'redeemed' him (i.e., Isaac) simply because of what occurred in Abraham' s mind, whereas in itself and in the eye of God it was not at ail a question of redeeming. 25

Thus (when lsuac was 'redeemed') his visual sense perceived a sacrificial animal (i.e., a ram) while his imagination evoked in his mind the image of his son. (Because of this symbolic correspondence) he would have interpreted his vision as signifying his son or some other thing if he had seen a ram in imagination (i.e., in his dream, instead of seeing his son as he actually did). Then says God, 'Verily this is a manifest trial' (XXXVII, 106), meaning thereby the trial (of Abraham by God) concerning his knowledge; namely, whether or not he knows that the very nature of a vision properly requires an 'interpretation'. Of course Abraham did know that things of Imagination properly require 'interpretation'. But (in this particular case) he carelessly neglected to do that. Thus he did not fulfil what was properly required of him and simply assumed that his vision was a literal truth.

 

Abraham was a prophet. And a man who stands in the high spiritual

[15]

position of prophethood must know (theoretically) that a veridical

dream is a symbol for an event belonging to the plane of higher

realities. And yet Abraham actually forgot to 'interpret' his dream.

prophets are like that, how could it be expected that ordinary men

'interpret' rightly their dreams and visions? It is but natural, then,

that an ordinary man cannot see that an event occurring in so-called

'reality' is a symbol for an event corresponding to it in the higher

plane of the Images.

How can man cultivate such an ability for seeing things symboli-

cally? What should he do in order that the material veil covering

things be removed to reveal the realities that lie beyond?

Regarding this question, Ibn' Arabi in a passage of the points to

a very interesting method. lt is a way of discipline, a way of practice for

cultivating what he calls the 'spiritual eyesight' ('ayn ). lt is a

way that renders possible the inner transformation of man.

This inner transformation of man is explained by Ibn 'Arabi in

terms of transition from the 'worldly state of being (al-nash'ah

al-dunyawïyah) to the 'otherworldly state of being' (al-nash'ah

al-ukhrawïyah ). 26 The 'worldly state of being' is the way the major-

ity of men naturally are. It is characterized by the fact that man, in

his natural state, is completely un der the sway of his body, and the

activity of his mind impeded by the physical constitution of the

bodily organs. Under such conditions, even if he tries to understand

something and grasp its reality, the object cannot appear to his mind

except in utter deformation. It is a state in which man stands

completely veiled from the essential realities of things.

In order to escape from this state, Ibn 'Arabi says, man must

personally re-live the experiences of Elias-Enoch and re-enact in

himself the spiritual drama of the inner transformation symbolized

by these two names.

Elias (Ilyiis) and Enoch (Idns) were two names assumed by one

and the same person. They were two names given to one person in

two different states. Enoch was a prophet before the time of Noah.

He was raised high by God and was placed in the sphere of the sun.

His name was Enoch in that supreme position. Later he was sent

down as an apostle to the Syrian town of Baalbek. In that second

state he was named Elias. 27

Elias who was sent down in this manner to the earth from the high

sphere of heaven did not stop halfway but became totally 'earthly'.

He pushed the 'elemental ('un-îuri) state of being' on the earth toits

extreme limit. This symbolizes a man who, instead of exercising his

human reason in a lukewarm way as most people do, abandons

himself thoroughly and completely to the elemental life of nature to

the degree of being less than human.

[16]

While he was in that state, he had once a strange vision, in which

he saw a mountain called Lubnàn split up and a horse of tire coming

out of it with a harness made entirely of fire. When the prophet

noticed it, he immediately rode the horse, bodily desires fell from

him and he turned into a pure intellect without desire. He was now

completely free from all that was connected with the physical self. 28

And only in this purified state could Elias see Reality as it really is.

However, Ibn 'Arabi observes, even this supreme 'knowledge of

God' (ma'rifah bi-Allàh) attained by Elias was nota perfect one.

'For in this (knowledge), Reality was in pure transcendence

(munazzah), and it was merely half of the (perfect) knowledge of

God' .29 This means that the pure intellect that has freed itself

completely from everything physical and material cannot by nature

see God except in His transcendence (tanzih). But transcendence is

only one of the two basic aspects of the Absolute. Its other half is

immanence (tashbih). Ali knowledge of God is necessarily one-

sided if it does not unite transcendence and immanence, because

God is transcendent and immanent at the same time. Who, how-

ever, can actually unite these two aspects in this knowledge of God?

It is, as we shall see in Chapter III, the prophet Mul).ammad, no one

else, not even Elias.

Keeping what has just been said in mind, let us try to follow the

footsteps of Enoch-Elias in more concrete, i.e., less mythopoeic,

terms.

As a necessary first step, one has to go down to the most elemen-

tal level of existence in imitation of the heavenly Enoch who went

down to the earth and began by living at the lowest level of earthly

life. As suggested above, one must not stop halfway. Then abandon-

ing all activity of Reason and not exercising any longer the thinking

faculty, one fully realizes the 'animality' (IJ,ayawàniyah) which lies

hidden at the bottom of every human being. One is, at this stage, a

pure animal with no mixture of shallow humanity. Such a man 'is

freed from the sway of Reason and abandons himself to his natural

desires. He is an animal pure and simple' .30

In this state of unmixed animality, the man is given a certain kind

of mystical intuition, a particular sort of 'unveiling' (kashf). This

'unveiling' is the kind of 'unveiling' which is naturally possessed by

wild animais. They experience this kind of 'unveiling' because, by

nature, they do not exercise, and are therefore not bothered by, the

faculty of Reason.

In any case, the man who seriously intends to re-experience what

was once experienced by Enoch-Elias must, as a first step,

thoroughly actualize his animality; so thoroughly, indeed, that 'in

the end is "unveiled" to him what is (naturally) "unveiled" to all

[17]

animais except mankind and jinn. Only then can he be sure that he

has completely actualized his animality' .31

Whether a man has attained to this degree of animality may be

known from outside by two symptoms: one is that he is actually

experiencing the animal 'unveiling', and the other is that he is

unable to speak. The explanation by Ibn' Arabi of these two symp-

toms, particularly of the tirst one, is quite unusual and bizarre, at

least to our common sense. But it is difficult to deny the extraordinary weight of reality it evokes in our minds. It strikes as real

because it is a description of his own persona! experience as an

unusual visionary.

The first symptom, he says, of a man actually experiencing the

animal kashf, is that 'he sees those who are being chastised (by the

angels) in the graves, and those who are enjoying a heavenly felicity,

that he sees the dead living, the dumb speaking, and the crippled

walking'. To the eye of such a man there appear strange scenes

which our 'sane and healthy' Reason would unhesitatingly consider

sheer insanity. Whether such a vision is rightly to be regarded as

'animal' experience is a question about which the ordinary mind is

not in a position to pass any judgment. For here Ibn' Arabi is talking

out of his persona! experience.32 But we can easily see at least that,

in the mind of a man who has completely liberated himself from the

domination of natural Reason, all those petty distinctions and differentiations that have been established by the latter crumble away

in utter confusion, and things and events take on entirely different

and new forms. What Ibn' Arabi wants to say by all this is that all the

seemingly watertight compartments into which Reality is divided by

human Reason lose their ontological validity in such an 'animal' experience.

The second symptom is that such a man becomes dumb and is

unable to express himself 'even if he wants and tries to describe in

words what he sees. And this is a decisive sign that he has actualized

his animality' 33 Here he gives an interesting description of his own

experience concerning this point:

Once 1 had a disciple who attained to this kind of 'unveiling'. However, he did not keep silent about his ( experience). This shows that he did not realize his animality (in perfect manner.) When God made me stand at that stage, 1 realized my animality completely. I had visions and wanted to talk about what 1 witnessed, but 1 could not do so. There was no actual difference between me and those who were by nature speechless.

A man who has thus gone all the way to the furthest limit of animality, if he still continues his spiritual exercise, may rise to the state of pure Intellect.34 The Reason ('aql) which has been abandoned

[18]

before in order to go down to the lowest level of animality is an

'aql attached to and fettered by his body. And now at this second

stage, he acquires a new 'aql, or rather recovers possession of his

once-abandoned 'aql in a totally different form. The new 'aql, which

Ibn 'Arabi calls 'pure Intellect' ('aql mujarrad),35 fonctions on a

level where its activity cannot be impeded by anything bodily and

physical. The pure Intellect has nothing at all to do with the body.

And when a man acquires this kind of Intellect and sees things with

the eye of the pure Intellect itself, even ordinary things around him

begin to disclose to him their true ontological structure.

This last statement means, in terms of Ibn 'Arabi' s world-view,

that the things around us lose their independence in the eye of such

a man and reveal their true nature as so many 'phenomena' of things

belonging to the ontological stage above them.

(Such a man) has transformed himself into a pure Intellect away from all natural material elements. He witnesses things that are the very sources of what appears in the natural forms. And he comes to know by a sort of intuitive knowledge why and how the things of nature are just as they are. 36

In still more concrete terms, such a man is already in the ontological

stage above that of the things of nature. He is in the stage of the

Divine Names and Attributes. In the language of ontology peculiar

to Ibn' Arabi, he is in the stage of the 'permanent archetypes' (a'yim

thllbitah ),37 and is looking down from that height on the infini tel y

variegated things of the sensible world and understanding them in

terms of the realities (IJ,aqa'iq) that lie beyond them.

He who has attained to this spiritual height is an 'arif or 'one who

knows (the transcendental truth)', and his cognition is rightly to be

regarded as an authentic case of dhawq or 'immediate tasting'. Such

a man is already 'complete' (tamm).

As we have remarked before, however, the cognition of Enoch

was only 'half' of the cognition of the Absolute reality. A man of

this kind is certainly tiimm, but not yet 'perfect' (kiimil). In order that

he might be kami!, he has to go a step further and raise himself to a

point where he sees that all, whether the 'permanent archetypes' or

the things of nature or again he himself who is actually perceiving

them, are after ail, nothing but so many phenomenal forms of

the Divine Essence on different levels of being; that through ail the

ontological planes, there runs an incessant and infinite fkw of the

Divine Being.38 Only when a man is in such a position is he a' Perfect

Man' (insan kami!).

The above must be taken as an introduction to the major prob-

lems of Ibn 'Arabi and a summary exposition of the experiential

basis on which he develops his philosophical thinking. It has, 1 think,

[19]

made clear that Ibn 'Arabi's philosophy is, in brief, a theoretic

description of the en tire world of Being as it is reflected in the eye of

the Perfect Man. It is, indeed, an extraordinary world-view because

it is a product of the extraordinary experience of an extraordinary

man. How, then, does the Perfect Man, that is, a man who has been

completely awakened, see the world? That will be the main theme

of the following chapters.

Before we close this chapter, however, it will not be out of place

to look back and re-examine the major concepts that have been

touched upon, and consider the relations that are recognizable

among them. In so doing we have to keep in mind that we are still at

a preliminary stage of our research, and that all we have done is

simply to adumbrate the structure of the whole system.

First and foremost, 1 would like to draw attention to a fact of

capital importance which has been suggested in the course of the

present chapter but not explicitly stated; namely, that the

philosophical thought of Ibn' Arabi, with all its perplexing complex-

ity and profundity, is dominated by the concept of Being. In this

sense, his thought is, in essence, through and through ontological.

The concept of Being in the double meaning of ens and esse is the

highest key-concept that dominates his entire thought. His philoso-

phy is theological, but it is more ontological than theological. That is

why even the concept of God (Allah) itself which in Islam generally

maintains its uncontested position is given here only a secondary

place.39 As we shall see presently, God is a 'phenomenal', i.e.,

self-manifesting, form assumed by Something still more primordial,

the Absolute Being. Indeed, the concept of Being is the very found-

ation of this world-view.

However, it is by no means a common-sense notion of Being.

Unlike Aristotle for whom also Being had an overwhelming fascina-

tion, Ibn 'Arabi does not start his philosophizing from the concept

of Being on the concrete level of ordinary reality. For him, the

things of the physical world are but a dream. His ontology begins -

and ends - with an existential grasp of Being at its abysmal depth,

the absolute Being which infinitely transcends the level of common

sense and which is an insoluble enigma to the minds of ordinary

men. It is, in short, an ontology based on mysticism, motivated by

what is disclosed only by the mystical experience of 'unveiling'

(kashfl.

The absolute Being intuitively grasped in such an extraordinary

experience reveals itself in an infinite number of degrees. These

degrees or stages of Being are classified into five major ones which

were introduced in this chapter as 'five planes of Being'. Ibn' Arabi

himself designates each of these planes of Being IJ,adrah or 'pres-

ence'. Each IJ,adrah is a particular ontological dimension in which

[20]

the absolute Being (al-wujüd al-mut/aq) manifests itself. And the

absolute Being in all the forms of self-manifestation is referred to by

the term }Jaqq

The first of these five planes of Being, which is going to be our

topic in the next chapter, is Reality in its first and primordial

absoluteness or the absolute Being itself. It is the Absolute before40

it begins to manifest itself, i.e., the Absolute in a state in which it

does not yet show even the slightest foreboding of self-

manifestation. The four remaining stages are the essential forms in

which the Absolute 'descends' from its absoluteness and manifests

itself on levels that are to us more real and concrete. This self-

manifesting activity of the Absolu te is called by Ibn 'Arabï tajallï, a

word which literally means disclosing something hidden behind a

veil.

----

Haqq (Absolute)

1. non-tajallï - the first hadrah (the Absolute in its absoluteness)
2. tajallï  - the second hadrah (the Absolu te mani-festing itself as God)
3. tajallï - the third hadrah (the Absolute manifesting itself as Lord)
4. tajallï - the fourth hadrah (the Absolute mamfesting itself as half-spiritual and half-material things)
5. tajallï - the fifth hadrah (the Absolute manifesting itself as the sensible world)

---

As this diagram shows, everything in Ibn 'Arabï's world-view,

whether spiritual of material, invisible or visible, is a tajallï of the

Absolute except the Absolute in its absoluteness, which is, needless

to say, not a tajalli but the very source of all tajalliyât.

Another point to note is that these five planes constitute an

organic system of correspondences. Thus anything found in the

second IJ,a<J,rah, for example, besides being itself a 'phenomenon' of

some aspect of the firstlJ,a<J,rah, finds its ontological repercussions in

all the three remaining IJ,a<J,arat each in a form peculiar to each

IJ,atf,rah.

lt is also important to remember that the first three planes are

purely spiritual in contrast with the fifth which is material, while the

fourth represents a border-line between the two.

With these preliminary notions in mind we shall turn immediately

to the first IJ,a<J,rah.

[21]

=====

Notes

1. Fu$i4 al-/fikam, p. 117/103. In quoting from the al-/fikam I shall

always give two paginations: (1) that of the Cairo edition of 1321 A.H., containing

al-Qàshànï's commentary, and (2) that of Affifi's critical edition, Cairo, 1946 (1365

A.H.).

2. Fu$., p. 199/104. 'Imagination within imagination' here means that the world as

we perceive it is a product of our persona! faculty of imagination which is active

within the larger domain of the 'objective' Imagination. For a lucid and most

illuminating exposition of the concept of Imagination in this latter sense, see Henry

Corbin L'imagination créatrice dans le soufisme d'Jbn 'Arabi, Paris, 1958.

3. p. 200/159.

4. p. 200/159

5. p. 110/99.

6. p. 111199.

7. ibid.

8. i.e., a system of symbols pointing to the Absolute.

9. ja'ala-hà IJ,aqqà.

10. p. 112/101.

11. p. 113/101.

12. pp. 112-113/101. The following words of al-Qàshànï are found in his

commentary, p. 113.

13. literally, (Divine) Presences. They are the five fundamental modes or dimen-

sions of the self-manifestation of the Absolute.

14. p. 110. It is to be remembered that this is not the only form in which the 'planes of Being' are presented. Al-Qàshànï himself gives in another place a slightly different explanation (see later, Chapter XI).

15. to be explained in the following chapter.

16. to be discussed in Chapter VII together with the next plane, the plane of the

Actions.

17. This is an intermediary plane which lies between the properly Divine domain of

Being (1, 2, 3) and the material world of senses, the so-caUed 'reality' (5). It is a world sui generis of eternal Archetypes or Images, in which the originally formless Ideas assume 'imaginai' forms and in which the material things of our empirical world appear as 'subtle (latin bodies' having been divested of their grossly material forms.

18. p. 111199.

19. ibid.

22 Sufism and Taoism

20. p. 110.

21. Commentary on the FWiü.î, p. 74. This commentary is found in the above-

mentioned Cairn edition by Affifi. Throughout the present work, this commentary

will be referred to as Affifi, FWi ., Corn.

22. FWi., pp. 84-86/85-86.

23. i.e., it is a symbol, and needs 'interpretation'.

24. i.e., God would not have stopped him.

25. The last sentence means: God redeemed Isaac with a sacrificial ram. But the

truth is that the whole matter merely looked to Abraham as 'redeeming'. There was, in fact, no 'redeeming' because from the beginning it was not God's intention to make Abraham sacrifice his son. Since, however, Abraham had misunderstood

God's intention, what God did to his son was in his eyes an act of redemption.

26. Fu:f., pp. 234-235/186.

27. FWi., p. 227/181.

28. FWi., p. 228/181.

29. ibid.

30. Fu:f., p. 235/186.

31. ibid.

32. Besides, ail bis statements are, in general, based on his personal experience,

whether he explicitly says so or not. And this is one of the reasons why his description (of anything) is so powerful and persuasive.

33. These words, together with the following quotation, are from FWi., p. 235/186-

187.

34. i.e., a spiritual state in which the intellect ('aql) is free from ail physical fetters

( al-Qashanï).

35. The Arabie here is a bit confusing because the same word 'aql is used for both

forms: the 'physical' or 'natural' 'aql which a mystic must abandon and the 'pure'

'spiritual' 'aql which he acquires afterwards.

36. Fu:f., p. 236/187.

37. About the 'permanent archetypes' details will be given later.

38. FWi., p. 236/187.

39. unless, of course, we use, as Ibn' Arabi himself often does, the word Alliih in a

non-technical sense as a synonym of the Absolute (IJ,aqq).

40. Strictly speaking, the word 'before' is improper here because the 'absoluteness' is beyond ail temporal relations: there can be neither 'before' nor 'after' in the temporal sense.