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.
=====
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
1 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
===
XIV Man as Microcosm
As I remarked earlier, the world-view of Ibn 'Arabï stands on two
bases: one is the Absolute, and the other the Perfect Man. And all
through the preceding pages, we have been analyzing his ontologi-
cal world-view exclusively from the first angle. The remaining chap-
ters will be concerned with the analysis of the same world-view
looked at from the second point of view.
I Microcosm and Macrocosm
In setting out to discuss the concept of the Perfect Man (al-insiin
al-kiimil) it is, I think of special importance to observe that Ibn
'Arabi considers 'man' on two different levels. It is important to
keep this basic distinction in mind, because if we neglect to do so, we
shall easily be led into confusion.
The first is the cosmic level. Here 'man' is treated as a cosmic
entity. In popular terminology we might say that what is at issue on
this level is 'mankind'. In logical terminology, we might say that it is
'man' as a species. In any event, the question is not about 'man' as an
individual persan.
'Man' on this lev el is the most perf ect of all beings of the world,
for he is the Imago Dei. Here 'man' himself is perfect; 'man' is the
Perfect Man. The Perfect Man in this sense is 'man' viewed as a
perfect epitome of the universe, the very spirit of the whole world of
Being, a being summing up and gathering together in himself all the
elements that are manifested in the universe. 'Man' is, in short, the
Microcosm.
At the second level, on the contrary, 'man' means an individual.
On this level, not all men are equally perfect. There are, from this
point of view, a number of degrees among men. And only few of
them deserve the appellation of the Perfect Man. The majority -of
men are far from being 'perfect'.
The present chapter will be concerned with the Perfect Man as
understood in the first sense.
Man as Microcosm 219
As has just been remarked 'man' on the first of the two levels is an
epitome of the whole universe. He is, in this sense, called the
'comprehensive being' (al-kawn al-jiimi', lit. 'a being that gathers
together'), that is, Microcosm.
Concerning the birth of' man' as the' comprehensive being', there
is at the very outset of the Fu$Û$, a very famous passage. The
passage is filled with technical terms peculiar to Ibn 'Arabi, all of
which have already been analyzed in the preceding chapters. Here
Ibn 'Arabï describes the mysterious process by which the self-
manifestation of the Absolu te is activated by the inner requirement
of the Divine Names, leading toward the creation of the world, and
in particular the creation of' man' as the being who su ms up in itself
all the properties that are diffused in the whole universe. The
passage begins with the following words: 1
When the Absolute God, at the level of his Beautiful Names that
exceed enumeration, wished to see the (latent) realities of the Na mes
- or if you like, say, His inner reality itself - as (actualized) in a
'comprehensive being· which, because of its being qualified by
'existence', contains in itself the whole universe, and (wished) to
make manifest to Himself His own secret through it (i.e., the 'com-
prehensive being·) ...
These opening words of the passage constitute a brief summary of
the ontology of Ibn' Arabi which we have been studying in detail in
the preceding. The argument may be explained as follows.
Ibn' Arabi begins by stating that the Divine Wish (mashï'ah) for
the creation of the world (and man in particular) did not arise from
the Absolute qua Absolute. The creative Wish arase due to the
essential inner drive of the Beautiful Names or Attributes. The
Absolute qua Absolute characterized by an absolute 'indepen-
dence' (istighnii') does not require by itself and for itself any crea-
tive activity. It is the Divine Names that require the existence of the
universe, the created world. It is in the very nature of the Divine
Names to require the world, because they are actualized only by the
concrete existents, and without the latter they lose positive
signifi can ce.
Ibn 'Arabï expresses this situation by saying: 'The Absolute
wished to see the realities (a'yiin) of the Divine Names', or 'The
Absolu te wished to see its own inner reality ('ayn ). The first formula
corresponds to what we already know as 'the holy emanation', while
the second corresponds to the 'most holy emanation'. The distinc-
tion does not make much difference in this particular context,
because 'the holy emanation' necessarily presupposes the 'most
holy emanation', and the latter necessarily entails the former. What
Ibn' Arabï wants to say is that God had the mashï'ah to see Himself
•11
220 Sufism and Taoism
as reftected in the mirror of the world, that He wished to see Himself
in the very manifestation-forms of His own Attributes.
The phrase, 'because of its being qualified by existence', gives an
answer to the question: How is it possible for the Absolute to see
itself by the creation of the universe as epitomized by Man? The
uni verse possesses 'existence'. This 'existence' is not the absolu te
Existence itself, but is a 'relative existence' (wujüd i<J,afiy), i.e.,
'existence' as determined and delimited in various ways and forms.
But, however determined and delimited, the relative existence is,
after ail, a direct reftection of the absolute Existence. lt is the figure
of the Absolute itself as the latter is manifested in 'possible' exist-
ents, being determined and particularized by each of the loci of its
self-manifestation. The relative existence is - to use a favorite
metaphor of Ibn 'Arabi - the absolu te Existence as reftected in the
mirror of relative determinations.
An image in a mirror is not the object itself, but it does represent
the object. In this sense, the universe discloses the 'secret' (sirr) of
the Absolute. The word 'secret' in the above-quoted passage means
the hidden (i.e., absolutely invisible) depths of Existence, and cor-
responds to the phrase 'the hidden treasure' (kanz makhfiy) in the
famous Tradition which we discussed earlier.
Ibn' Arabi sets out to develop his thought in terms of the metaphor
of the mirror. He begins by distinguishing between two kinds of
vision: 2
The vision which a being obtains of itself is different from the vision
of itself which it obtains in something else serving as a mirror for it.
The first of these two kinds of vision consists in a being seeing itself
in itself. And it goes without saying that the Absolute has vision of
itself in this sense. Here the Absolu te needs no mirror. The Abso-
lu te is 'All-seeing by itself from eternity', and nothing of itself is
concealed from its inner gaze.
But the Absolute has also an aspect in which it is an Essence
qualified by Attributes. And since the Attributes become real only
when they are externalized, it becomes necessary for the Absolute
to see itself in the 'other'. Thus the 'other' is created in order that
God might see Himself therein in externalized forms.
The first thing which God created in order to see Himself therein
was the world or universe. Ibn' Arabi calls the world in this particu-
lar context the Big Man (al-insan al-kabïr), i.e., Macrocosm. 3 The
most salient feature of the Big Man is that every single existent in it
Man as Microcosm 221
represents one particular aspect (Name) of God, and one only, so
that the whole thing lacks a clear delineation and a definite articula-
tion, being as it is a loose co11glomeration of discrete points. It is, so
to speak, a clouded mirror.
In contrast to this, the second thing which God created for the
purpose of seeing Himself as reflected therein, namely, Man, is a
well-polished spotless mirror reflecting any object as it really is.
Rather, Man is the polishing itself of this mirror which is called the
universe. Those discrete things and properties that have been dif-
fused and scattered ail over the immense universe become united
and unified into a sharp focus in Man. The structure of the whole
universe with ail its complicated details is reflected in him in a clear
and distinctly articulated miniature. This is the meaning of his being
a Microcosm. Man is a Small Universe, while the universe is a Big
Man, as al-Qashànî says.4
The contrast between the universe and Man in the capacity of a
'mirror' which God holds up to Himself is described by Ibn' Arabi in
the following terms: 5
God makes Himself visible to Himself in a (particular) form that is
provided by the locus (i.e., the mirror) in which He is seen. Some-
thing in this way becomes visible to Him which would never be visible
if it were not for this particular locus and His self-manifestation
therein.
(Before the creation of Man) God had already brought into being the
whole universe with an existence like that of a vague and obscure
image having a form but no soul within. It was like a mirror that was
left unpolished ....
This situation naturally demanded the polishing up of the mirror of
the universe. And Man (âdam, i.e., the reality of Man) was ( created
to be) the very polishing of that mirror and the very spirit of that
form.
The ontological meaning of the metaphor of the 'unpolished mirror'
is explained by al-Qàshànî as follows: 6
Before Man, the Microcosm, was created, the universe (the Macro-
cosm) had already been existent due to the requirement of the Divine
Names, because it is in the nature of each Name to require singly the
actualization of its content, i.e., the Essence accompanied by an
Attribute, or an existence particularized by an Attribute, while
another Name asks for an existence particularized by another Attri-
bute. No single Name, however, requires an existence which would
unify all the Attributes together, for no Name has an essential unity
comprising all the Attributes in itself. Thus the universe has no
property of being a comprehensive locus for manifesting all the
aspects of existence in its unity.
222 Sufism and Taoism
This fact that the universe was an 'unpolished mirror' required the
creation of Man who was meant to be the very polishing of the
mirror.
This is a very important statement for determining the cosmic
significance of Man. We might interpret it in terms of modern
philosophie thinking and say that what is symbolized by the 'polish-
ing' - or rather 'the state of having been polished' (jalii') - of the
mirror is the' consciousness' of Man. All beings other than Man only
reftect, each one of them, singly, one aspect of the Absolu te. It is
only when put together in the form of the universe that they consti-
tute a big whole corresponding to the Consciousness itself of the
Absolu te. In this sense, the universe, certainly, is 'one', but, since
the universe lacks consciousness, it does not constitute real unity.
Man, on the contrary, not only synthesizes all the forms of the
Divine self-manifestation which are scattered over the world of
Being, but also is conscious of this whole. This is why a true com-
prehensive unity is established by Man, corresponding to the Unity
of the Absolute. Man is in this sense the Imago Dei. And because of
this peculiarity, Man can be, as we shall see presently, the 'viceger-
ent' of God on the earth.
On the correspondence just mentioned between the human
unity and the Divine Unity, al-Qàshàni makes the following
remark: 7
The Presence (i.e., the ontological lev el) of 'God' gathers together ail
the Names without there being anything mediatory between them
and the Divine Essence. The ontological level of Man gathers them
together in a similar way. This can be understood from the following
consideration. Existence cornes down first from the comprehensive
Unity of the Essence to the Presence of Divinity, and thence it
overflows into ail the degrees of the 'possible' things spreading more
and more in various forms until, when it reaches Man, it has already
been tinged with ail the col ors of the ( ontological) grades.
Man becomes in this way an intermediate stage (barzakh) comprising
the properties both of necessity and possibility, as the Presence of
Divinity comprises both the Essence and ail the Names.
The above quoted passage from the Fu$Ü$, together with this
explanatory remark by al-Qâshânï, makes it clear that the most
important significance of Man lies in his 'comprehensiveness'
(jam'ïyah, lit. 'gathering-ness'). Before we proceed with this prob-
lem, we must analyze further in detail the metaphor of the mirror.
A mirror reftects objects. Sometimes it reftects them as they really
are. But in many cases an object is reftected in a mirror more or less
changed or transformed.
Man as Microcosm 223
The image of a person appearing on the polished (surface of a) body
is nothing other than the person himself, except that the locus or the
Presence, in which he perceives the reflection of his own image, gives
back the image to him with a certain transformation8 according to the
constitution of that Presence. In the sa me way, a big thing appears
small in a small mirror, oblong in an oblong mirror, and moving in a
moving mirror (i.e., running water).
Thus the mirror sometimes gives back the image of the person in
inversion, the inversion being caused by the particular constitution of
a particular Presence. But sometimes it gives back the very thing (i.e.,
the person who is looking) appearing in it, in such a way that the left
side (for example) of the reflected image faces the left side of the
person. 9 Sometimes, again, the right side (of the image in the mirror)
faces the left side (of the person) as is typical of what customarily
happens to (an image in) a mirror. Only by a 'break of custom' does
the right si de (for example) face the right side. 10
On the transforming effect of mirrors, Ibn 'Arabï says as follows in
another passage: 11
A mirrnr affects the images in a certain sense, but it does not affect
them in another sense. It does affect in that it gives back the image of
an object in a changed formas regards smallness, bigness, length, and
shortness. Thus it has a positive effect upon the quantities, and that
effect is properly due toit. On the other hand, however, (it has no
positive effect of its own in the sense that) ail these changes caused by
the mirror are in the last resort due to the different sizes of the objects
reflected.
Even one and the same object is reftected in varying magnitudes in
mirrors of various magnitudes. Here we see clearly suggested the
idea that although each individual man, as a mirror of the Absolu te,
reftects the Absolute and nothing else, the reftected images vary
from person to person according to the individual capacities of
different men. There is, however, as Ibn 'Arabï adds, a certain
respect in which a man, the mirror, must be said to exercise no
positive, transforming effect upon the image of the Absolu te, for all
transformations of the reftected image ultimately corne from the
internai modifications of the Absolute itself
Man, unlike the rest of the creatures, actualizes in himself the
whole of the Divine Names in miniature, and is, in this sense, a
miraculous mirror which is able to reftect the original unity of the
Names as it is. But, on the other hand, men considered individually,
differ from each other in the 'polishing' of the cosmic mirror. Only
in the case of the highest 'knowers' does the human consciousness
reftect on its spotless surface the Absolute as it really is.
But by making these observations, we are already encroaching
upon the realm of the next chapter. We must turn our steps back and
continue our discussion of the nature of Man as Microcosm.
224 Sufism and Taoism
II Comprehensiveness of Man
The 'humanity' (insanïyah) of Man on the cosmic level lies, as we
have already seen, in his 'comprehensiveness' (jam'ïyah). Man, as
Microcosm, contains in himself all the attributes that are found in
the universe. The Absolute, in this sense, manifests itself in Man in
the most perfect way. And Man is the Perfect Man because he is the
most perfect self-manifestation of the Absolute.
The following is a very important passage in which Ibn 'Arabï
explains to us his concept of the Perfect Man on the cosmic level. 12
He takes the prophet Moses as an illustration. Moses, when he was
bom, was put into a chest, and was thrown into the Nile. Ibn' Arabï,
by explicating the symbolic meaning of this story, develops it into a
theory of the Perfect Man.
As regards the wisdom of Moses' being put into a chest and thrown
into the great river, we must notice that the ch est (tabüt) symbolizes
the 'human aspect (of man)' (nasüt, i.e., the body) while the 'great
river' (yamm) symbolizes the knowledge which he acquires by means
of this body .13 This Knowledge is acquired by him through the power
of thinking, and representation. These and similar powers of the
human soul can only fonction when the physical body is in existence.
So, as soon as the soul is actualized in the body and is commanded (by
God) to use and govern the body freely, God produces in the soul all
the above-mentioned powers as so many instruments by which the
soul might achieve the purpose - according to the Will of God - of
governing this 'ch est' containing the invisible Presence (sakînah) 14 of
the Lord.
Thus (Moses) was thrown into the great river so that he might acquire
by means of these powers all kinds of knowledge. (God) let him
understand thereby the fact that although the spirit (rüh) governing
(the body) is the 'king' (i.e., the supreme commander of the human
body), yet it cannot govern it at will save by means of the body. This is
why God furnished the body with all these powers existing in the
'human aspect' which He called symbolically and esoterically the
'chest'.
The same holds true of the governing of the world by God. For He
governs the world at will only by means of it (i.e., the world), or by
means of its form. 15
God governs the world only by the world (by establishing certain
necessary relations among the things of the world): for example, the
child depends upon the generating act of the father, the generated
depend upon their generators, the conditioned upon their con-
ditions, the effects upon their causes, the conclusions upon their
proofs, and the concrete existents upon their inner realities. All these
belong to the world as a result of God's disposai of the thing. Thus it is
clear that He governs the world only by the world.
1 have said above: 'or by means of its form', i.e., by means of the form
Man as Microcosm 225
of the world. What 1 understand here un der the word 'form' (sürah) is
the Most Beautiful Names by which He has named Himself and the
highest Attributes by which He has qualified Himself.
In fact, of every Name of God, which we have corne to know, we find
the meaning actualized in the world and its spirit being active in the
world. So in this respect, too, God does not govern the world except
by the form of the world.
Thus Ibn' Arabï <livides the goveming (tadbïr) of the world by the
Absolute into two kinds: (1) 'by the world' and (2) 'by the form of
the world'. The first has been illustrated by such necessary relations
as exist between the child and the father, the caused and the causes,
etc. Here God, so to speak, lets the world govem itself by putting
the things of the world in certain necessary relations. The second
kind is completely different from this. lt consists in God's making
His Names and Attributes, i.e., the etemal forms, govem and
regulate from inside the ever changing phenomenal forms of the
world. 16 This point is brought out with admirable clarity by al-
Qashanï in his following remark on the just quoted passage of the
FU$Ù$. 11
What is meant by the 'form of the world' here is not its sensible
individual form. If it were so, it. (i.e., the second type of governing)
would simply be reduced to the first type ....
What is really meant by it is the intelligible, specific form of the world,
which is nothing but the Most beautiful Names and its realities, i.e.,
the highest Attributes.
The (phenomenal) forms of the world are simply outwardly man-
ifested forms of the Names and Attributes. These latter are the real
inner forms of the world. All sensible things are but outward, indi-
vidualized forms; they are ever changing imprints and external
shapes, while the (inner forms) are permanent and everlasting, never
changing. The former are transitory forms, surface phenomena,
while the latter are the inner meanings and spirits of the former.
Ail the Names by which God has named Himself, such as Living,
Knowing, Willing, Powerful, are there in the world. All the Attri-
butes with which He has qualified Himself, such as Life, Knowledge,
Will, Power, are there in the world. Thus God governs the outside of
the world by its inside.
(So there are two types in God's governing the world:) the first is the
governing exercised by some of the phenomenal forms of the world
over other phenomenal forms. The second is the governing of the
phenomenal individual forms by the internai specific forms. Both
types are the governing of the world by the world.
Ibn 'Arabï goes on to argue:
This is why (the Prophet) said concerning the creation of Adam:
'Verily God created Adam in His Form', for Adam is an exemplar
synthesizing ail the constituent elements of the Presence of Divinity,
226 Sufism and Taoism
namely, the Essence, the Attributes, and the Actions. The expression
'His Form' means nothing but the Presence of Divinity itself.
Thus God has put into this noble epitome (mukhtasar), the Perfect
Man (as symbolized by Adam), ail the Divine Na mes and the realities
of ail things existing outside of him in the Macrocosm which (appar-
ently) subsists independently of him.
This passage explains the meaning of the 'comprehensiveness' of
Man. As we have seen above, the Perfect Man synthesizes in himself
all the things that exist in the universe, ranging from the four natural
elements to minerais, plants, and animais. But the important point
is that all these things do not exist in Man in their concrete indi-
vidual forms. They exist in him only as 'realities' (haqà'iq), that is, in
their universality. Man gathers together in himself all the things of
the universe in the sense that he is a synthesis of the non-material
realities of the individual things. The Perfect Man is an epitome of
the Macrocosm only in this particular sense.
God in this way has made Man the Spirit (rüh) of the universe, and
made everything, high and low, subservient to him because of the
perfection of his (inner) form.
Thus it cornes about that, as 'there is nothing' in the whole universe
'but gives praises unto God' (XVII, 44), so there is nothing in the
universe but is subservient to Man due to the essential merit of his
inner form. To this refers God's saying: 'thus He has made ail that is
in the heavens and in the earth subservient unto you ail together,
from Him' (XXII, 65).
So everything in the uni verse is un der the supreme dominion of Man.
But this fact is known only to those who know it - such a man is the
Perfect Man 18 - and th ose who do not know it do not know - such is
the Animal Man.
Outwardly considered, the fact that Moses was put into a ch est, which
was then thrown into the great river, meant death, but inwardly, it
was for him deliverance from being killed. For, as a result, he gained
life, just as the souls are enlivened by knowledge and are delivered
from the death of ignorance.
The long passage which we have quoted explains the real nature of
the perfection of Man on the cosmic lev el. In the view of Ibn' Arabi,
the perfection of Man and the high position assigned to him 19 are
due to bis microcosmic nature, that is, bis 'comprehensiveness'.
And bis 'comprehensiveness' consists in bis reftecting and realizing
faithfully the Divine Comprehensiveness.
Ali the Names that are contained in the Divine Form20 have been
manifested in the ontological dimension of Man. And the latter has
obtained through this (kind of) existence the (highest) rank of
integral comprehensiveness. 21
Man as Microcosm 227
As regards the Divine Comprehensiveness (al-jam'ïyah al-ilàhïyah)
Ibn 'Arabi gives the following explanation, dividing it into three
constituents. 22
(We can distinguish) in the Divine Comprehensiveness: (1) that
which must be attributed to God Himself (as represented by the
supreme Name Allah or God, comprehending within itself ail the
Divine Names), (2) that which is ascribable to the Reality of realities,
and (3) that which -in this constitution (i.e. the bodily constitution of
Man which comprehends ail the recipients of the world ranging from
the highest to the lowest - is ascribable to what is required by the
universal Nature.
The first of these three elements is evidently the Divine aspect of
Unity, i.e., the Divine Essence, not in its absoluteness but as
qualified by the Divine Name 'God'. The second is the ontological
plane in which the permanent archetypes corne into being, i.e., God
conceived as the highest creative Principle regulating and unifying
the archetypes. It is called the Reality of realities because through
this Reality all the realities of the world become actualized. The
third, the universal Nature (tabf'ah kulllyah) is the ontological
region of 'reality' occupying the intermediary position between the
purely Divine and positively creative 'reality' of Divine Names and
the purely creaturely and essentially passive 'reality' of the physical
world, comprising within itself both these properties - positively
creative on the one band, and passively receptive on the other.
From all this Ibn 'Arabi cornes to the following conclusion. 23
This being (i.e., the 'comprehensive being') is called Man and also a
Vicegerent (khalïfah). 24 His being (named) Man is due to the com-
prehensiveness of his constitution, comprising as it does ail the
realities. Furthermore (he deserves to be named Man - insan
because) he is to God as the pupil (insan) is to the eye as the
instrument of vision, i.e., seeing. Thus he is called insan because God
sees His creatures through man, and has Mercy upon them.
Man on the cosmic level, or the Perfect Man, is endowed with a
perf ect 'comprehensiveness'. And because of this 'comprehensive-
ness' by which he synthesizes in himself all the existents of the
uni verse not individually but in their universality, the Perfect Man
shows two characteristic properties which are not shared by any-
thing else. One is that he is the only being who is really and fully
entitled to be a perfect 'servant' ('abd) of God. All other beings do
not fully reftect God, because each actualizes only a single Divine
Name; they cannot, therefore, be perfect 'servants'. The second
characteristic feature of the Perfect Man consists in bis being in a
certain sense the Absolute itself. In the case of beings other than
human, we can say that the Absolu te is the inner reality ('ayn) of
228 Sufism and Taoism
them, but we cannot surely reverse the relation and say that they are
the inner reality of the Absolute, for they are but partial actualiza-
tions of the Divine Self. The following two verses by Ibn' Arabi put
these two characteristics of Man in a concise form. 25
Verily, we are real servants; verily, God is our Master.
Verily, we are His Self, and ail this is implied when I say 'Man'.
That is to say, we are 'servants' in the true sense of the word, because
we serve Him with an essential service, i.e., with the most com-
prehensive Unity which is realized on the ontological level of 'God',
while God with the whole of His Names is our Master, governing us,
administering our affairs. We are different in this respect from the
rest of beings, for they are His servants merely in certain aspects, and
God is their Master with some of His Names.
The Perfect Man is the inner reality of the Absolute because he
appears in the Form of the latter with its comprehensive unity. The
rest of the things, on the contrary, though the Absolu te is the inner
reality of each one of them, are not the inner reality of the Absolu te
because they are but loci of manifestation for some of the Names so
that the Absolute does not manifest itself in them in its essential
Form.
But when I say 'Man', meaning thereby the Perfect Man, i.e., Man
perfect in 'humanity', what is meant is the being in which the Abso-
lute manifests itself in its essential Form. Man, in this sense, is the
very reality of the Absolute.
Ibn' Arabi considers, further, the 'comprehensiveness' of Man from
the point of view of the Inward-Outward opposition. In exact
correspondence to the distinction between the Divine Names
Inward and Outward, there is in Man also a distinction between the
'inward' and the 'outward', and he covers thereby the whole of the
universe.
You must know, further, that God describes Himself as being the
Inward and the Outward. He has correspondingly produced the
world of the Unseen and the world of sensory experience so that we
might perceive the Inward by our own 'unseen' element and the
Outward by our 'sensible' element. 26
Thus God has created two worlds, the inner and the outer, corres-
ponding to His own lnward and Outward, and has given Man, and
Man only, the 'inner' and the 'outer'. In this respect, Man alone is
the true Imago of the Absolute.
You must have understood by now the real nature of Adam, i.e., his
outward 'form', as well as the real nature of his spirit (rülJ, ), i.e., his
inward 'form'. Adam is the Absolu te (in view of his inward form) and
a creature (in view of his outward form). You know also the real
Man as Microcosm 229
nature of his ( ontological) rank which, being a synthesis, makes him
entitled to be the Vicegerent (of God). 27
The position of Adam, i.e., the Perfect Man as understood in this
chapter, is 'in the middle' between the Absolute and the creatures.
He essentially reftects both, represents both, and is a 'synthesis'
(majmü') of the two 'forms'. His 'outward' discloses the form of the
created world and its realities, while his 'inward' reveals the Form
itself of the Absolute and its essential Names. And because of this
'synthesis' and perfect 'comprehensiveness', his rank is higher than
that of angels.
Thus ail the Names that are contained in the Divine Form are
manifested in the ontological dimension of Man. The latter has
obtained through this (kind of) existence the rank of integral com-
prehensiveness.
And this precisely was the ground on which God the Exalted refuted
the argument of the angels 28 ••• The angels were not aware of what
was implied by the constitution of this 'vicegerent' (of God on the
earth). Nor did they know the 'essential service' 29 required by
the Presence of the Absolute. For nobody can know concerning the
Absolute except that which his own essence allows him to know, and
the an gels did not possess the 'comprehensiveness' of Adam. They
were not even aware of (the limitedness of) the Divine Names that
were ( manifested) in themselves. So they were praising the Absolu te
and sanctifying it simply through the (limited Names that they hap-
pened to have in themselves). They were not aware of the fact that
God has ( other) Na mes about which no knowledge had been given
them. Consequently the angels were not praising Him through these
Names; nor were they sanctifying Him in the same way as Adam did.
Thus they were completely under the sway of what 1 have just
mentioned (i.e., their limited knowledge of the Names), and were
dominated by this ( deficient) state of theirs.
Because of this ( deficiency in their) constitution, the angels said ( to
God when He was about to create Adam):' Art Thou going to place
on the earth one who will do harm therein?' (II, 30). But 'harm' can
be nothing other than 'opening up an argument (against God, instead
of accepting His words with docility and submission)'. lt was exactly
what they themselves did (when they dared to put the above-
mentioned question to God). So what they said concerning Adam
was what they themselves were actually doing toward God. lt is
evident, th en, that, if their own nature had not been agreeable to this
particular behavior, they would not have said about Adam what they
said without being conscious (of the truth of the matter). Had they
but known their own selves, (i.e., their own essential constitution),
they would have known (the truth about Adam), and had they but
known (the truth) they would never have committed such a mistake.
In reality, however, they were not content with denigrating (Adam);
they went even further and boastfully claimed that they were praising
and sanctifying God.30
230 Sufism and Taoism
But Adam had in himself such Divine Names as were not represented
by the angels. The latter naturally could not praise God with those
Names, nor could they sanctify Him with them, as Adam did. 31
In the Qoran (II, 31) we read that 'God taught Adam all the
Names'. This means, according to Ibn 'Arabi, that Man represents
and actualizes all Divine Names. The angels, on the contrary, man-
ifest only some of the Names. But they are not aware of it.
The diff erence between the human and the angelic act of praising
God which is discussed here by Ibn 'Arabi is also based on the
Qoranic verse which reads: 'There is nothing (in the world) but
praises Him in adoration, but you do not understand their praise'
(XVII, 44).
The dictum that everything in the world is praising God bas, for
Ibn 'Arabi, a very special meaning. God manifests Himself in all
things, according to their peculiar capacities and within the limits
determined by the latter. This fact, when considered from the si de
of the created things, is capable of being interpreted as the created
things manifesting the Divine Perfection (kamiil) in variously
limited forms. This manifestation of the Divine Perfection by each
thing in its peculiar form is what is understood by Ibn 'Arabi under
the word 'praising' (tasbi}J,) or 'sanctifying' (taqdis).
Otherwise expressed, all things 'praise and sanctify' God by the
very fact that they exist in the world. But since each thing exists in its
own peculiar way, each thing praises and sanctifies God in a differ-
ent way from all the rest. And the higher the level of Being to which
a thing belongs, the greater and stronger is its 'praising and sanctify-
ing', because a higher being actualizes a greater number of Names
than those which belong to lower levels. In this respect, Man
occupies the highest position among all the beings of the world,
because he is a locus in which all the Names, i.e., all the Perfections
(kamiiliit) of God become manifested.
We must recall at this juncture what we have observed in an
earlier context about the essential indifference of Perfection
(kamiil) to the commonly accepted distinction between good and
evil. In Ibn 'Arabi' s world-view, the distinction which is ordinarily
made in human societies between good and evil is of an entirely
conventional, relative, and secondary nature. Primarily, existence
itself is Perfection, and every ontological attribute is also a Perfec-
tion. Just as 'obedience' (to God) is a Perfection, 'disobedience' is a
Perfection, because the latter is in no less a degree than the former
an ontological attribute, i.e., a form of Being. The fact that 'obedi-
ence' is a Perfection bas essentially nothing to do with its being
ethically 'good'; 'obedience' is a Perfection because it is a locus in
which such Divine Names as the Merciful and the Bountiful are
Man as Microcosm 231
manifested. l\nd 'disobedience' is a Perfection because it is a locus
in which suc;;h N ames as the Vindictive and the Chas tiser are
manifested.
If we lose sight of this basic ontological fact, we cannot under-
stand why lbh 'Arabi considers the position of Man higher than that
of angels. Frc)m the standpoint of Ibn' Arabi, the nature (tabi'ah) of
angels is solely 'spiritual' (rü}J,iyah ), while the nature of Man is
'spiritual-bocfüy' (rü}J,ïyah-badaniyah) and th us comprises all the
attributes of Being, ranging from the highest to the lowest. And
because of tbis particularly, Man is superior to angels. 32
Regarding the highest position of Man in the hierarchy of Being,
Ibn 'Arabi dlscerns a deep symbolic meaning in the Qoranic state-
ment that God created Adam 'with both His bands'.
God jointed His two hands for ( creating) Adam. This He did sol el y
by way of qmferring upon him a great honor. And this is why He said
to Iblïs (Satan): 'What hinders thee from falling prostrate before that
which 1 have created with both My hands?' (XXXVIII, 76). The
(joining of His two hands) symbolizes nothing other than the fact that
Adam joim; in him two 'forms': the form of the world and the form of
the Absolute. These two are the 'hands' of God.
Iblis, on contrary, is but a part of the world, and this 'gathering'
has not given him.33
In a different: passage of the Ibn 'Arabi returns to the idea of
God having created Adam with both His bands, and says: 34
God kneatled the clay of Man with both His hands, which are
opposed to each other, though, (in a certain sense), each one of His
two hands ts a right hand (i.e., both are exactly equal to each other in
being and merciful). In any case, there can be no doubt that
there is a d.ifference between the two if only for the reason that they
are 'two', \.e., two hands.
Nature is not affected except by what is proportional toit, and Nature
itself is diVided into pairs of opposition. That is why (it is said that
God creatM Adam) with both His hands.
And since He created Adam with both His hands, He named him
bashar,35 because of His 'touching' (mubasharah) him directly with
the two han.ds that are attributed to Him, the word 'touching' being
taken here. in a special sense which is applicable to the Divine
He did so as an expression of His special concern with this
human species. And He said to (lblis) who refused to fall prostrate
before Adqm: 'What hinders thee from falling prostrate before that
which 1 have created with both My bands? Oost thou scornfully look
down' upon one who is equal to thee, i.e., in being made of natural
elements, 'or art thou of a higher order' which, in reality, thou art not
- than elen1ental ('un$uri) beings?37 God means by 'those of a higher
order' ('altn) those (spiritual beings) who, due to their luminous
232 Sufism and Taoism
constitution, transcend, by their own essence, being 'elemental',
though they are 'natural' ,38
Man is superior to other beings of the 'elemental' species only by
being a bashar of clay (i.e., clay kneaded directly by the two hands of
God). Thus he is higher than all that have been created of elements
without having been touched by his hands.
So Man is in rank higher than all the angels, terrestrial and celestial,
although, according to the sacred texts, the archangels are superior to
the human species.
As a concrete example showing in the most perfect form possible
the 'comprehensiveness' of the Perfect Man, Ibn 'Arabi discusses
Abraham (Ibrahim).
In Islam, Abraham is generally known as the 'intimate friend of
God' (kha/U Allâh). Ibn 'Arabi finds this phrase quite symbolic.
But we must remember also that he understands the word khalil in a
very special sense which is typical of his way of thinking.
The word khalil appearing in the phrase khalil Allàh means in
ordinary understanding an 'intimate friend' .39 Ibn 'Arabi explains
the word by a completely different etymology; he derives it from
takhallul which means 'penetration', 'permeation'. The Perfect
Man is the one whom the Absolute penetrates and whose faculties
and bodily members are all permeated by the Absolute in such a
way that he thereby manifests all the Perfections of the Divine
Attributes and Names.
We have already discussed in an earlier context the problem of
Being running through (sarayàn) all beings. The important point,
for our immediate purpose, is that this sarayàn or 'pervasion',
although it is universal, differs in intensity or density from one thing
to another. The sarayàn of Being reaches its highest degree in the
Perfect Man. And Being, that is, all the Perfections of the Absolute,
permeate Man and become manifested in him both inwardly and
outwardly. The title of honor of Abraham, khalil, symbolizes this
fact. Ibn 'Arabi himself gives the following explanation on this point: 40
(Abraham) is called khalïl for no other reason than that he 'perme-
ates', and comprises in himself, all (the qualities) by which the Divine
Essence is qualified41 ••• just as a color 'permeates' a colored object
in such a way that the accident (i.e., the color) exists in all the parts of
the substance. The relation is different from that between a place and
an object occupying it. Or rather we should say that (Abraham is
called khalïl) because the Absolute 'permeates' the existence of the
form of Abraham.42
Here Ibn 'Arabi distinguishes between two forms of 'permeation'
(takhallul): (1) one in which Man (symbolized by Abraham) plays
" ::p1 Man as Microcosm 233
the active role, Abraham appearing in the Form of the Absolute,
and (2) the other in which the Absolute plays the active role, the
Absolute appearing in the form of Abraham. The distinction was
explained in an earlier context from a somewhat different point of
view, when we discussed the idea of the bestowal of Being. What is
of particular importance in the present context is that in the second
type of 'permeation' the Absolu te manifests itself in an individual-
ized form, determined by the latter in its Existence, so that in this
case creaturely attributes are ascribed to God, including even attri-
butes denoting 'defects'.
Both these statements are right according to what God Himself
affirms, for each of these aspects has its own proper field in which it is
valid and which it never oversteps.
Do you not see that God appears assuming the attributes that are
peculiar to the temporal beings?43 He affirms this about Himself.
Thus He assumes even attributes of defects and attributes of a
blamable nature.
Do you not see (on the other hand) 44 that the creatures appear
assuming the Attributes of the Absolute from the first Attribute to
the very last?
Thus ail of them (i.e., all the Attributes of the Absolu te) are necessar-
ily and rightly to be ascribed to the creatures just as the attributes of
the temporal beings are necessarily and rightly to be ascribed to the
Absolu te.
All the Attributes of the Absolute are to be affirmed of the crea-
tures because the essential reality (IJ,aqiqah) of the latter is nothing
other than the Absolute appearing with its own Reality in their
forms, so that the Attributes of the Absolute are the attributes of
the creatures. In the same way, all the attributes of the temporal
beings are rightly to be affirmed of the Abs'olute, because these
attributes are so man y states and aspects of the Absolu te. If the very
existence of the temporal beings is the Existence of the Absolute as
manifested in them, how much more should this be the case with the
attributes of the temporal beings.45
Regarding the structure of the phenomenon of 'permeation', Ibn
'Arabi gives the following explanation:46
Know that whenever something 'permeates' (takhallala) another, the
first is necessarily contained in the second. The permeater becomes
veiled by the permeated, so that the passive one (i.e., the permeated)
is the 'outward' while the active one (i.e., the permeater) is the
'inward' which is invisible. Thus it (i.e., the permeater) is food for the
other (i.e., the permeated), just as water permeates wool and makes
the latter bigger and more voluminous.
And when it is God that plays the part of the 'outward', the creatures
are hidden within Him, and they become all the Names of God,
234 Sufism and Taoism
namely, His hearing, His sight, etc., and ail His relations and ail His
modes of cognition. But when it is the creatures that play the rôle of
the 'outward', God becomes hidden in them, being inside of them,
and God (in this case) is the hearing of the creatures, their sight, their
hands and feet, and ail their faculties.
Thus the ontological 'permeation' is completely reciprocal between
the Absolute and the world, and the Perfect Man represents this
reciprocal 'permeation' in its most perfect form. Abraham is a
typical example of this phenomenon.
III The Vicegerency of God
The Perfect Man is the 'vicegerent' (khalifah) of Godon the earth,
or in the world of Being. Reference has been made earlier to this
concept in an incidental way. The present section will be devoted to
a more detailed and concentrated discussion of this problem.
The Perfect Man is entitled to be the 'vicegerent' of God because
of his 'comprehensiveness'. This idea, which has been mentioned
more than once in what precedes, will fumish us with a good
starting-point for an analysis of the concept of vicegerency.
After having stated that Man alone in the whole world possesses
the unique property of 'being comprehensive' (jam'iyah), Ibn
'Arabi goes on to argue: 47
lblïs (Satan) was but a part of the world, having no such 'comprehen-
siveness'. But Adam was a 'vicegerent' because of this 'comprehen-
siveness'. If he had not appeared in the Form of God who appointed
him as His 'vicegerent' to take care of the things (i.e., the world and
everything in the world) in His stead, he would not have been His
'vicegerent' .48 If, on the other hand, he had not contained in himself
all the things of the world and all that was demanded of him by th ose
people over whom he had been commanded to exercise sovereign
power, (he would not have been His 'vicegerent'). For the people
depended upon him, and he was naturally expected to take care of ail
the needs of the people. Otherwise, he would not have been a
'vicegerent' governing them (in the place of the King).
Thus no one was entitled to be the 'vicegerent' except the Perfect
Man, for God created his 'outward' form out of ail the realities and
forms of the world,49 and his 'inward' form on the model of His own
Form.50 This is why God says (in a Tradition): 'I am his hearing and
his sight'. It is to be remarked that God does not say: 'I am his eye and
his ear'. God distinguishes here between the two forms (i.e., the
outward form and the inward form).
The same holds true of everything existent in the world (i.e., just as
God appears in Adam in his form, so He appears in everything in
its peculiar form) in accordance with the requirement of the reality of
Man as Microcosm 235
each thing. However, nothing in the world possesses the 'comprehen-
siveness' which is possessed by the 'vicegerent'. In fact he has
obtained (his vicegerency) only because of his 'comprehensiveness'.
In another passage Ibn 'Arabi considers again the same problem of
'vicegerency' of Man based on the 'comprehensiveness' of his con-
stitution. This time he approaches the problem from a somewhat
different angle. 51
(The Perfect Man) is Man, temporally produced (in his body), but
eternal (i.e., having no temporal origin, with regard to his spirit),
something that grows up forever, the Word that distinguishes (bet-
ween possibility and necessity) and gathers (them) together. The
universe reached completion when he came into existence. He is to
the uni verse what the bezel is to the seal. He is (comparable to) the
place (of the seal) where there is engraved the device with which the
king seals his treasuries.
This is the reason why God has called him a 'vicegerent' ,52 because he
acts as the guardian of His creatures just as the treasuries (of the
king) are guarded by a seal. For as long as the royal seal is upon them,
no one dares to open them unless the king gives permission.
Thus God has appointed him as the 'vicegerent' in the guarding of the
universe. The universe will remain guarded as long as there is in the
universe the Perfect Man.
Do you not see that when he departs (from the present world) and the
seal of the treasuries is broken, there will not remain in the world that
which God has stored there, and ail that are therein will corne out and
will become confused one with another and everything will be trans-
ported to the Hereafter? And there (in the next world) he (i.e., the
Perfect Man) will again become a seal on the treasury of the Here-
after to remain there as the seal for ever and ever.
The whole world of Being, or the universe, is the 'treasury' of God,
and of God alone. And Man is a custodian and curator (wakil)
whom God Himself has put in charge of the guardianship of the
treasury. This idea, which is the only right one concerning the
position of Man in the cosmic order, is according to Ibn 'Arabi, an
idea peculiar to the 'people of Mul)ammad'.
Unlike Noah who had called his people exclusively to tanzih,
Mul)ammad called his people to both tanzih and tashbih. 53 He called
them to tanzih because the whole universe is a possession of God,
and of God alone. He called them to tashbih, emphasizing thereby
the human element in the created world, because God Himself has
put the administration of His own possession in the hands of Man as
His 'vicegerent'. Man is not the real owner of the 'treasury', but he
has the status of its 'curator'. 54 And Man owes this high status to the
fact that he is the only existent in the whole world of Being in whom
all the Attributes and Names of the Absolute are manifested.
236 Sufism and Taoism
IV The Reality of Mul;lammad
The 'Reality of Mul;lammad' (IJaqïqah MufJammad or al-haqiqah
al-mufJammadiyah), is one of the most important concepts in the
philosophy of Ibn' Arabï. But since it has been dealt with in detail by
Affifi, as Ibn 'Arabï's doctrine of the logos, in his Philosophy ,55 1
shall be content here with discussing it only as an aspect of the
problem of the Perfect Man.
All prophets, in Ibn 'Arabï's view, are embodiments of the idea of
the Perfect Man. But the Islamic Prophet, Mul;lammad, occupies
among them a very special place. What is particularly important
about Mul;lammad is that he had been a cosmic being before he was
raised as an individual prophet at a certain moment of human
history in the èapacity of God's Messenger to the Arabs. Ibn' Arabï
bases this conception on a well-known Tradition in which Mul;lam-
mad describes himself as a being of a cosmic nature by saying: 'I was
a prophet even while Adam was between clay and water'. 56
Ontologically, Mul;lammad as a cosmic being who existed from
eternity corresponds to, or represents, the level of the permanent
archetypes; that is, the level of Being 'which is neither existent nor
non-existent', the intermediary stage (barzakh) between the abso-
lute Absolute and the world which is the outer self-manifestation of
the Absolute. This intermediary stage is divine in so far as it is
identified with the Divine Consciousness, but it is, at the same time,
essentially creaturely or human in that it has significance only as it is
related to the created world. The intermediary stage in this latter
aspect, i.e., considered in its human aspect, is the Reality
of Mul;lammad. And it is also the Perfect Man on the cosmic
level.
Thus understood, the Reality of Mul;lammad is not exactly the
permanent archetypes themselves. Rather, it is the unifying princi-
ple of all archetypes, the active principle on which depends the very
existence of the archetypes. Considered from the side of the Abso-
lute, the Reality of Mul;lammad is the creative activity itself of the
Absolute, or God 'conceived as the self-revealing Principle of the
universe' .57 It is the Absolute in the first stage of its eternal self-
manifestation, i.e., the Absolute as the universal Consciousness.
It is also called ontologically, the 'Reality of realities' (IJaqiqah
al-IJaqa'iq). The 'Reality of realities' is ultimately nothing but the
Absolute, but it is not the Absolute in its primordial absoluteness; it
is the very first form in which the Absolute begins to manifest itself.
And this Divine Consciousness is reftected most faithfully by the
self-consciousness of the Perfect Man. The Perfect Man, in this
sense, is the outwardly manifested Consciousness of God. Thus the
Man as Microcosm 237
Prophet Mul;lammad on the cosmic level corresponds almost
exactly to the Plotinian First Intellect.
Mul;lammad, as the Perfect Man on the cosmic level, is the first of
all self-determinations (ta'ayyunat) of the Absolu te. Theologically,
it is the first 'creature' of God.
Basing himself on a Tradition: 'the first thing which God created
was my Light', Ibn' Arabï calls the Reality of Mul;lammad also the
'Light of Mul;lammad' (al-nür al-mufJammadiy). This Light had
been existent even before ail the creatures came into existence. lt is,
in this sense, 'eternal (a parte ante)' (qadim), and 'non-temporal'
(ghayr fJadith). And this eternal Light went on being manifested in
successive prophets: Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus etc.,
until it reached its final historical manifestation, the Prophet
Mul;lammad.
Since the Light was that which God created before anything else
and that from which he created everything else, it was the very basis
of the creation of the world. And it was 'Light' because it was
nothing else than the First Intellect, i.e., the Divine Consciousness,
by which God manifested Himself to Himself in the state of the
Absolute Unity. And the Light is in its persona! aspect the Reality
of Mul;lammad.
Regarding Mul;lammad's being the first self-determination of the
Absolute and bis being, therefore, the most comprehensive and the
highest, al-Qashanï writes: 58
(Mul)ammad was) the first self-determination with which the
Essence at the lev el of Unity determined itself before any other forms
of self-determination. So ail the infinite self-determinations became
actualized through him. As we have seen above, ail the self-
determinations (of the Absolute) are arranged in a hierarchy of
genera, species, kinds, and individuals, ail being disposed in a vertical
order. So (Mul)ammad) comprises in himself ail these self-
determinations without leaving anything. He is, in this sense, unique
in the whole world of Being; nothing can compete with him, because
nothing is found equal to him in the hierarchy. In fact, there is above
him only the Essence at the level of its absolute Unity, which trans-
cends ail self-determinations, whether that of an attribute, name,
description, definition, or qualification.
Such being the case, it will be evident that Mul;lammad, as the
Logos, is the most perfect being within the species of man.
He was the most perfect being of the human species. This is why the
whole process of creation was commenced and finished through him.
'He was a prophet even while Adam was between water and clay' (as
the cosmic Logos), but later (i.e., in historical time) he was born
compounded of elements (i.e., in a bodily form) and proved to be the
238 Sufism and Taoism
final seal of the prophets ... (As an individual), Mubammad was the
most powerful proof of his Lord, because he had been given all the
'words' (kalim) which were the very contents of the names59 (of all
the things of the world) which (the Lord taught) Adam.60
As has been touched upon earlier in this section, Mul)ammad as the
first creature of the Absolute clearly corresponds to the First Intel-
lect of Plotinus, which is the 'first emanation' from the absolute
One. And in this aspect Mul)ammad is called by Ibn 'Arabi the
'Mul)ammadan Spirit' (al-rül], al-mul],ammadiy).
In the world-view of Plotin us, the Nüs, the first emanation from
the One, has two aspects: (1) it is 'passive' in relation to that from
which it has emanated, and (2) 'active' in relation to that which
emanates from itself. It is 'passive' toward the higher level of Being
and 'active' toward the lower level of Being.
In the particular context of Ibn' Arabi' s philosophy, this Plotinian
'passivity' (infi'al) changes into 'servant-ness' ('ubüdïyah) and the
'activity' (fi' l) becomes 'Lordship' (rubübïyah). Thus the
'Mul)ammadan Spirit' stands in the position of 'passivity', i.e.,
'servant-ness', in relation to the Creator, i.e., the source of its own
appearance and manifestation, while in relation to the world it
shows a thoroughgoing 'activity', acting as it does as the first prin-
ciple of creation. Ibn' Arabi explains this as follows in a mythopoe-
tic form: 61
Mul)ammad (i.e., the 'Mul)ammadan Spirit') was created basically as
a 'servant'. So he never dared raise his head seeking to be a master.
Nay, he kept humbly prostrating and never transgressing the state of
being 'passive', until, when God had produced from him all that He
produced, He conferred upon him the rank of 'activity' over the
world of (Divine) breaths.
Mul)ammad, in this respect, shows perfectly his 'intermediary
nature' (barzakhïyah). He is a 'servant' and is 'passive' vis-à-vis the
Absolute, but he is a 'lord' and is 'active' vis-à-vis the world.
V The Perfect Man and God
The Absolute, in its self-revealing aspect, reaches perfection in the
Perfect Man. In the latter the Absolute manifests itself in the most
perfect form, and there can be no self-manifestation more perfect
than this. The Perfect Man, in this respect, is the Absolute, while
being at the same time a creature. We know already what Ibn' Arabi
means when he says that Man is the Absolute. Man is the Absolute
because of his essential 'comprehensiveness', or because, as Ibn
'Arabi says, God put into Adam, the human species, all of its
Man as Microcosm 239
Attributes, whether active of passive. After stating that God joined
both His hands 'to knead the clay of Adam' and created him in this
particular way, Ibn 'Arabi goes on to say: 62
Then (i.e:, after having created Adam) God made him behold ail that
He had put into him, and grasped the whole in His two hands: in the
one, He held the universe, and in the other, Adam and his offspring.
This passage is explicated by al-Qashani in the following terms: 63
This means that God let the Real Man (al-insàn al-IJ,aqïqiy) observe
all the Divine secrets (i.e., invisible realities which are actualized at
the ontological level of the all-comprehensive NameAllàh) which He
had placed in him, then put together the whole of what He had
created and the whole of what He had placed in Adam, grasping them
with his both hands. He placed in His right hand, which is His
stronger hand, the reality of Adam and his descendants, i.e., ail His
active Attributes and His (active) Names belonging to the higher
spiritual world, and in the left hand, which is the weaker hand, the
forms of the world, i.e., His passive (lit. receiving) Attributes and His
(passive) Names belonging properly to the physical world.
(This distinction between the right and the left hand as the stronger
and the weaker is not an essential one, for) each of the two hands of
the Merciful is in truth a right hand. (And, consequently, there is no
real distinction in terms of rank between the two kinds of the Attri-
butes) because the 'receptivity' (qàbilïyah) with regard to the power
of 'receiving' is perfectly equal to the 'positive activity' (fa'ilïyah)
with regard to the power of 'acting', the former being in no way
inferior to the latter.
Since Man in whom God has thus placed everything is His perfect
image, whatever can be predicated of Man can also be predicated, at
least in a certain sense, of God, And this is what is meant by the
dictum: Man is the Absolute.
Is there, then, no essential difference between Man as the Micro-
cosm, i.e., the Perfect Man and the Absolute? Of course, there is,
and a very essential one. The difference lies in the 'necessity'
( wujüb) of existence.
You must know that since, as we have said every temporal thing
appears in His Form, clearly God has so arranged that we should, in
trying to know Him, resort to studying carefully the temporal things.
Thus He Himself tells us (in the Qoran, XLI, 53) that He shows us
His signs in the temporal things, 64 so that we might infer from our
own states the state of God. And by whatever quality we may
describe Him, we ourselves are that very quality. The only exception
from this is the 'essential necessity' (wujüb dhàtiy) which is peculiar
to God alone.
Sin ce we corne to know God, in this way, by ourselves, it is natural
that we should attribute to Him whatever we attribute to ourselves.
240 Sufism and Taoism
This is contirmed by that of which God Himself has informed through
the tongues of the interpreters (i.e., the prophets). In fact He has
described Himself tous through us. Thus, whenever we observe Him
(through some attribute) we are observing (through the same attri-
bute) our own selves. And whenever He observes us, He is observing
Himself.
No one will doubt that we are many as individuals and species.
Certainly, ail of us have in corn mon one and the sa me 'reality' (or
'essence') which unites us, but we know definitely that there is also a
distinction by which are distinguished ail the individuals one from
another. If it were not for this distinction there would not be multi-
plicity within the unity. Likewise, though God describes us precisely
with what He describes Himself with, there must be a distinction
(between us and God). And that distinction can consist only in our
essential need (for Him) regarding our existence, and the depen-
dence of our existence upon Him because of our 'possibility', and in
His being absolutely free from ail such need. 65
Thus the Absolute and the creatures are the same in a certain
respect, but a fundamental distinction separates the one from the
other: the 'necessity of existence' (wujüb al-wujüd) which is pecul-
iar to the Absolute alone. And due to this 'necessity', the Absolute
has certain Attributes which are not shared by anything else, like
quidam ('etemity a parte ante' and 'etemity a parte post').
It is to be remarked that, though this is philosophically the only
real difference between God and the creatures, it is an essential and
fundamental difference. And being a fundamental difference, it
determines the position of Man in a decisive way vis-à-vis God. Man
is certainly the highest of ail in the world of Being. To him is
ascribed an ontological 'height' ('uluw). The 'height', however,
is not the 'height' of the Absolute. Unlike the latter, Man's 'height' is
only 'consequential' (bi-al-tab'iyah) or 'secondary'; it is not an
'essential (dhiitiy) height'.
In the Qoran (XL VII, 35) God says to the followers of Mul).am-
mad: 'Y ou are the highest and sois God, too, with you' .66 This verse,
Ibn 'Arabï says, might suggest that God and Man share the same
'height'. But such an understanding is completely wrong. For God
definitely denies such an equality in 'height' between Himself and
Man.
Although Man is the 'highest' in a particular sense and partici-
pates with God in the 'height' in the general connotation of the
word, the real content of the 'height' is different when the word is
applied to God from when it is applied to Man. A Peripatetic
philosopher would simplify the matter by saying that the same word
a'là ('highest') is here used secundum prius et posterius. This is
clearly what is meant by al-Qashanï when he says: 67
Man as Microcosm 241
The participation (of Man) in 'being the highest', which God affirms
of him is liable to produce the wrong view that Man does participa te
(with God) in the same height of rank. So He says: 'Praise the Name
of thy Lord, the Highest' (LXXXVII, 1) in order to deny categori-
cally the possibility of such participation. In fact, the absolute and
essential 'height' belongs to God, and to God alone. He is the highest
by His Essence, in an absolu te sense, not in relation to anything other
than Himself. Thus ail 'height' belongs properly to Him alone, and
everything to which His 'height' is attributed (i.e., everything that is
said to be 'high') is 'high' according to the degree in which God
manifests himself under the Name 'High' ('aliy).
Nothing really participates with Him in the very source of the
'height'. God has no 'height' in a relative sense, while ail other things
become 'high' through His Name 'High'.
Ibn' Arabï further stresses the non-essential nature of the' height' of
Man by pointing out that although Man, i.e., the Perfect Man, is the
highest of all beings, his 'height' does not properly belong to him-
self, but rather to the 'place' 68 that has been assigned to him. What is
high is not so much Man himself as his 'place'. This is why God says:
'And We raised him to a high place' (XIX, 57). It is worthy of
remark that the adjective ('aliy) in this verse qualifies 'place'
(makiin), not Man. Likewise, Man's being the 'vicegerent' of God
on the earth is simply the 'height' of place or position; it is not his
essential 'height'.
The preceding pages have clarified Ibn 'Arabï's thesis that the
'height' of man is not of an essential nature. But whatever the nature
of his 'height', it is true that Man is 'high' or even the 'highest' of all
beings. Here Ibn 'Arabï points out a very paradoxical fact about
Man. Certainly, Man is the highest of all beings as long as we
consider him ideally. But once we open our eyes to the real situation
of human existence, we find the strange fact that, far from being
'high' or 'highest', Man is the 'lowest' of all in the whole world of
Being. Of course, in doing so we are taking a very particular point
ofview. But at least from this particular point of view, the hierarchy
of values becomes completely reversed. For in this new system, the
inanimate beings occupy the highest rank, then the plants, then the
animais, and the human beings are found in the lowest position.
Usually, Man is considered the highest of all beings because of his
Reason ('aql). But, in truth, this very Reason which is peculiar to
Man weaves around him an opaque veil which develops into an
'ego'. And the 'ego' th us produced hinders Man from knowing
the Absolute as it really is. Precisely because of his Reason, Man
cannot but be a 'mirror which reflects the Absolute only with
inversion'.
q
f,
1&
' l
11'1::
1li
111
11
242 Sufism and Taoism
There is no creature higher than minerals; then corne the plants with
their various degree and ranks. The plants are followed by those
possessed of the senses (i.e., animals). Each of these (three classes of
beings) knows its own Creator through natural intuition or through
an immediate evidential knowledge. But what is called Adam (i.e.,
Man) is shackled by Reason and thinking or is in the pillory of
belief. 69
The inanimate things, or 'minerais', have no ego. So they are
obedient to God's commandments absolutely and unconditionally.
Their 'servant-ness' ('ubüdïyah) is perfect in this sense. They are
exposed naked to God's activity upon them, there being no veil at
all between them. In this respect, they occupy the highest place in
the hierarchy of Being.
The second position is given to the plants. They grow, assimila te
nourishment, and generate. To that extent they act positively on
their own accord. And to that extent they are farther removed from
the Absolute than the minerais.
The third position is occupied by the animais. They are possessed
of senses, and they show the activity of will. The sense perception
and will disclose a certain amount of ego. But the animal ego is not
as strong as that of Man.
These three, the minerais, plants, and animais, having no Reason,
know God by a natural 'unveiling' or immediate evidential know-
ledge. Man, on the contrary, possesses Reason, and the Reason
develops his ego to a full extent, and he becomes veiled by his own
ego.
Thus from the viewpoint of the ideal state of 'servant-ness', Man is
situated on the lowest level on the scale of Being. In order to climb
the scale upward, he must first of all dispel from himself Reason -
which is, paradoxically, exactly the thing that makes him a Man -
and bring to naught all the properties that derive from Reason. Only
when he succeeds in doing so, does he ascend to the rank of animais.
He must then go on to ascend to the rank of plants, and thence
finally to the rank of minerais. Then only does he find himself in the
highest position on the whole scale of Being. There will no longer
remain in him even a shadow of Reason, and the Light of the
Absolute will illumine him undimmed, unhindered, in its original
splendor.
These considerations make us aware of the fact that Man as an Idea
is perse 'perfect' and occupies the highest position, but that in his
actual situation he is far from being a perfect realization of his own
ideal. We can maintain that Man is the highest being in the world
Man as Microcosm 243
only when we take the viewpoint of a philosophical anthropology
standing on the supposition that the ideal of Man is perfectly real-
ized in the actual Man. The actual Man, however, is a being in full
possession of Reason, a being dependent upon his Reason and
brandishing it everywhere in his understanding of everything. He
who brandishes his Reason is not capable of penetrating the mys-
tery of Being.
But while making this observation, we realize that we are already
far removed from the sphere in which we began our discussion of
Man. We started from the basic assumption that Man can be consi-
dered on two entirely different levels: cosmic and individual. And
the purpose of the present chapter has been to elucidate the concept
of Man on the cosmic level, as Microcosm. And on this level, Man is
certainly the highest of all beings. However, in the last section of this
chapter, we have been moving down to the concept of Man on the
individual level. We have learnt that on this latter level, Man is, in a
certain sense, even lower than animais, plants and minerais. On this
level, not all men, but only a small number of special men are
worthy to be called 'perfect men'. They are 'perfect' because, hav-
ing already <lied to their own ego through the mystical experience of
self-annihilation and subsistence, they are no longer veiled by
Reason. The next chapter will be devoted to a more detailed con-
sideration of the idea of the Perfect Man on the individual level.
Notes
1. FUî ., p. 8/48.
2. FUî ., p. 9/48.
3. FfLî., p. 11/49; p. 132/115.
4. p. 11.
5. FfLî., p. 9/48-49.
6. p. 10.
7. p. 11.
8. 1 read with tulqi ilay-hi bi-taqallub min wajh.
9. Al-Qâshâni says that this is the case when the Absolute manifests itself in the very
form of a Perfect Man - p. 42.
10. FfLî., pp. 41-42/66-67.
11. FfLî., p. 232/184.
244 Sufism and Taoism
12. Fu:f., pp. 251-253/198-199.
13. The' great river' Nile symbolizes an ocean of Knowledge into which Moses' body
was thrown in order thal he might acquire ail the possible perfections by which Man is
distinguished from ail other beings - cf. Affifi, FWi., Corn., p. 293.
14. sakinah from the Hebrew shekina meaning the Divine Presence. Here it means
the' Divine aspect' (lahüt) of man to be correlated with the above-mentioned nasüt.
15. 'its form ($Ürah)', that is, the form of the world. The meaning of this expression
will be clarified by al-Qàshànï's explanatory remark which will immediately follow
the present passage.
16. This is tantamount to saying that God governs ail the things in the world by
means of their permanent archetypes.
17. p. 252.
18. Here, be it noticed, Ibn 'Arabï understands Man not on the cosmic, but on the
individual level.
19. As we shall see presently, Man occupies a higher position than angels in the
world-view of Ibn 'Arabï.
20. The 'Divine Form' (al-$ürah a/-iliihiyah) itself means nothing else than the
whole of the Divine Names.
21. FU$., p. 14/50.
22. FWi., p. 12/49.
23. FU$., 13/49-50.
24. On this concept see la ter, III.
25. FWi., p. 180/143. The explanatory words that follow the verses are by al-
Qàshànï.
26. Fu:f., p. 21154.
27. FWi., pp. 25-26156.
28. Reference to the Qoran, Il, 30-33.
29. 'ibiidah dhiitiyah 'essential service' means, as we have seen above, the perfect
and complete adoration of God which consists in that an existent actualizes in itself
ail the Names.
30. 'Art Thou going to place on the earth one who will do harm therein and shed
blood, when we are praising and sanctifying Thee?' (II, 30).
31. FWi., pp. 14-15/50-51.
32. Although, to,be sure, he is not superior to ail the angels, as we shall see.
Man as Microcosm 245
33. Fu$., pp. 22-23/55.
34. Fu$., p. 184/144-145.
35. Reference to the Qoran, XV, 28: inni khaliqun basharan, etc. Bashar means
'man' considered from the point of view of his being 'mortal'. But Ibn' Arabï in this
passage understands the word in terms of the verb bashara (inf. mubasharah)
meaning 'to touch something directly with one's own hands'.
36. That is to say, in a non-material, non-anthropomorphic, sense.
37. Qoran, XXXVIII, 76.
38. They stand above the sphere of elements, though they are of the domain of
Nature.
39. From khullah, meaning 'sincere friendship'.
40. Fu$., pp. 71-72/80-81.
41. According to al-Qàshàni, this means the appearance of Abraham in the Form of
the Absolu te in such a way that the Absolu te is his hearing, his sight, and ail his other
faculties - p. 72.
42. This means that the Absolute, by being 'determined' by the 'determination' of
Abraham, becomes qualified by the attributes of Abraham and his form, so that ail
the attributes that are ascribed to Abraham are ascribed to the Absolute, too. The
result of this process is that God does whatever He does through Abraham, hears by
his hearing, and sees with his - al-Qàshàni, p. 71.
43. Here Ibn 'Arabi takes up the second type of 'permeation' first.
44. This refers to the first type of 'permeation'.
45. Qàshàni, p. 72.
46. FWi ., p. 73/81.
47. FWi., pp. 23-24/55.
48. 'because a vicegerent should know the will of the man who has appointed him as
his representative, so that he might carry out his command. Thus if the vicegerent of
God does not know Him with ail His Attributes, he would not be able to carry out His
Command' - al-Qàshàni, p. 23.
49. so that everything that exists in the world is reflected in Man by a corresponding
element.
50. so that his inner form is modeled on the Name and Attributes of God. Thus he is
'hearing', 'seeing', 'knowing' etc., as God Himself is, i.e., he is qualified by ail the
Divine Attributes.
51. FWi., pp. 13-14/50.
246 Sufism and Taoism
52. 'The engraved seal is the Greatest of all the Divine Names, namely, the Divine
Essence with all the Names. This seal is engraved on the 'heart' of the Perfect Man,
which is symbolized here by the bezel of the royal seal. Thus the Perfect Man guards
the treasury of the universe with all that is contained therein, and keeps them in the
established order' - al-Qâshânï, p. 13.
53. Cf. Chapter IV
54. Cf. Fw;., p. 53/71.
55. Chapter V, pp. 66-101. For a discussion of the historical relation between this
Islamic/ogos-doctrine and the /ogos-Christology see Arthur Jeffery: Ibn al-'Arabî's
Shajarat al-Kawn (Studia Islamica, X, Paris, 1959, pp. 45-62).
56. Kantu nabiy wa-Adam bayna al-mii' wa-al-tin.
57. Affifi, Philosophy, p. 69.
58. p. 266.
59. Reference to the Qoran, II, 31.
60. Fw;., p. 267/214.
61. Fw;., p. 275/220.
62. Fw;., p. 26/56.
63. p. 26.
64. 'We shall show them Our signs on the horizons and in themselves'.
65. Fw;., p. 19/53-54.
66. Wa-antum al-a'lawna wa-Allahu ma'a-kum. Ibn' Arabï's interpretation of this
verse ('you are the highest and God, too, is the highest with you') is quite an original
one. Contextually, the verse simply means: 'you, believers, will surely win (in your
struggle with the disbelievers) for God is with you (i.e., on your side)'.
67. p. 62.
68. either in the sense of makan, i.e., physical place, or makanah, i.e., non-material
place, position or rank.
69. Fw;., pp. 82-83/85. The original is a part of a poem.
