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
===
Sufism Chapter 6 Key words:
- shadow (zill)
- the world
- contradictorily identical
- essence vs form in relation to God
- 'The world is the shadow of the Absolute'.
- Divine Names vs Divine Essence.
- archetypal essences
- 'Light' (nür) - a symbol for "God's guidance"
- Divine 'shadow'
- Mystery (ghayb)
- Zulmah: darkness. Zulmah 'adamiyah: the darkness of non-being.
- appear small to the sense by dint of distance.
- a scientifically demonstrated fact
- the world is a product of imagination
- man - a very special part - consciousness- degree of 'knowledge'.
- knower: simple vs higher degree
- degrees of the 'knower'
- spiritual degrees
- woman is a degree lower than man
- because women is created as an image of the God
--
The name khayal al-zill was an intentionally metaphorical term whose meaning is best translated as "shadows of the imagination" or "shadows of fancy,"
---
===
VI The Shadow of the Absolute.
In the preceding chapter the special relation between the Absolute
and the world has been discussed. We have seen how the Absolute
and the world are contradictorily identical with one another.
- The two are ultimately the same;
- but this statement does not mean that
- the relation between them is one of simple identification:
- it means that the Absolute and the world are the same
- while being at the same time diametrically opposed to each other.
The creatures are in essence nothing other than God,
but in their determined forms they are far from being the same as God.
Rather, they are infinitely distant from God.
Ibn' Arabi, as we have observed, tries to describe this contradictory situation by various images. 'Shadow' (zill) is one of them.
Using this metaphor he presents his view in a basic proposition:
'The world is the shadow of the Absolute'.
The world, as the shadow of the Absolute, is the latter's form,
but it is a degree lower than the latter.
Know that what is generally said to be 'other than the Absolute' or
the so-called 'world', is in relation to the Absolute
comparable to shadow in relation to the person.
The world in this sense is the 'shadow' of God. 1
It is to be remarked concerning the passage just quoted that in Ibn
'Arabi's thought, there is, strictly speaking, nothing 'other than the
Absolute'. This last phrase is merely a popular expression. 2
But the popular expression is not entirely groundless,
because philosophically or theologically
the world is a concrete phenomenal form of the Divine Names,
and the Divine Names are in a certain sense opposed to the Divine Essence.
In this respect the world is surely 'other than the Absolute'.
The argument of Ibn' Arabi continues:
(To say that the world is the shadow of the Absolute) is the same as
attributing existence (i.e., concrete, sensible existence) to the world.
For shadow surely exists sensibly, except that it does so only when
there is something3 in which it makes its appearance.
If there is nothing in which to appear, the shadow would remain merely
intelligible without existing in a sensible form. In such a case, the shadow
rather remains in potentia in the person to whom it is attributed.
[90]
The structure of this phenomenon is made more explicit by al-
Qashani in the following remark: 4
In order that there be shadow
there must necessarily be three things:
(1) a tall object which casts the shadow,
(2) the place where it falls, and
(3) light by which alone shadow becomes distinctively existent.
The 'object' corresponds to the real Being or the Absolute.
The 'place' in which shadow appears
corresponds to the archetypal essences of the possible things.
If there were no 'place', shadow would never be sensible,
but would remain something intelligible like a tree in a seed.
It would remain in the state of potentiality in the 'object'
which would cast the shadow.
The 'light' corresponds to the Divine Name the 'Outward'.
If the world had not come into contact with the Being of the Absolute,
the 'shadow' would have never come to exist.
It would have remained forever in the primordial non-existence
which is characteristic of the possible things considered in themselves
without any relation to their Originator (who brings them into the state of real
existence).
For 'shadow', in order to exist, needs the 'place' as well as an actual contact with the thing that projects it.
God, however, 'existed when there was nothing beside Him', and in that state He was completely self-sufficient having no need of the whole world.
This interpretation by al-Qashanî makes it clear that
the 'shadow' is cast not on what we call the 'world' directly,
but on the archetypes of the things.
In other words, the 'world' begins to exist on a higher level than the one on which our common sense usually thinks it to exist.
The moment the shadow of the Absolute is cast on the archetypes,
the world is born, although, strictly speaking, the archetypes themselves are not the 'world' but rather the 'locus of the appearance of the world'.
Shadow, however, does not appear except by the activity of light.
This is the reason why we have the Divine Name 'Light' (nür).
'Light' (nür) - a symbol for "God's guidance"
The locus of the appearance of this Divine' shadow' called the 'world'
is the archetypal essences of the possible things. 5 It is on these
archetypes that the shadow (first) spreads. And the shadow becomes
perceivable in accordance with the amount actually spread of the
Being of the One who projects it upon them. The perception of it,
however, can take place only in virtue of the Name 'Light' .6
It is remarkable that the shadows of things projected on the earth
are said to take on a dark, blackish color. This has a symbolic
meaning. It symbolizes in the first place that, in the particular case
which is our immediate concern, the source of the 'shadow' is a
Mystery, an absolutely Unknown-Unknowable. The blackness of
shadow indicates, in the second place, that there is a distance
between it and its source. Here is what Ibn 'Arabi says on this
problem: 7
[91]
The 'shadow' spreading over the archetypal essences of the possible
things, (becomes visible in the primai) manifestation-form of the
unknown Mystery (ghayb ).8
Do you not see how ail shadows appear blackish? This fact indicates
the inherence of obscurity in the shadows due to an intervening
distance in the relation between them and the objects which project
them. Thus, even if the object be white, the shadow it casts takes on a
blackish color.
As usual al-Qashani reformulates what is implied by this passage in
more ontological terms: 9
The archetypes are dark because of their distance from the light of
Being. And when the light which is of a totally different nature from
their own darkness spreads over them, their proper darkness of
non-Being (zulmah 'adamiyah) affects the luminosity of Being, and
the light-nature turns toward darkness.
In other words, the light of Being turns in this way toward obscurity,
just as the shadow does in relation to the thing which casts it.
The relation of the relative Being to the absolute Being is exactly like that,
so that,
if it were not for its being determined by the archetypal essences of the possible things,
the absolute Being would shine forth with extreme incandescence
and no one would be able to perceive it because of the intensity of the
light.
Thus it comes about that those who are veiled by the darkness of determination
see the world but do not see the Absolute,
for 'being in utter darkness they do not see' (Qoran, II, 17).
But those who have come out of the veils of determinations witness the Absolute, for they have torn asunder the veil of darkness and veiled themselves with
light against darkness, i.e., veiled themselves with the Essence
against the 'shadow'.
Those, however, who are not veiled by either of the two against the other can witness the light of the Absolute in the midst of the blackness and darkness of the creaturely world.
In the following passage Ibn 'Arabî emphasizes the effect of the distance that separates the archetypes from the Absolute
in producing the darkish color of the former. 10
Do you not see how the mountains, if they happen to be far away
from the sight of the man who looks at them, appear black,
when in reality they may be quite different in color from what the sense
perceives. And the distance is the only cause for this phenomenon.
The same is true of the blue of the sky. In fact, anything which is not
luminous produces the same kind of effect on the sense when there is
a long distance between the object and sight.
[92]
Exactly the same situation is found with regard to the archetypal
essences of the possible things, for they, too, are not luminous by
themselves. (They are not luminous) because they are non-existent
(ma'dûm). True, they do possess an ontological status intermediary
between sheer non-existence and pure existence but they do not possess Being by themselves, because Being is Light.
Another important effect produced by distance on the sense of sight
is that it makes every abject look far smaller that it really is.
For Ibn 'Arabi this also has a deep symbolic meaning.
Even the luminous objects, however, appear small to the sense by
dint of distance. And this is another effect of distance on sense
perception. Thus the sense does not perceive (distant luminous
objects) except as very small things, while in reality they are far
bigger and of greater quantities than they look. For example, it is a
scientifically demonstrated fact that the sun is one hundred and sixty
times bigger than the earth. Actually, however, it appears to the
sense as small as a shield, for instance. This, again, is the effect
produced by distance.
The world is known just to the same degree as shadow is perceived,
and the Absolute remains unknown to the same degree as the object
which casts the shadow remains unknown.
Thus, as long as the 'shadow' (which can be perceived and known) is
the 'shadow' (of the Absolute), the Absolute also is known.
But as
long as we do not know the essential form of the object contained
within the 'shadow', the Absolute remains unknown.
This is why we assert that the Absolute is known to us in one sense,
but is unknown to us in another. 11 [Fus]
The Absolute in this comparison is the source of the 'shadow'. And
the former is known to us to the very extent that 'shadow', i.e., the
world, is known.
This amounts to saying, if we continue to use the same metaphor, that the Absolute is known to us only as something 'small and black'.
And this 'something small and black' is what is generally understood as our God or our Lord.
The real Something which projects this 'shadow' is never to be known.
Ibn' Arabi bases his argument on a few Qoranic verses which he interprets as he
always does, in his own way. 12
'Hast thou not seen how thy Lord spreads shadow? But if He so
desired He could make them stand still' (XXV, 45). The phrase
'stand still' means 'remain within God in the state of potentiality .'
God means to say (in this verse):
It is not in the nature of the Absolute to manifest itself to the possible things (i.e., the archetypes) unless there appears first (upon them) its 'shadow'.
Yet the 'shadow' (in this state and in itself) is no different from those of the possible things which have not yet been (actualized) by the appearance of the
corresponding concrete things in the (phenomenal) world.
[93]
When the Absolute 'desires' to manifest itself in the archetypes
(and through them in the concrete things), there appears first a dark
'shadow' upon them.
The Divine self-manifestation never occurs unless preceded by the appearance of the 'shadow'.
But if God so wishes at this stage, the 'shadow' would be made to 'stand still', i.e.,
it would remain forever in that state of potentiality and would not proceed further toward the level of concrete things. In such a case, the 'shadow' would simply be another possible thing just as the archetypes themselves which have no corresponding realities in the outer world.
Ibn 'Arabi goes on: 13
'Then We have made the sun its indicator' (XXV, 45). The sun
(which is thus made to be the indicator of the 'shadow') is the Divine
Name 'Light' to which reference has already been made.
And the sense bears witness to it (i.e., to the fact that the indicator of the
'shadow' is no other than the Light) because shadows have no real
existence where there is no light.
'Then We withdraw it toward us with an easy withdrawal' (XXV, 46).
God withdraws to Himself the 'shadow', because it is His 'shadow'
which He Himself has projected. Thus everything appears from Him
and goes back to Him, for it is He, no one else.
Everything you perceive is the Being of the Absolute as it appears
through the archetypal essences of the possible things. The same
thing, as the He-ness of the Absolute, is its Being, and, as the
divergence of forms, is the archetypal essences of the possible things.
Just as the name 'shadow' does not cease to subsist in it with the
divergence of forms, the name 'world' does not cease to subsist in it
with the divergence of forms. Likewise the name 'other than the
Absolute'.
In regard to its essential unity in being 'shadow', it is the Absolute,
for the latter is the Unique, the One.
But in regard to the multiplicity of forms it is the world.
Briefly, this means that the 'shadow', as it spreads over the
archetypes, can be observed in two opposed aspects:
the aspect of fundamental unity and the aspect of diversity.
In fact, the 'shadow', as any physical shadow in this world is one; and in this aspect it turns toward its source.
Or rather, it is nothing else than the Absolute itself, because it is a direct projection of the Divine Unity (a}Jad-iyah ).
But in its second aspect, the same 'shadow' is already diversified, and is faced toward the world of concrete things; or rather, it is the world itself.
Thus considered, the world in the sense in which we ordinarily
understand it has no reality;. it is but a product of imagination. 14
[94]
If the truth is what I have just pointed out to you, the world is an
illusion having no real existence in itself. And this is the meaning of
imagination. The world, in other words, looks as if it were something
independent and subsisting by itself outside the Absolute.
This, however, is not true. Do you not see how in your ordinary
sensible experience shadow is so closely tied up with the thing which
projects it that it is absolutely impossible for it to liberate itself from
this tie?
This is impossible because it is impossible for anything to be detached
from itself.
Since the world is in this way the 'shadow' of the Absolute,
it is connected with the latter with an immediate tie which is never to be loosened. Every single part of the world is a particular aspect of the Absolute,
and is the Absolute in a state of determination.
Man, being himself a part of the world, and a very special part at that,
because of his consciousness, is in a position to know intimately, within himself, the relation of the 'shadow' to the Absolute.
The extent to which a man becomes conscious of this ontological relation determines his degree of 'knowledge'. There naturally result from this several degrees of 'knowledge'.
Know your own essence ('ayn, i.e., your archetypal essence).
Know who you are (in your concrete existence) and what your He-ness is.
Know how you are related with the Absolute;
know in what respect you are the Absolute and
in what respect you are the 'world', 'other' and something 'different' from the Absolute.
This gives rise to a number of degrees among the 'knowers'.
Thus some are simply 'knowers', and some others are 'knowers' in a higher
degree. 15
These degrees of the 'knower' are described in a more concrete
form by al-Qashanï in his Commentary .16
The lowest is represented by
those who witness only the aspect of determination and diversification.
They see the created world, and nothing beyond.
The second rank is
that of those who witness the Unity of Being which is manifested in these forms. They witness the Absolute (but forget about the created world).
The third rank witness both aspects.
They witness both the creatures and the Absolute as two aspects of one Reality.
The fourth in degree are
those who witness the whole as one Reality diversifying itself according to various aspects and relations, 'one' in Essence, 'all' with the Names.
Those are the people of God who have the real knowledge of God.
In terms of 'self-annihilation' (fanâ') and 'self-subsistence' (baqâ'),
al-Qâshanï says that
- those who witness only the Absolute, losing sight of the creatures, are people who are dominated by 'self-annihilation' and 'unification', while
- those who witness the Absolute in the creatures and the creatures in the Absolute are described as
- people who have obtained a perfect vision in the state of 'self-subsistence' -after-'self-annihilation' and the view of 'dispersion' - after-'unification'.
[95]
Ibn' Arabï himself compares these spiritual degrees
to a naturally colorless light being tinged with various colours as it passes through
coloured pieces of glass.17
The relation of the Absolute to a particular 'shadow', small, large, or
pure in different degrees, may be compared to the relation of light to
a piece of glass intervening between it and the eye of a man who looks
at it.
The light in such a case assumes the color of the glass, while in
itself it is colorless. (The colorless light) appears to the sense of sight
as colored - an appropriate comparison for the relation of your own
reality with your Lord.
If you say that the light has become green because of the green color
of the glass, you are right. This is evidenced by your sense perception.
But if you say that the light is not green nor, indeed, of any color at ail,
you are also right. You are, in this case, following what is given by
your logical reasoning. And your judgment is based on the right
activity of Reason.
See how the light passes through a 'shadow' which is no other than
the glass. The glass (is a 'shadow', but it is) a 'shadow' which is of the
nature of light because of its transparency .18
In just the same way, when one of us has realized in himself the
Absolute, the Form of the latter appears in him more than it does in
others. (He who has realized in himself the Absolute is of two
different degrees):
the first degree is represented by a man whose
hearing, sight, and ail other faculties and bodily members are the
Absolute itself in accordance with the teaching of the Revelation
concerning the Absolute. 19
Even in such a case, however, the
'shadow' itself is still there (in the form of his enlightened 'self')
because the persona! pronoun in 'his hearing', 'his sight' etc. refers to
the man. He who represents the second (i.e., higher) degree is
different from this.
A man of this second degree is close to the Being of the Absolute than ail others ..
As we see, Ibn' Arabï does not give any detailed description of those
of the second degree. He is content with stating that they are closer
to the Absolute than others. Al-Qashanï makes this point more
explicit and precise. 20
The first is he who has 'annihilated himself' from his own attributes in
the Attributes of the Absolute so that the Absolute has taken the
place of his attributes.
The second is he (who has 'annihilated himself') from his own essence in the Essence of the Absolute so that the Absolute has taken the place of his essence.
The first is the kind of man who is referred to when we say, 'the Absolute is his hearing, his sight, etc.' ...
Such a man is closer to the Absolute than other ( ordinary) believers who act with their own attributes and who remain with their (natural) veils (i.e., the veils of human attributes).
His attitude (toward God) is described as the 'closeness of supererogatory works' (qurb al-nawâfil). And yet, his 'shadow' itself, i.e., his relative existence, which is no other than his ego, still subsists in him. And the self-manifestation of the Absolute in such a man occurs and is witnessed in accordance with his own
attributes, for the persona} pronoun in 'his hearing' etc. refers to the
particularized existence which is the 'shadow'.
[96]
Closer still than this closeness is the 'closeness of the obligatory works' (qurb al-farâ'i<f,) which is represented by the second degree. A man of this second category is one who has 'annihilated himself' totally with his essence and is 'subsistent' in the Absolute. This is the kind of man by whom the Absolute hears and sees. Thus such a man is the hearing of the Absolute itself and the sight of the Absolute.
Nay, he is the Form of the Absolute. To him refer God's words: '(when thou threwest,) thou wert not the one who threw, but God it was who really threw' (VIII, 17).
Thus it is clear that, although both categories are men who have
realized themselves in the Absolute,
the first is inferior to the second
in that the 'shadow', that is, man's existence, still remains in the first, and
in the view of such men the Absolute and the world stand opposed to each other.
This is the standpoint of the 'exterior'(zahir),
while the second represents the standpoint of the 'interior' (batin).
And this makes it also clear that the world,
though it is a 'perfect form' in which the Absolute manifests itself with all its perfections,
is necessarily a degree lower than the Absolute.
Just as woman is a degree lower than man
according to the Divine words:
'men have a degree of superiority over them (i.e., women)' (II, 228),
that which has been created in the image (of God) is
lower than He who has brought it out to existence in His image.
Its being in the image of God ( does not prevent it from being lower than its
Originator). And by that very superiority by which He is distinguished from the creatures He is completely independent of the whole world and is the Prime Agent.
For the 'image' is only a secondary agent and does not possess the priority which belongs to the Absolute alone. 21
=====
Notes
1. Fu$., p. 113/101.
2. fi a/-'urf al-'amm as al-Qashani says, p. 113.
3. Ibn 'Arabi actually uses a persona! form, 'somebody', instead of 'something'.
4. pp. 113-114.
[97]
5. The expression a'yan al-mumkinllt is explained by Jami as a'yan al-mumkinllt
al-thllbitah fi al-}Ja<Jrah a/-'ilmiyah (Shar}J
6. Fuii., p. 114/102.
7. Fu$., p. 114/102.
8. 'The primai manifestation-form of the Mystery' is nothing other than the
metaphysical level of Divine Consciousness which is in fact the first visible form
assumed by the Mystery (Jami).
9. p. 114.
10. Fu$., p. 114/102.
11. FU$., p. 115/102.
12. ibid.
13. FU$., p. 116/103. Many of the leading commentators give quite a different
interpretation to the latter part of the passage just quoted. The difference cornes
from the fact that they take the particle }Jattà in the sense of kay or li-kay 'in order that', white I take it to mean 'until.' The passage, according to their interpretation, would read: 'It is impossible, in view of the very nature of the Absolute, that it should manifest itself to possible things (i.e., archetypes) in order to produce its own "shadow" in such a way that the "shadow" (once produced) would remain the same as the rest of the possible things to which no reality has yet been actualized in the empirical world.' Thus interpreted, the passage would mean that those archetypes upon which the 'shadow' has been projected immediately obtain an ontological status differentiating them from the other archetypes that have not yet attained any degree of reality. This meaning, however, does not seem to fit in the present context.
14. Fu$., p. 117/103.
15. ibid.
16. p. 117.
17. FU$., p. 118/103-104.
18. Al-Qashani says (p. 103): When the Absolute manifests itself in the world of
Command (i.e., in the spiritual world) to pure Spirits and non-corporeal Intellects, the self-manifestation is of the nature of light, because the forms in which the Absolute appears in this domain of pure spirituality are a' shadow' made of light; it is transparent and has no darkness within. But the light passing through a colored glass is a symbol of the Absolute appearing in the form of a soul tinged with the coloring of the bodily constitution. The intellectual soul (al-nafs al-nll(iqah, i.e., the soul of man), although it is not bodily in itself, becomes turbid and colored by bodily elements.
98]
19. The reference to a famous Tradition in which Gad Himself speaks in the first
persan (}Jadith qudsiy): 'The servant (i.e. believer) never ceases to strive for superreogatory works until 1 love him. And when 1 do love him, 1 am his hearing with which he hears and 1 am his sight with which he sees, etc.'
20. p. 118.
21. p. 273/219.
====
‘Abd al-Razzaq al-Qashani (d. 1330) is one of the greatest figures in the school of Ibn ‘Arabi. The edition used in the present book is Sharh al-Qashani ‘ala Fusus al-Hikam, Cairo, 1321
----
Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam: The Seals of Wisdom
work by Ibn al-ʿArabī
- Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, was composed in 1229, about 10 years before his death. Consisting only of 27 chapters, the book is incomparably smaller than Al-Futūḥāt al-Makkiyyah, but its importance as an expression of Ibn al-ʿArabī’s mystical thought in its most mature form cannot be overemphasized.
