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
