The Absolute in its Absoluteness In religious non-philosophical discourse the Absolute is normally indicated by the word God or Allah.

But in the technical terminology of Ibn'Arabi, the word Allah indicates the Absolute not in its absoluteness but in a state of determination. Ibn 'Arabi uses the word haqq (which literally means Truth or Reality) in referring to the Absolute. The Absolute (haqq) in such an absoluteness is inconceivable and inapproachable. The Absolute in this sense is unknowable to us because it transcends all qualifications and relations that, are humanly conceivable. Man can neither think of anything nor talk about anything without first giving it some qualification and thereby limiting it in some form or another. Therefore, the Absolute in its unconditional transcendence and essential isolation cannot be an object of human knowledge and cognition. In other words, as far as it remains in its absoluteness it is Something unknown and unknowable. It is forever a mystery, the Mystery of mysteries. The Absolute in this sense is said to be ankar al- nakirat, i.e., 'the most indeterminate of all indeterminates', I because it has no qualities and bears no relation to anything beside itself. Since it is absolutely indeterminate and undetermined it is totally unknowable. Thus the phrase ankar-nakirat means the most unknown of all the unknown. From the particular viewpoint of the Divine self-manifestation (tajalli) which will be one of our major topics in what follows, the Absolute in the state of unconditional transcendence is said to be at the level of 'unity' (Ahadiyah). There is as yet no Tajalli. Tajalli is only expected of it in the sense that it is to be the very source of Tajalli which has not yet begun. And since there is actually no occurrence of Tajalli, there is absolutely nothing recognizable here. In this respect the Absolute at this stage is the One (al-ahad). The word 'one' in this particular context is not the 'one' which is a whole of 'many'. Nor is it even 'one' in opposition to 'many'. It means the essential, primordial and absolutely unconditional simplicity of Being where the concept of opposition is meaningless. The stage of Unity is an eternal stillness. Not the slightest movement is there observable. The self-manifestation of the Absolute does not yet occur. Properly speaking we cannot speak even negatively of any self-manifestation of the Absolute except when

we look back at this stage from the later stages of Being. The tajalli of the Absolute begins to occur only at the next stage, that of the 'oneness' (wahidiyah) which means the Unity of the Many. It is impossible that the Absolute manifest itself in its absoluteness. 'Those who know God in the true sense assert that there can never be self- manifestation in the state of Unity', because, not only in the normal forms of cognitive experience in the phenomenal world but also even in the highest state of mystical experience, there is, according to Ibn 'Arabi, kept intact the distinction between the one who sees (nazir) and the object seen (manzur). Thus even in the highest degree of mystical experience, that of union, the prime Unity must of necessity break up and turn into duality. The Absolute on the level of Unity, in other words, remains for ever unknowable. It is the inescapable destiny of the human act of cognition that, whenever man tries to know something, there comes in a particular relation, a particular condition which impedes an immediate grasp of the object. Man is unable to know anything without taking up some position, without looking at it from some definite point. The Absolute, in its absoluteness, however, is precisely something which transcends all such relations and aspects. Is it impossible, then, for man to say even a word about the Absolute? Can we not predicate anything at all of the absolute Absolute? As is clear from what has just been said, strictly speaking no predication is possible. Philosophically, however, there is one single thing which we predicate of the Absolute on this level. It is 'being'. As long as it is a word with a meaning, it also delimits and specifies the Absolute. But within the boundaries of philosophical thinking, 'being' is the most colorless - and therefore the least specifying predication thinkable. It describes the Absolute with the highest degree of unconditionality. The Absolute viewed from this standpoint is called by Ibn'Arabi dhat or 'essence'. The world dhat in this context means absolute Being (wujud mutlaq), Being qua Being, or absolute Existence, that is, Existence viewed in its unconditional simplicity. As the epithet ,absolute' indicates, it should not be taken in the sense of a limited and determined existent or existence; it means Something beyond all existents that exist in a limited way, Something lying at the very source of all such existents existentiating them. It is Existence as the ultimate ground of everything.

The Reality in its absoluteness is, in Ibn 'Arabis metaphysical-ontological system, an absolutely unknowable Mystery that lies far beyond the reach of human cognition. Properly speaking, in the name of Allah we should see the self- manifestation (tajalli) of this Mystery already at work although, to be sure, it is the very first beginning of the process and is, in comparison with the remaining levels of tajalli, the highest and the most perfect form assumed by the Mystery as it steps out of its abysmal darkness. However, from the viewpoint of a believer who talks about it on the level of discourse directly connected with his living faith, the absolute Being cannot but take the form of Allah. Existence per se cannot in itself be an object of religious belief. This fact makes it also clear that whatever we want to say about the absolute Being and however hard we try to describe it as it really is, we are willy-nilly forced to talk about it in one aspect or another of its self-manifestation, for the Absolute in the state of nonmanifestation never comes into human language. The absolute Reality in itself remains for ever a 'hidden treasure', hidden in its own divine isolation. It will be natural, then, that, from whatever point of view we may approach the problem, we see ourselves ultimately brought back to the very simple proposition from which we started; namely, that the Absolute in its absoluteness is essentially unknown and unknowable. In other words, the inward aspect of the Absolute defies every attempt at definition. One cannot, therefore, ask, 'What is the Absolute? And this is tantamount to saying that the Absolute has no 'quiddity' (mahiyah). so the Absolute in its absoluteness is an 'absolute mystery' (ghayb mutlaq), and that the only way to approach the Absolute is to look at it in its self revealing aspect. Is it then possible for us to see the Absolute itself at least in this latter aspect? Will the UnknownUnknowable transform itself into Something known and knowable? The answer, it would seem, must be in the affirmative. Since, according to a Tradition, the 'hidden treasure' unveils itself because it 'desires to be known', self- manifestation must mean nothing other than the Absolute becoming knowable and known. But, on the other hand, the Absolute in this aspect is no longer the Absolute in itself, for it is the Absolute in so far as it reveals itself. In Ibn 'Arabis world-view, the world of Being consists of material objects (ajsam, sg. jism) and non-material or spiritual beings

(arfah, sg. ruh). Both these categories are the forms of self manifestation assumed by the Absolute. In this sense everything, whether material or spiritual, reveals and discloses the Absolute in its own way. However, there is a certain respect in which these things cover up the Absolute as thick impenetrable veils in such a way that the Absolute hides itself behind them and is invisible in itself. As a famous Tradition says: 'God hides Himself behind seventy thousand veils of light and darkness. If He took away these veils, the fulgurating lights of His face would at once destroy the sight of any creature who dared to look at it.' In referring to this Tradition, Ibn 'Arabi makes the following remark : Here God describes Himself (as being concealed) by veils of darkness, which are the physical things, and by (veils) of light, which are fine spiritual things, for the world consists of 'coarse' things and 'fine' things, so that the world in itself constitutes a veil over itself. Thus the world does not see the Absolute as directly as it sees its own self. The world, in this way, is forever covered by a veil which is never removed. Besides (it is covered by) its knowledge (or consciousness) that it is something different and distinct from its Creator by the fact that it stands in need of the latter. But (in spite of this inner need) it cannot participate in the essential necessity which is peculiar to the existence of the Absolute and can never attain it. Thus the Absolute remains for this reason forever unknowable by an intimate knowledge, because no contingent being has access to it (i.e., the essential necessity of the Absolute). Here again we come across the eternal paradox: the things of the world, both material and non-material, are, on the one hand, so many forms of the Divine self- manifestation, but on the other, they act exactly as veils hindering a (complete) self- manifestation of God. They cover up God and do not allow man to see Him directly. The whole world, in this view, turns out to be a 'veil' (hijab) concealing the Absolute behind it. So those who attribute Being to the world enclose the Absolute within the

bounds of a number of determinate forms and thereby place it beyond a thick veil. When, for example, the Christians assert that 'God is Messiah, Son of Mary' (V, 72), they confine the Absolute in an individual form and lose sight of the absoluteness of the Absolute. This makes them absent from the Absolute, and they veil it by the personal form of Messiah. It is in the sense that such people are Kafirs, i.e., 'those who cover up (those who disbelieve)'. The same thing is also explained by Ibn'Arabi in another interesting way. The key-concept here is the Divine self-manifestation (tajalli). And the key-symbol he uses is that of a mirror, which incidentally, is one of his most favorite images. The Absolute, 'in order that it be known', discloses itself in the world. But it discloses itself strictly in accordance with the requirement of each individual thing, in the form appropriate to and required by the nature of 'preparedness' (isti'dad) of each individual existent. There can absolutely be no other form of self manifestation. And when the locus, i.e., the individual thing in which the Absolute discloses itself happens to be a human being endowed with consciousness, he sees by intuition the self-revealing Absolute in himself. Yet, since it is after all the Absolute in a particular form determined by his own 'preparedness', what he sees in himself is nothing other than his own image or form (surah) as mirrored in the Absolute. He never sees the Absolute itself. His Reason may tell him that his own image is visible there reflected in the Divine mirror, but, in spite of this consciousness based on reasoning, he cannot actually see the mirror itself; he sees only himself. The Divine Essence (dhat) discloses itself only in a form required by the very 'preparedness' of the locus in which occurs the self-manifestation. There can be no other way. Thus the locus of the Divine self- manifestation does not see anything, other than its own form as reflected in the mirror of the Absolute. It does not see the

Absolute itself. Nor is it at all possible for it to do so, although it is fully aware of the fact that it sees its own form only in the Absolute. This is similar to what happens to a man looking into a mirror in the empirical world. When you are looking at forms or your own form in a mirror you do not see the mirror itself, although you know well that you see these forms or your own form only in the mirror. Thus we are faced with a curious fact that the forms or images of things in a mirror, precisely because they are visible, intervene between our eyesight and the mirror and act as a veil concealing the mirror from our eyes. This symbol (of mirror) has been put forward by God as a particularly appropriate one for His essential self- manifestation so that the person who happens to be the locus of this Divine self- manifestation might know what exactly is the thing he is seeing. Nor can there be a symbol closer than this to (the relation between) contemplation (on the part of man) and self-manifestation (on the part of God). (If you have some doubt of this) try to see the body of the mirror while looking at an image in it. You will not be able to do so, never! So much so that some people who have experienced this with regard to images reflected in the mirror maintain that the form seen in the mirror stands between the eyesight of the person who is looking and the mirror itself. This is the furthest limit which (an ordinary intellect) can reach. Thus the view that the image in the mirror behaves as a 'veil' concealing the mirror itself is the highest knowledge attainable by ordinary people; that is, by those who understand things through their intellect. But Ibn'Arabi does not forget to suggest in the same breath that for those who are above the common level of understanding there is a view which goes one step further than this. The deepest truth of the matter, he says, is represented by a view which he already expounded in his al-Futuhat al-Makkiyah. We may remark that even for the Perfect Man there can be no spiritual stage realizable at which he is able to know the Absolute as it really is, i.e., in its absoluteness. Yet, such a

man is in a position to intuit the Absolute as it reveals itself in himself and in all other things. This is the final answer given to the question: To what extent and in what form can man know the Absolute? And this will be the only and necessary conclusion to be reached concerning the metaphysical capability of the Perfect Man if we are to start from the basic assumption that Divine Essence (dhat) and Unity (ahadiyah) are completely identical with each other in indicating one and the same thing, namely, the Absolute in its absoluteness as the highest metaphysical stage of Reality. There is, however, another theoretical possibility. If, following some of the outstanding philosophers of the school of Ibn'Arabi, we are to divide the highest level of Reality into two metaphysical strata and distinguish between them as (1) dhat, the absolute Absolute and (2) ahadiyah which, although it is still the same absolute Absolute, is a stage lower than dhat in the sense that it represents the Absolute as it is turning toward self-manifestation.