The Thirty-Second Section: The Divine Breath

The Thirty-Second Section: The Divine Breath

He said:

“It necessitated the appearance and manifestation from the realm of the unseen to the domain of the witnessed, bringing about the actualization of these attributes and determinations, distinct in their essence, and their comprehension in detail.”

Second Reaching: The Divine Breath

Then, the essence required the appearance and manifestation from the boundary of the unseen to the realm of the witnessed, causing the mentioned attributes and determinations (or manifestations) to appear distinct and separate, actually existing in the fixed essences (or the realm of knowledge). The absolute identity then comprehends these attributes and determinations in detail (as for the realm of determinations, these are called ‘manifestations’, and for the realm of attributes, this becomes unity).

I say:

Since the first determination — which unites both unity and singularity, sometimes referred to as “essential unity” and at other times as “absolute identity” — is dominated by the influences of the inner depths and existence over the influences of appearance and manifestation, there is no distinction between the meanings of divine names and the determinations therein; for there is no real difference, to the point that the multiplicity considered therein is identical with unity, as you have understood. Hence, there is no opportunity for these determinations to appear according to the perfection of the divine names, so that this identity would manifest within the determinations of the divine names according to their magnitude. This is because the ranks — which are the places for their manifestation and the fields for their detailed elaboration — are hidden and integrated at this stage, consumed within the ruling essence, just as the individual letters, while still within their source and the inner chest and the heart before their appearance in external stages, are consumed in the breath itself. Therefore, at this stage, this identity necessitates its appearance and manifestation, but not in relation to its own essence; rather, it arises due to the considerations and attributes of truths, as requested through the tongues of sacred preparations and capacities. Hence, from the very essence of this manifestation and the inner core of its concealment, a volitional inclination, a loving motion, and an amorous yearning emerge, according to which it manifests in another form and a clearer type, similar to a dispersed breath that has the capacity to bring about those attributes and essences — distinct and actualized — like the distinction of letters in the breath when it disperses at the openings, making it possible to conceive them in detail as mentioned in the stages of the divine names’ perfection. This manifestation is called “the divine breath” in their terminology.

This is either because it is similar to human breath in its simplicity as a vaporous essence, though its components differ based on their interaction with the conditions of the exits, or because it causes the relief of distress, as the venerable Shaykh (may God be pleased with him) mentioned in the Fusus al-Hikam: “The world appeared in the divine breath through which God Almighty relieved the divine names from their concealment by revealing their effects. He endowed Himself with what He manifested in His essence, and the first effect of the divine breath occurred in that divine presence. Then the matter continued to descend through the alleviation of sorrows until the end of what existed.”

Poetry:

All is in the eye of the breath
Like light in the self of dusk.

Knowledge of the proof is in
The sleep of the night for the one who has drowsed.

Then he sees what I have said,
A vision that points to the breath.

It relieves him from every sorrow
In its recitation, he finds a serene countenance.

And truly, it revealed itself to the one
Who came seeking the spark.

He saw it as fire, yet it is light
In kings and in the guards.

If you understand my words,
Know that you are in despair.

Had he sought something else,
He would have seen it there, not defeated.

Introduction to the Concept of Divine Manifestation and the Hierarchy of Existence

Herein, there is an introduction containing many beneficial insights, which any discerning individual must contemplate. It is that the relationship of an action to the Divine can either be due to its intrinsic nature, meaning that the action is directly necessitated by the Divine essence without any intermediary. This distinction allows for differentiation from mere self-manifestation, and the object of this action in this context is referred to as “High Letters” (حروف عاليات), “Original Letters” (حروف أصليّات), or “The First Keys” (مفاتيح أولى). At times, it is expressed as the “Keys of the Unseen” (مفاتيح غيب) or “Divine Names” (الأسماء الذاتية), and “Primary Affairs” (الشؤون الأصليّة), all depending on the contextual and descending perspectives of initial designation.

As for the second stage of manifestation — which is the presence of the divine attributes in the realm of the self-evident knowledge of the Divine Essence — this stage relates to a relative distinction. The great sages and philosophers of theosophy indicate that things are reflected in the Divine self, but a difference exists between the taste of the sage and the true seer. For the sage, the reflection is a description of knowledge, considered in terms of its relative distinction from the essence, not as a description of the essence itself or its manifestation. Consequently, these reflected things are referred to as “Spiritual Letters” (حروف معنويّة), “Spiritual Words” (كلمات معنويّة), or “Fixed Realities” (أعيان ثابتة). At times, they are termed as “Divine Truths” (الحقائق الإلهية), “Names of the Lord” (الأسماء الربوبية), or “Existential Letters” (الحروف الوجودية).

Alternatively, the action may be mediated by an intermediary, in the form of a divine instrument or an outward form, which the object of the action requires. This is referred to as “Creation” (إيجاد) and “Speech” (قول). This relationship is symbolically referred to in the Divine Speech, where it says, “Our word for a thing when We wish it is only to say to it, ‘Be,’ and it is” (Quran 36:82). Such things are, in this regard, called “Existential Words” (كلمات وجودية), “Essences” (ماهيّات), and “Possible Realities” (أعيان ممكنة). Consequently, this world is termed as the “World of Command” (عالم الأمر), since “Command” refers to speech.

Among the beings of the various realms, the closest and simplest in nature is the “First Intellect” (العقل الأول). This intellect has only one form of composition: that is, it has an essence defined by existence, and it represents the first stage of potentiality (and in our language, the first stage of manifestation). It belongs to the realm of spirits, and thus the closest realm to the Divine, in terms of this relationship, is the realm of spirits. Therefore, the first created beings are the spirits, not the realm of meanings, since the realm of spirits has independence in existence and appears in its specific nature, whereas the realm of meanings does not.

If it is asked, “Why is it called a realm?” we would answer that it is termed so by one of two necessary aspects of attributes, as attributes are the means by which the essence is differentiated. However, since it does not possess existence in this regard, it is not considered an existent realm. Its “worldliness” is only a matter of conceptualization.

After this, the “World of Images” (عالم المثال) arises, wherein the meanings appear in the form of shapes, thus producing a new form of composition. The “World of Bodies” (عالم الأجسام) follows, as the previous realms are now combined with the ability to occupy space and matter. This represents the final stage of composition, as there is no greater form of manifestation than the material world, which reflects the ultimate potential for existence. This final manifestation in the physical realm corresponds to the display of unity in existence; for anything exceeding its limit turns into its opposite.

At the creation of the first corporeal body — this being the Great Throne (العرش العظيم) and the Throne of the Most Merciful (عرش الرحمن) — the full manifestation of existence has been completed, as this corresponds to the position of establishment in the Divine discourse. This is one of the meanings of the term “established” (استوى), as in the saying, “The man has reached his maturity, and his youth has been completed.”

Thus, there are three realms, and the stage of Divine manifestation includes both of the aforementioned determinations, thus forming four stages. The fifth stage is the comprehensive one, which is the human stage. These stages — the determinate ones — are referred to as “realms” (مجالي), “platforms” (منصّات), and “stations” (مطالع). The total number of stages is six, as they include the stage of the hidden and undifferentiated essence. However, what is relevant here is the determinate stages, through which the Divine breath of mercy flows and manifests.

The five primary articulatory organs of the human are the heart, the chest, the throat, the palate, and the lips. These correspond to the five stages of the Divine breath and creation. This order of creation is also respected in the Divine speech and the revealed celestial books, where the first stage is the letter, followed by the word, the verse, and the surah, with the Qur’an encompassing all of these stages.

Furthermore, there are four main sacred books: the Torah, the Gospel, the Psalms, and the Criterion (Quran), with the Quran being the comprehensive of all of them. Similarly, intellectual and external entities — whether universal or particular — also adhere to four main stages. For example, the four stages of the intellectual universals are the genus, the species, the specific quality, and the common accident. Similarly, in the case of the external particulars, the four elements — heat, moisture, cold, and dryness — combine to form the proper balance, with the temperament being the fifth. This hierarchical sequence of qualities corresponds to the four initial Divine names. In this way, the deeper metaphysical insights point to an intricate balance in both the cosmos and the human body, and while this book does not go into further details, these insights can lead to further understanding with contemplation.

Each of these realms, in terms of the specific details of their stages and the relationships between them, has its own particularities and distinctions. For instance, in the realm of spirits, one finds levels of intellectuals, celestial souls, and human souls, each having its own detailed characteristics. Similarly, the world of images and the world of bodies possess specific features and rules. However, the responsibility for elaborating on all these details belongs to natural philosophy and pre-existing wisdom, which is why the author has referred to these texts for a more complete explanation.

Critique of the Phrase “Then, the world of bodies, due to the occurrence of all this, alongside its concomitants like its being confined to space and occupying a place, reaches the ultimate limit in composition, and thus the full manifestation of existence occurs”

It must be noted that the ultimate manifestation of existence in the stages of the sacred emanation and its ultimate perfection in the corporeal world is not due to the perfection of the manifestation of existence in these realms. The manifestation of existence in the sacred emanation is weaker than its manifestation in the most sacred emanation, and particularly, the manifestation of existence in the corporeal world is at its weakest. This is because the natural world is a world of concealment and obscurity, and its manifestation is mixed with hiddenness and its manifestation is combined with concealment.

The perfection or completeness of the manifestation of existence in the stages of the sacred emanation lies in the fact that the completeness of the emanation is reached through the creation of the imperfect reaching the full measure. That is, if the emanation does not reach the realms of intellect, imagination, and ultimately the realm of nature, it remains imperfect. In this case, many faculties and potentials remain at the level of potency and do not reach their actuality.

Some great scholars, including Abu Hamid and the commentator on the Qawa’id (The Rules), have overlooked this point and have considered the completeness of the manifestation in the corporeal world after the attainment of the maximal multiplicity of possibilities, as a reflection of something that has gone beyond its limit and reached its opposite. They have regarded the reality of manifestation in these stages as something complete and perfect, considering it appropriate to express the true unity, saying: “When the first body, i.e. the boundary of directions, is created, it becomes the physical throne (Arsh) and thus becomes a manifestation of the divine throne, and in this manner, the manifestation and manifestation of existence reaches perfection.”

This statement contains several flaws and issues:

1. It must be noted that the intensity of manifestation corresponds to the intensity of existence, and anyone whose existence is more intense, their manifestation will also be more intense. Since the world of nature does not have the intensity of existence in comparison to the worlds of intellect and imagination, its manifestation does not reach the intensity found in those worlds. Therefore, the statement by the commentator (Sayn al-Din), who claims “there is no level of manifestation more intense than that of the perceptible world,” is not correct, except from the perspective of human beings.

In other words: the world of the senses, by virtue of being sensory, cannot possess the most intense manifestation, because, as stated in Tahrir al-Tamhid, “the manifestation of existence in the world of bodies is the weakest, as the world of nature is a world of concealment and veiling, and its manifestation is mixed with hiddenness and its appearance with concealment.” Hence, the sensory world, as it forms the human body, will have the most intense manifestation.

The statement by Sayn al-Din, “because it reaches the maximal possibility in multiplicity, it is suited to manifesting the unity of existence,” is only correct if we refer to ascent.

1. Sayn al-Din also states, “thus the manifestation of existence is completed.” Our position is that nothing is completed in the world of nature. Indeed, the process of descent is completed, but the totality is not achieved. This stage of completion is, in fact, the beginning of the upward journey.
2. The principle “When something exceeds its limit, it turns into its opposite” is fundamentally correct and must be carefully considered, as neither the commentator nor Tahrir al-Tamhid fully grasps its meaning. When the manifestation reaches its final stage in the realm of nature, having reached the extreme of multiplicity and possibility, it becomes suited for the manifestation of the unity of existence. For anything that surpasses its limit — that is, reaches the prime matter of the corporeal world — turns into its opposite and begins the process of ascent, which, in this case, refers to the human being.

Yes, if the commentator had referred to ascent and the human being, instead of intensifying the sensory world, and had avoided saying “When the first body is created, and this is the great throne and the throne of the Merciful, the manifestation of existence and its full completion is achieved,” then the principle would have been much more sound and Tahrir al-Tamhid’s criticism would not apply.

1. Tahrir al-Tamhid fails to consider that one cannot criticize the statement “It is suitable to manifest the unity of existence” based on the principle “When something exceeds its limit, it turns into its opposite.” It is the human being who manifests the divine names and displays the unity of existence, ascending to the station of “or even closer.” Thus, it is the human being, due to their collective position, who embodies the most intense existence and the most intense manifestation.
2. The idea of the “throne of the world of bodies” is incorrect. The descent of existence does not reach its conclusion until it reaches the ‘carpet’ of the corporeal world — that is, the prime matter — at which point the ascent begins. Although the throne and carpet are the same in terms of material, their difference lies in their form.
3. What ends with the sensory world and the prime matter of the corporeal world is the downward journey, not the emanation, which begins its upward journey in the form of the human being.
4. Istawa means the establishment of a station along with dominance, and the necessary meaning of this term is ultimate completion, not that istawa equals the end.
5. The statement regarding the first body and the throne of the corporeal world is based on an obsolete ancient view and is not in accordance with the Qur’an and Hadith.
6. The statement in Tahrir al-Tamhid, “The perfection or completeness of the manifestation of existence in the stages of the sacred emanation is due to the fact that the perfection of the emanation reaches its full measure in the creation of the imperfect,” is incorrect. Perfection is different from intensity, and considering intensity alongside perfection is an error. Perfection does not necessarily imply intensity. It is possible for something to be perfect and weaker, like the water of a river that, the more it flows, becomes more perfect, yet reaches a point where it is damp and no longer water. Therefore, the fact that the emanation of divine light reaches the intellects, the imagination, and finally nature reflects the scope of the emanation and the intensity of nature, but one must not forget the general rule: “The intensity of existence corresponds to the intensity of manifestation, and anyone whose existence is more intense, their manifestation will be more intense.” Furthermore, it should not be forgotten that “intensity and weakness describe the world, not the emanation.”

Thus, equating intensity with the completeness of the emanation is incorrect, just as it is wrong to consider the sensory world — by virtue of being sensory — as the most intense manifestation or to see the first body and the throne of the corporeal world as the container of all emanation.

1. The impossibility of attributing potentiality to existence: The argument here is that existence, by its very nature, must be actual, and cannot be subject to potentiality. As such, existence cannot be “possible” because a possible being implies a potential that does not exist in itself, which contradicts the nature of pure existence.
2. The impossibility of a meaningful relationship of “necessity” or “causality” within existence: The idea of causality or necessity, particularly in terms of “emergence” or “appearance,” is rejected because existence, as a unified whole, cannot “give rise” to anything other than itself. This relates to a broader rejection of relational categories (like causality or potentiality) that require a dualistic or pluralistic framework.
3. The invalidity of “emergence” or “appearance” for existence: Any attempt to claim that existence can “appear” in different forms (either as absolute or conditioned) is deemed invalid because existence, in its pure form, cannot have an inherent “emergence” from itself. The text argues that this would imply a contradiction, as something cannot cause its own appearance or manifestation.
4. The alleged distinction between different realms of existence (e.g., the world of ideas, the sensory world, and the spiritual world): The argument challenges the distinction between different “worlds” or “realms” (such as the world of ideas or “hidden” realities and the material world). It suggests that existence, in its unity, is indivisible, and that the diversity within different “realms” of existence is illusory or at least not grounded in fundamental ontological differences.
5. The notion of the “world of examples” (عالم مثال): The concept of a “world of examples,” often associated with Neoplatonism, is rejected here. The critique is based on the argument that this concept fails under logical scrutiny, particularly when placed alongside the belief in the unity of existence.
6. The misunderstanding of the principle that the further something is from the “source” of existence, the more fully it manifests existence: This principle is critiqued as being misleading because it suggests that more distant or “corrupted” beings would reflect existence more completely. The response argues that true existence is always complete and undivided, and thus cannot be expressed in a way that involves degrees of completion based on distance from a “source.”

The text concludes with the suggestion that resolving these objections requires a deeper understanding of existence as a singular, indivisible reality, where the usual distinctions between possible and actual, or between different kinds of existence, are ultimately illusory.

In essence, these philosophical arguments are attempting to challenge dualistic or pluralistic metaphysical frameworks and advocate for a monistic or unified understanding of existence where contradictions between different aspects of existence or different possible states of being are not seen as legitimate.

This is a rich philosophical discussion aimed at the heart of classical Islamic metaphysical thought, particularly the ideas associated with the unity of existence and the nature of being.

Core Themes:

1. Unity of Existence (Wahdat al-Wujud): The passage touches on the idea of a singular, unified existence. The author argues against the possibility of “multiple” worlds or different types of existence (like mental vs. external existence). This reflects a stance typically associated with Islamic mysticism, particularly in the context of philosophers like Ibn Arabi, who emphasized that all apparent multiplicity is an illusion, with everything ultimately being a manifestation of the One (God).
2. Impossibility of Existence Without Context: The passage discusses how concepts like “possible beings” (emkan), and their characteristics (such as causality and dependence), are inherently tied to determinations or “manifestations” (t’ayyun). These manifestations themselves can only exist in relation to existence. For something to exist, it must be connected to the One, as everything else, by definition, would not have independent existence.
3. The Role of Attributes and Perceptions: The author argues that the attributes and characteristics (like form, matter, and causal relationships) are not independent realities but are instead “mental constructs” or relational concepts that help define the nature of existence in our understanding. In essence, these concepts only “exist” in relation to our perception of them. This idea closely aligns with the view that the multiplicity and distinctions we observe in the world are ultimately based on human perception and are not inherent in the nature of reality.
4. Possible Beings and Causality: The author also addresses the problem of possible beings (the notion of potentiality). According to the passage, these potentialities or possibilities do not have inherent existence but come into being through the actualization of the One, or God. This reflects a deep ontological view that all being is contingent upon the absolute, and that even the most basic concepts like existence and non-existence depend on a higher, indivisible source.

Breakdown of Some Key Sections:

1. On the Nature of “Possible” Beings: The text explains that potential beings or attributes are not necessarily non-existent, but they exist as concepts. They have existence when they are aligned with actual existence (or the One). However, in their essence, before being realized, they lack independent existence.
2. Existence as a “Necessary” Relation: There is a distinction made between beings that exist due to their own essence (which is denied here) and those that exist because of a “necessary” external relation to existence. This reflects a broader philosophical view that nothing truly exists independently except for the absolute, with all other beings being derived or contingent.
3. The Role of Perception in Understanding Existence: The idea that existence is understood through its attributes (such as mental vs. external existence) and that these attributes are relational or mental constructs. This challenges the more materialistic view that existence is purely physical or externally observable.
4. Answering Objections: The author counters philosophical objections regarding the multiplicity of existence. The apparent diversity of existence, they argue, is merely a projection of human perception, not an inherent characteristic of reality itself.

Conclusion:

This section of the work is concerned with reinforcing the idea of unity of existence and addressing critiques that arise from the belief in the multiplicity of worlds and the ontological status of possible beings. It reaffirms the idea that all multiplicity is essentially a mental or perceptual construct, with the true nature of existence being indivisible and unified in its essence.

It would have been better to use the phrase “the determinates are the subjects of possibility” instead of the phrase: “Indeed, the subjects of possibility and their related matters are determinates.”

The assertion made by Abu Hamid that determinates are the same as essences, stating, “We do not concede that essences, relations, additions, and attributes are incapable of existence,” is incorrect. This is because referring to determinates and fixed essences, which are the manifestations of knowledge and external appearances, as essences — which are mere mental constructs — is not accurate. Thus, we should only speak of existence and manifestation, avoiding terms like essence, possibility, and potentiality, as these concepts stem entirely from the prevailing Peripatetic philosophy, which itself lacks a proper foundation. The fixed essences are intrinsic attributes and manifestations of the Divine, and speaking of concomitance in this context is not correct.

When Abu Hamid states, “For if they were to accompany existence and be accompanied by existence, they would necessarily be existent,” the phrase “necessary existence” in the context of the concomitance of essence and existence is akin to the Peripatetic assertion of ‘qualification’ and ‘making’ — concepts rejected in mysticism. Essence is not something that becomes existent through concomitance with existence. If essence were to have existence prior to concomitance with existence, it would be akin to treating the relation between essence and existence as one of absence and possession, whereas the mystic considers this relation to be one of negation and affirmation, stating that only the Divine is real, and everything else is non-existent.

It has been established that terms like concomitance, qualification, and the like have no place in mysticism. The act of creating an essence — which is, in its own nature, non-existent — through concomitance with existence is essentially akin to the concept of creating creatures from non-existence, whereas the mystic speaks of the manifestation of knowledge in its reality, not creation ex nihilo. Therefore, concomitance between existence and non-existence is impossible, and thus discussions of qualification, making, and similar concepts are erroneous. There is only one existence, which has its luminous and reflected manifestations, its actual will, and its active creation.

Abu Hamid reminds the late Sheikh Ishraq, stating that he made a mistake in regarding the essence of existence — which is the origin of all real truths — as a mental construct. However, it must be pointed out to Abu Hamid that by using the phrase: “This existence is a mental construct, which is why it may exhibit negative attributes and mental traits of non-being,” he has himself treated all manifestations as mental constructs. Thus, neither the Absolute Existence, as Sheikh Ishraq assumed, is a mental construct, nor are the manifestations of existence, as Abu Hamid appears to think. Indeed, negative existents and conceptual manifestations have no external reality, but that does not mean they are mental constructs. As for the existing essences — which, as you claim, are created and caused — and as we would say, the determinates and true manifestations — none of these are mental constructs.

The concepts of concomitance, capability, qualification, and so on, are not part of the language of mysticism. Abu Hamid’s final point is that after the concomitance of essence with existence, the essence acquires an accidental existence. Yet, even here, this accidental existence is deemed a mental construct, which is not real. Our point is that manifestation, whether mental or external, is just as real as true existence, though it does not possess independent existence.

In the realm of being, there is only the Divine and its manifestations. Our terminology is that of manifestations, not possibilities and essences. These manifestations, inasmuch as they are manifestations of existence, are real, but they do not have independent existence. Therefore, existence is existence, and manifestation is manifestation, both of which are real. The elevation of manifestation is the very existence itself.

Furthermore, the relationship between existence and manifestation is neither a medium in the process of coming into being nor a medium for qualities and qualifications, nor is it a medium for affirmation. In the relationship between existence and manifestation, there is no intermediary that speaks of establishing or proving. Similarly, manifestation is not an existence that is predicated and dependent on something else, like saying, “Zayd, the existent, is existent.” Rather, manifestation should be considered as an intrinsic attribute of existence, akin to the way one might say “four is intrinsically even.”

Here, two matters must be considered carefully:

A. Sometimes we say “manifestation” and mean the manifestation of an inherent aspect of the Divine Essence.

B. Sometimes we say “manifestation” and refer to something like the “sky,” the “earth,” the “sea,” etc. — this is the indicative title we use to distinguish different manifestations, which is a name that we assign for differentiation. In truth, every manifestation has two names: the first is the manifestation of the Divine, and the second is the name we assign to it.

Therefore, when it is said that the mental and conceptual nature of knowledge and perception is a construct, this should not be attributed to the manifestation itself. The fact that “Zayd and his knowledge” are mental constructs is different from saying that the manifestation itself is a mental or imaginary construct.

The medium for establishing being is something that causes the creation and actualization of an attribute in the subject, such as how fire serves as the medium for heat in water.

A medium for proof is that which is the middle term in a syllogism. A medium in proof can sometimes be the same as the medium in establishing existence, and sometimes not, since the middle term in existence is inseparable from the desired outcome — whether it be the cause or the effect or both caused by a third cause.

A medium for arriving at a conclusion is something that first occurs in a subject, which shares an identity or coincides with the subject in a certain location, and then through this, a quality is ascribed to the subject, such as how the heaviness of an object is attributed to its material nature.

A medium for qualification arises when a quality, which is not real, is attributed to a subject out of convenience — for example, when someone is said to be moving because they are sitting in a boat, although the movement is a quality of the boat and not of the person sitting in it.

Abu Hamid, in his work, introduces the phrase, “Possibility is the appearance of knowledge in relation to the difference between existence and the known,” which defines possibility as the “appearance of the known from the essence of existence.” In other words, possibility refers to the determinates and external manifestations of the Divine knowledge, none of which are non-being or mental constructs. However, this definition of possibility is not in the traditional sense and is merely a conceptual creation by the commentator. It is incorrect to treat the determinates and manifestations as possibilities because possibility is an attribute of potential beings, not a definition of the divine manifestations, which are revealed divine orders and cannot be negated or affirmed.

The statement “Perception occurs only in relation to the attributes and subsequent states of existence” is problematic because it implies a form of acquired knowledge. The correct interpretation should be that perception is also a manifestation. Indeed, there is one absolute existence which, in the realm of determinates, loses its absoluteness, and perception — which is itself a level of determinates — comes into contact with this reality.

The issue with the phrase, “How can it be said that they are incapable of existence? For when they are concomitant with existence and related to existence, they necessarily exist,” has already been addressed in the commentary on Abu Hamid’s words. The difference lies in that he does not use the phrase “they became existent by necessity” but instead uses “necessary existence.”

Regarding the phrase, “Yes, as they are in themselves, independent of their attributes and relations, they do not deserve either existence or non-existence,” it must be stated that essence is merely a mental construct. Therefore, speaking of the essence deserving existence or non-existence is a clear mistake. We do not have any essence in the external world that deserves anything; the lack of deserving in an essence is a negative quality based on the absence of a subject, not the absence of a predicate.

Finally, with the phrase, “It is inherently required that existence, in one of its levels, be the subject of these essences,” it must be noted that even if the essence is considered as an effect of a cause, the notion of existence being the subject of essence is not correct. Rather, essence is the manifestation of existence, which is not an attribute of existence; discussions of the subject and object are purely mental constructs. In reality, only existence and its manifestations exist. Essences — or in our terminology, manifestations — are the states of existence and are only required because of existence itself. Now, we ask you: is this requirement one of possibility, necessity, or conditional on some other factor? Indeed, this requirement is one of necessity; thus, all manifestations are eternal, unchanging, and infinite.

The discussion of possibility — as a secondary philosophical concept — is a mistake, and the claim that possibility is conditional is also incorrect because existence cannot be conditional, nor are manifestations conditional; they are, in fact, intrinsic necessities, just as one might say “four is necessarily even.”

In relation to the phrase, “If it is said that they are incapable of existence, this must be understood in this manner and not otherwise,” we must clarify that there is no capability involved, and the notion of two aspects is erroneous. Essences only have one aspect, which is the manifestation of existence; that too is not an essence, but a manifestation. Therefore, talking of the second aspect — that of essence in its pure form — is purely a mental construct.

In the phrase

The second objection was that, according to the principle of the personal unity of existence, there is no room for causality and necessity, because existence and its modes and manifestations — from the names and attributes to the objective and intellectual appearances — all exist in a singular form. Therefore, there is no place left for causality, necessity, or the concept of what is necessitated and what is necessary.

The response provided by the book is that what mystics mean by manifestation is the descent of the absolute existence from its essential infinity, and its becoming determined in a particular form of determination. Thus, the term manifestation refers to the descent of existence into appearance and determination, and these determinations — from the unity of the One to the domain of the corporeal — are all, in reality, the descents of existence.

The discussion regarding causality and necessity in this context is that existence does not imply the necessity of manifestation. This is because causality and demand require a container with the capacity to receive. Existence, on the other hand, necessitates manifestation; the manifestation of existence is obligatory, true, and objective, and there is no demand or necessity at play. There is no multiplicity or division involved. Thus, the book’s inclusion of both causality and necessity is incorrect, as there is no need for such distinctions. We assert that “existence necessitates manifestation.”

The most significant objection among the four related to the principle of the personal unity of existence is the issue of manifestation. Based on the third objection, which negates manifestation, the belief in mystical monotheism would be negated.

The third objection regarding manifestation is briefly stated as follows: manifestation refers either to existence or to essences and entities.

In the first case, either absolute existence is meant, or limited existence. The limited existence could either be constrained by specific external limitations or by various intellectual limitations. The falseness of each of these assumptions has already been explained.

In the second case, where manifestation refers to essences and entities that are distinct from existence, this too is false, for essences and entities, in their distinction from existence, are mere non-being.

The meaning of manifestation, in response to the third and fourth objections, is that there is one existence in being, which is God, and a manifestation of existence in all other beings, which are outside of God. The relationship between the manifestation of existence and the essence of existence is the relationship between essential richness and independence versus essential poverty and dependence. From our perspective, manifestation is neither existent nor nonexistent. “Not existent” means it does not have independence, and “not nonexistent” means it is not merely an illusion or imagination; it is not the static or fixed condition some theologians mistakenly believe to be the case. Thus, there is one essential unity that, in its infinite expanse, is both singular and independent, manifesting in different forms and determinations.

The phrase “existence necessitates manifestation” means that existence divides and descends, becoming determined. More clearly, the absolute identity and pure unity of existence, in the domain of determination and descent, becomes the very manifestations of existence. Therefore, manifestation refers to the limitation of the absolute or its determination or its absolute descent.

Manifestations and determinations are not necessarily created things. Rather, manifestations are of two types: necessary and intellectual manifestations — such as unity and singularity — and external and created manifestations, which is where the concept of divine grace and the breath of the Merciful comes in. Thus, in the realm of necessary and intellectual determinations, grace is not discussed, but in the realm of the fixed essences and descents, grace and creation are discussed.

If the discussion is about the stages of descents and manifestations, it refers to existence itself, which, in its transformation and becoming determined, takes on the form of creation, not that existence descends into pre-formed, weak, and dim molds. Rather, it is a manifestation that is referred to by the secondary name “sky” and another manifestation referred to by the secondary name “earth.” Another manifestation is “human,” and so on for all levels and determinations of being. To help understand, existence and its manifestations can be likened to the sea and its waves — the waves being nothing more than the disturbance of water. Determinations have both an essential and real name, which is “manifestation,” and a secondary, constructed name used for recognition, such as sky, earth, angels, stars, throne, chair, human, animal, etc.

If Abu Hamid had only used the phrase “the term manifestation here refers to the becoming determined of the absolute existence in particular forms,” he would have answered the manifestation objection in the most effective way. However, by adding the subsequent phrase, he lowered the level of his argument. For there is one necessary existence, and the determinations and manifestations of existence are also necessary. Therefore, the discussion of possibility and essence is irrelevant. In the mystic’s view, there is nothing like essence or possibility in existence, and what truly exists is the absolute identity, which, in its descent, becomes determined in infinite forms and attributes.

Moreover, determination is never equivalent to possibility or essence. Just as the determination of the singular and the one never implies possibility. Thus, determinations can be divided into “necessary and true” and “non-necessary and created.” But this is an intermediary view; the truth is that we have one absolute and necessary existence, and one manifestation — which itself has infinite aspects — that is also necessary.

In summary, the explanation provided before the phrase “For to it is attributed concealment…” is that manifestation refers to the descent of existence and its becoming determined and limited. Until this descent occurs, manifestation cannot take place, and pure unity prevents the manifestation of the absolute essence.

The phrase “For to it is attributed concealment, which is merely as the Shariah expresses it: ‘I was a hidden treasure'” addresses a presumed objection regarding the absolute essence being subject to two opposing states and thus incapable of manifestation. But if this is the case, how could the Shariah attribute concealment to the absolute essence in the saying: “I was a hidden treasure”? The response is that this concealment is not in opposition to manifestation; rather, the concealment contains manifestation within it.

“I was a hidden treasure” is a lofty saying whose authenticity, whether it is a Hadith or a statement from the Prophet, does not detract from its value in defining the position of the hidden essence and the initial manifestation. If it is proven to be a narration, hearing the words of an infallible saint carries its own unique sweetness and impact.

Regarding the phrase “And hence, its manifestation is nothing but the descent from the plenitude of its absolute unity to the attachment to particular determinations and its being marked by numerous determinations,” it should be clarified that existence does not take on the color of creation in its descent. Before manifestation, no created form exists; rather, it is existence itself, through its descent, that creates and gives color. It is existence that, in its descent to each level, colors it with its specific hue. Therefore, existence is the one that colors the sky in one way, the earth in another, and so on.

In the phrase “It is that the manifest is conceived in the image of its effect,” confusion arises. The explanation is that our discussion is about the meaning and truth of manifestation, not the conception or portrayal of manifestation. Thus, to clarify the meaning of manifestation, it should be stated: “It is that the manifest is constituted or realized in the form of its effect,” meaning that instead of using the word “conceived,” which indicates a container for narration, we should use words like “constituted” or “realized,” which convey the essence of manifestation, regardless of whether there is a conceiver or not. The container for narration is not the same as the container for truth. We say that manifestation is when the manifest takes on the color of the appearance, and we are concerned with the reality, truth, and external world, not with imagination, which is a later description and not part of the truth of manifestation.

In conclusion, we are not concerned with the description of the narrator but with defining the true essence of descent, whether or not there is an observer.

The discussion of container and recipient, before existence, pertains to essence and pre-formed houses. In contrast, existence in its descending journey is the creator of opposites.

This statement, although it represents the utmost effort in this regard, only provides an indication of the existence of that realm in general, and does not, in any way, elucidate its true nature. Therefore, the investigation into this matter has been deferred to the book Hikmat Muniya, where a metaphor has been presented to dispel any doubts and impossibilities surrounding the subject.

Textual Observations:

1. In this passage, the esteemed Abu Hamid addresses the fourth objection. This objection concerns the distinction between intellectual and sensory manifestations—i.e., between the unseen (ghayb) and the seen (shahada)—as well as the distinction among the three worlds of the intellect, imagination, and nature in their manifest forms. The objection is based on the idea that a distinction between two or more entities requires a measure and a means of differentiation, yet, according to the doctrine of the unity of existence (wahdat al-wujud), there is no other entity to serve as a basis for distinction.

The objection arises from the numerical interpretation of the unity of existence, which consequently denies the reality of multiplicity. If this issue is resolved, the distinction between the different existential realms can be addressed.

1. The objector insists that: since you regard existence as singular, you cannot propose the existence of multiple realms. A single existence, which encompasses all that is beyond it as mere potentialities (ma’dumat), does not necessitate multiplicity, because the origin of multiplicity is either the existence itself, the relational names (asma) and eternal essences (a’yan thabita), or a combination of both. Absolute existence, which is truly one, cannot be the source of differences. The relational names and eternal essences are non-existent. Thus, the distinction between the realms—especially between the unseen and the seen—is baseless, and neither summary nor detail has any relevance.
2. In response to this objection, Abu Hamid does not attempt to present a formal proof or argument for the existence of the sensory world, but instead confines himself to addressing the impossibility of the claim and demonstrating that the existence of distinctions between realms is not logically impossible. He presents an example to clarify how multiplicity can exist in spite of the unity of existence.
3. If it is asked how it is possible that, despite existence being one, its manifestations are multiple, the answer is that, just as it is not problematic for a single nature to be universal and yet have multiple specific attributes, existence can be one, but it may display multiplicity due to its attributes.
4. The response given by Abu Hamid, and similarly by his commentator, to this objection through metaphor is incomplete. The example they provide, that of the universal nature and its specific attributes, is not fully appropriate for the case at hand. In the example, the nature is universal, whereas existence is singular and personal. Moreover, the universal nature is a potentiality, whereas existence is not potential but actual.

The universal nature exists in a realm of composite potentialities, and if it takes on attributes or specific forms, this does not contradict its essential nature. However, existence in its true nature has no attributes or composite potentialities.

1. In Abu Hamid’s response, he emphasizes that the concept of a singular personal existence is not incompatible with the multiplicity and diversity of the worlds of manifestation. The nature of existence is not numerically one, but rather one in its striving, a kind of pure universality that manifests in many forms and determinations.
2. According to Qunawi in the Miftah al-Ghayb, “I say: The first manifestation is the existence that extends over all worlds, appearing in them in a manner I have previously mentioned. The differences in the perceived existences that branch from this one existence are due to the differing natures of the receptive realities, not because there are multiple different existences, for there is only one existence. This existence appears in different forms due to the differing receptive realities, which are in themselves not distinct or multiplicative. However, in its abstract and unmanifested state, it does not multiply or become distinct.” Here, Qunawi uses the notion of the “absolute nature” to describe the emanation and manifestation that unfolds into the world.
3. In this view, the absolute nature (as it pertains to existence, which encompasses both intellectual and sensory existence) refers to the initial stage of unity, which then unfolds through intellectual and imaginary realms to eventually take on a material or physical manifestation. The nature of existence, in its most abstract form, is unitary, but through the process of emanation (or manifestation), multiplicity arises. This is similar to how a jewel can display different colors or properties depending on the facets that emerge through its contact with reality.
4. Concerning the fifth objection, Abu Hamid in his response refers back to the earlier discussion, arguing that the objection concerning the existence of the world of imagination (the alam al-mithal) does not directly pertain to the central theme of this work, which is the demonstration of the unity of personal existence (wahdat al-wujud). Therefore, any detailed discussion of the metaphysical nature of the world of imagination is extraneous to the purpose of this treatise.

In this context, the fifth objection (regarding the world of imagination) does not directly affect the argument for the unity of existence, as one can hold a belief in the unity of existence while simultaneously either rejecting or accepting the existence of the imaginative world. Therefore, the discussion of the imaginative world is a side issue and does not need to be addressed in the core argument for the unity of existence.

1. The objector’s question concerning whether multiplicity can arise from a singular existence is addressed by illustrating that the appearance of multiplicity is possible even within a singular, undivided existence. This is akin to how different aspects of the same reality can be perceived from different angles or through different cognitive faculties, without contradicting the idea of fundamental unity.
2. Final Observations: The world of imagination, as understood by Abu Hamid and his followers, is not simply an ontological realm but a mode of manifestation. Its existence is a consequence of the multiplicity of potentialities that arise from the unity of existence.

Thus, while the objection concerning the existence of the imaginative world is indeed related to the broader question of the multiplicity of realms, it is not integral to the foundational argument for the unity of existence and can therefore be deferred.

Furthermore, all other material substances, though encompassing all the perceptible, observable aspects capable of being perceived, do not contain any of the cognitive, perceptual facets that engage with them, except for the final rank among them, which is the human elemental phase.

This phase, just as it has a comprehensive presence according to its manifestation across all aspects of appearance and ranks of forms, likewise possesses a comprehensive grasp of all levels of manifestation. This is because the perceivable self, which is active in all these perceptions, stands apart from other perceivable selves in the lower ranks of intellects and souls, as these do not exhibit the diversity of cognitive appearances found in the human realm.

Thus, it becomes clear that the human rank possesses a unique unity of synthesis concerning both aspects—namely the appearance and the manifestation—as it truly represents the union of the two seas of the agent and the recipient. For this reason, its reality is referred to as the “Qab Qawsī of necessity and possibility,” and further elaboration on this subject will follow, God willing.

One might ask: The question was universally applicable to all the descending ranks when compared to what is higher than them, yet the answer, as established by the author, is specific to the last rank. How then do these reconcile?

We respond: While the answer, based on the illustrative model adopted by the author for the sake of conceptual clarity among learners, may appear to pertain only to the final rank, it is not hard for the discerning to recognize its general applicability to the other descending ranks. For if one considers the lower ranks in relation to those higher than them, one finds that the effect of manifestation in them is more complete, with more diverse aspects of appearance, just as an animal compared to a plant, a plant to a mineral, and a mineral to its basic elements. In each lower rank, the manifestation of its being is more expansive, and this is the “perceptual aspect” that the author mentions to aid in conceptual understanding.

The detailed explanation of this lies in the fact that the manifestation, in terms of faculties, is based on the concealment of the essence and its absolute inherent qualities and the appearance of its relative names. This appearance arises due to the accumulation of the limitations of possibility and the interaction of the existential aspects. Hence, each rank lower in existence must contain more of these limitations, as the lower being must encompass what the higher being contains, alongside its own specific traits from its own descent. And every lower rank, being more inclusive in its attributes and qualities, is necessarily more complete. The ultimate completion lies in the unity that results in divine succession, as will be revealed, God willing. This is the shared meaning held by the sages on this matter.

Moreover, since the author was attempting to refute the opponent’s position in accordance with their chosen path, it would not be consistent with the logic of the argument to introduce accepted premises within the premises themselves. For this reason, the author shifted from the common expressions to a more definitive explanation, which serves as the “perceptual” aspect in clarifying the disputed point, thus rendering the issue as self-evident, beyond any reasonable doubt. This was clarified with the phrase “Perhaps they meant.”

This is the clarification which removes the final objection (the sixth objection). The explanation of this is as follows: The completeness of the final rank (i.e., the realm of corporeal bodies) with respect to manifestation (and the actuality of existence) is the diversity of appearances and the multiplicity of existential effects. A “rank” refers to the effect that is shaped by the form and the appearance of its cause. Thus, the more diverse the manifestations of the cause in its effect, and the more encompassing and universal the reception of these effects, the more complete the manifestation is. This is clear in the material world, where an entity, in terms of its general characteristics and its general attributes (i.e., its general accidents), is perceived as being living and so on, and in detail in terms of its essence and truth (i.e., its specific attributes like sense, movement, speech, etc.). These perceptions relate to the general truth of the entity.

However, with respect to the individual and external determination, when absent from sensory perception or removed from it, it is imagined based on its individual traits (e.g., its quantity, quality, and specific state) and its specific relationships (such as being a father to one person and a child to another). These are perceived by sense in the presence of the entity. Such a corporeal being, with all these aspects of appearance, has more extensive existential effects than an intellectual being that does not manifest all these aspects, because its singular determination encompasses all these diverse appearances, as manifestation is the union of all these attributes (i.e., absolute actuality and the perfect human form). But this statement—the unity of the manifestation—is not in contradiction to the current discussion of the corporeal realm, as the final goal of creation’s motion (in its potential and descent, the complete thirst of being) is its culmination.

Now, other material substances (besides humans), though encompassing all perceptible aspects that can be perceived, do not contain cognitive aspects that engage with them, except for in the final rank, which is the human elemental phase. Just as the human phase encompasses all aspects of manifestation across all levels of appearance and forms, it also holds all levels of manifestation. The active perceivable self in the human realm is capable of all these cognitive perceptions, unlike other active perceivable selves in other ranks, such as intellects and souls, which do not have the same diversity of cognitive appearances as the human realm.

Thus, from this it is understood that the human rank has a unity of synthesis concerning each of the two poles—appearance and manifestation—because, in truth, it is the meeting point of the two seas of the active and the passive. This is why its reality is described as the “Qab Qawsī of necessity and possibility.” A more detailed explanation of this will come soon, if God wills.

In the phrase, “And this is because the determinacy of the one, which is the ultimate goal of the creative movement, encompasses all the various manifestations of appearance in their multiplicity; for the appearance of the unity of the unification of unifications is the goal,” there is a confusion between the potentiality of the world of bodies and the actuality of the perfect human being.

In the passage, “It is known from this that the human rank has the unity of the unification according to each of the two extremes—namely the sides of appearance and manifestation—since, in truth, it is the gathering of the two oceans of the active and the receptive,” it should be noted that, with regard to manifestation and the manifested, or appearance and expression, the worlds are divided into three categories:

1. The material and corporeal world, which is merely the container of appearance but not of manifestation; meaning that the concepts of other worlds are not contained within it, but are only imagined.
2. The world of abstract entities and intellects, as well as the world of archetypes, which is both a container for appearance and for manifestation. However, they do not have population, and their means of manifestation are limited.
3. The human world, which possesses both the capacity to contain appearance and manifestation in a collective manner, encompassing all the worlds.

The objection, “The question was generally raised with respect to all the ranks descending when referred to what is higher than them,” posits that whatever is closer to the proximate origin should be more perfect, not the opposite. Yet in your response, you have clarified the corporeal and sensible appearances as being perfect due to their utmost manifestation in every aspect, but you have not addressed the other ranks, while the objection pertains to all ranks.

Our stance is that the first response is in line with the objection, but the second response—if the perceiver is taken as matter—remains valid but incorrect. If the perceiver is considered to be the human being, the answer becomes specific. However, in our view, the human being is not the ultimate rank, hence the objection still stands.

The precise statement here is that every descent is wider, not more inclusive—in terms of potentiality, not actuality. The descent possesses greater potential capacity than higher worlds, but this does not imply that it is more perfect.

In terms of potentiality, the lowest rank, that of primal matter, is purely receptive. Also, in the realm of ascent, potentiality belongs to the human being, and its perfection lies in annihilation; that is, the mystic, through spiritual practices, reaches a state where the rank of descent—meaning the state of completeness and non-actuality—is realized.

Indeed, philosophically speaking, a possible entity is a state of non-actuality, and this non-actuality contrasts with the acquired state, which is mentioned in Sadrā’s philosophy as the “poverty of possibility”—that is, this potentiality, which is the “possibility of poverty,” is actualized by its poverty. However, in mystical language, when speaking of negation and affirmation, potentiality belongs to the Divine, and there is no potentiality for the appearances in the Divine.

The explanation provided by the commentator, “However, it is not hidden from the discerning one that its generalisation applies to the other ranks, for when the descending ranks are thoroughly examined in relation to what is above them, you will observe the effect of appearance in them more fully and in greater diversity,” can serve as the foundation for answering other objections. Thus, although on the surface the answer appears specific to one rank, in truth, it can be generalized to other ranks. For instance, if the body and the mineral are considered, since the body is higher and the mineral lower, the forms of manifestation are more apparent in the mineral because absolute judgments are found in the contingent existence, in addition to the particular qualities inherent to the mineral. Simple qualities—i.e., the four elements composing minerals—are present in the mineral, and in addition, the specific qualities of the mineral bring about a greater manifestation. These specific qualities were not apparent in the elemental form, but now they are revealed. Similarly, in plants, which have more constraints, more qualities appear, and the manifestation of being is more pronounced.

In the answer to the second and third objections concerning the sixth answer:

The human being, when complete, only achieves their perfection by obtaining the qualities of these perceptions in their various ranks. Sensory perception, along with its natural limitations, does not prevent other types of perceptions (such as subtle and heart-based perceptions) from being obtained, which, in most cases, can only be attained through acquisition and choice.

As for the second objection, death is not, in fact, a diminution of the soul; rather, it is its perfection. The perfect souls, after death, still possess the abilities they had prior to it (in fact, those of faith and spiritual travellers gain even more ability in the Barzakh since the physical impediments of the material world are no longer with them). Therefore, one should not confuse the concepts of choice and ability with sensory perceptions. The clarification of this issue and its detailed explanation requires a broader discussion that is beyond the scope of this summary.

What has been presented thus far is a summary of the words of Abu Hamid. However, the commentator has taken a different, more scholarly approach to address the objection, which should be considered an independent discussion on anthropology.

The precise phrase, “And the complete human being can only attain perfection by acquiring the faculties of these perceptions in their respective ranks,” underscores the importance of faculties. This is because human perfection is not found in sensory perceptions, but in the possession of the sensory faculties themselves. Therefore, attention should not be focused on the actuality of perception, but on the faculty and power, not the external form of the act.

Regarding the difference in the diversity of perceptions from the perspective of the commentator and our viewpoint, we must state that the commentator considers human knowledge to be attainable through three means:

1. Knowledge acquired through sensory perception, outward sense, and empirical science.
2. Knowledge obtained through inner faculties, mediated by concepts within the boundaries of conventional sciences.
3. Knowledge arising from the purification of the soul and the refinement of the secret, which becomes apparent through inner spiritual practices.

From our perspective, human perceptions are threefold:

1. General perceptions and mental knowledge that do not involve the intellect or the heart. This type of perception is possessed by all humans, whether believers, disbelievers, or heedless, and is absent only in animals.
2. Intellectual and divine perceptions, which go beyond mere mental and general cognition, as they also involve insight and illumination.
3. Spiritual and secret perceptions, which arise from the innermost being of the human. These are existential, necessary, determinate, and objective perceptions and represent the highest level of perception.

The first type has only generality, in contrast to illusions and fantasies, which lack generality. The second type involves illumination, unlike the first type, which has only generality. The third type is the manifestation of the innermost being and secret of the human, which becomes visible in the heart and essence of the human. This is the ultimate proximity and knowledge.

These three types of perception are interconnected; meaning that the general perceptions must first take shape in the human being before the subsequent stages can unfold. Conversely, those who possess the second and third types of perception will certainly also possess the first type.

Another difference is that the first type of perception is involuntary, and as long as the human being undergoes their natural growth, these general perceptions will be obtained, even if they are heretics. However, achieving the second and third types of perception requires both effort and choice, or is a result of divine grace.

A very important point in this discussion is that the third type of perception—the spiritual and inner perception—though it appears after the first two in terms of manifestation, is in reality prior to them. This is not only true for humans but also for all beings. For instance, the divine pull present in animals, plants, and inanimate objects is of the third type, not the first or second.

Furthermore, the first and second types of perception should be considered as derived from the third type of perception. In other words, although the third type manifests later, it has causal and hierarchical precedence over the first two and serves as the foundation for all perceptions, both in humans (as stated in the text) and in other beings, as our discussion asserts. This concept is subtle, intricate, and complex.

The relationship between general perceptions (as we define them) or sensory perceptions (according to the commentator) and intellectual perceptions with spiritual perceptions is analogous to the relationship between a genus and its specific kinds. Just as specific kinds manifest the genus and the genus encompasses and governs its kinds, so too does the third type of perception—spiritual perception—encompass both the general and intellectual perceptions. The latter should be regarded as specialties of the manifestation of spiritual perception.

Thus, between these three types of perception, there is a causal and manifesting relationship. This means that the disbeliever, due to their disbelief (in terms of thought), and the heedless or sinful person, due to their heedlessness (in terms of action), have not been able to connect with the second and third types of perception. Consequently, they remain within the realm of the first type of perception. The Qur’an says:

“And We have certainly created for Hell many of the jinn and mankind. They have hearts with which they do not understand, and they have eyes with which they do not see, and they have ears with which they do not hear. Those are like cattle; rather, they are more astray. Those are the heedless ones.” (Qur’an 7:179)

Therefore, no being exists without a heart, as by “heart,” we mean the identity, existence, manifestation, determination, and essence of each being. It is only through connection with the innermost essence, secret, and heart that the judgment and ruling of other perceptions become clear. In contrast to the proximity and distance from the secret, heedlessness, sin, and disbelief become apparent. For example, when we say “this person is not wise,” we mean that their intellectual perceptions have not connected with their spiritual perceptions. Thus, this third perspective is an existential, manifest, and actual perspective, and every particle of existence has determination, which is its heart, secret, and divinity, manifesting in the world of creation.

In other beings (animals, plants, and inanimate objects), the discourse of general and intellectual perceptions does not apply. Instead, any perception discussed within them is viewed through the lens of their own secret and fixed essence. When we speak of “glory to God, the Lord of the angels and the spirit,” we are speaking in the language of the secret and determination, a language shared among all beings.

It is with this third natural language—not with a fabricated or artificial language specific to humans—that the saints of God, the divine messengers, and the spiritual travelers communicate with other beings and attain unity with the world.

The Qur’an states:

“Be patient over what they say and remember Our servant David, who was endowed with strength. He was ever-turning to Us. Indeed, We subjected the mountains to praise with him, exalting [God] at night and the morning. And the birds were gathered, all with him turning to [God]. And We strengthened his kingdom and gave him wisdom and the decisive speech.” (Qur’an 38:17-20)

It is narrated from Imam Sadiq (a.s.) that: “When you hear the crowing of a rooster, recite this supplication: Glory is to You, O Holy One, Lord of the angels and the spirit, Your mercy has preceded Your wrath, there is no god but You, I glorify You and praise You, I have committed evil and wronged myself, so forgive me, for no one forgives sins except You.” (Hadith 169)

It is also narrated that for every animal, there is a specific remembrance and supplication, and the rooster’s remembrance is this very supplication.

The phrase “And from that also, it yearns to seek the truth and its knowledge and to draw near to it” means that the aid, the final cause, and the yearning, the efficient cause, are all related. Therefore, no traveler or seeker should consider themselves significant in this journey, as it is the Truth that bestows grace upon its servants, and it is this grace that sets them on the path; otherwise, no one would have the strength for this journey.

The statement “Were it not for this, no creation would have been established, nor would there be any connection between the possible—as it is possible—and the Truth, as it is necessary” means that if the divine determination were absent, there would be no manifestation of creation in the world. Therefore, all created manifestations are divine determinations. These created manifestations and divine determinations cannot be separated or distinguished; separating them would be confusion, just as in the discussion of essence, abstraction from existence is equivalent to confusion with existence, except in the state of annihilation when the created aspect is removed.

Regarding the phrase “But the complete human being’s perfection is attained only through the acquisition of the faculties of these perceptions in their ranks”, it is worth noting the narration from Amir al-Mu’minin in Hikmah 207 from Nahj al-Balagha: “If you are not wise, then force yourself to be wise, for few are those who resemble a people and do not end up like them.” In this statement, Imam Ali outlines the path to attaining the virtues of ethics, stating that individuals who do not possess a virtue should compel themselves to act in accordance with it. For example, when a person becomes angry due to a provocation, even though their inner nature is boiling with anger, they should control themselves and behave as the wise and patient would. This may be very difficult initially, but with repetition, it becomes easier until it becomes habitual and then a virtue. The phrase “Few are those who resemble a people…” demonstrates this general applicability, and in fact, Imam Ali teaches this as a universal lesson in the pursuit of virtues, a lesson that not only moral scholars but also psychologists emphasize as a way to overcome psychological deficiencies.

Regarding the phrase “And thus, they will consume these unities into the oneness of their fixed essence, which is the image of the mentioned knowledge, during their true attention from the perspective of manifestation, and seeking their connection to the Truth from that perspective,” it should be noted that every human being has a fixed essence with God, which is their unique existence and identity that, to some extent, remains unchanged as a result of divine will and not as an absolute or necessary cause. For example, if their fixed essence is “generous and giving” or “stingy and hoarding,” it is unlikely to change, as such traits are part of their essential nature.

To explain the phrase “The complete souls can only attain what they were able to achieve before death after death,” it must be stated that the souls of those who are disobedient, ignorant, or weak do not have the ability to manifest or journey in the Barzakh; they are trapped and destitute. However, the saints of God and His faithful servants are not like this.