THE UNCOVERING OF THE FIRST VEIL: CONCERNING THE GNOSIS OF GOD
(_ma`rifat Allah_).
The Apostle said: “If ye knew God as He ought to be known, ye would walk
on the seas, and the mountains would move at your call.” Gnosis of God
is of two kinds: cognitional (_`ilmí_) and emotional (_ḥálí_).
Cognitional gnosis is the foundation of all blessings in this world and
in the next, for the most important thing for a man at all times and in
all circumstances is knowledge of God, as God hath said: “_I only
created the genii and mankind that they might serve Me_” (Kor. li, 56),
i.e. that they might know Me. But the greater part of men neglect this
duty, except those whom God hath chosen and whose hearts He hath
vivified with Himself. Gnosis is the life of the heart through God, and
the turning away of one’s inmost thoughts from all that is not God. The
worth of everyone is in proportion to gnosis, and he who is without
gnosis is worth nothing. Theologians, lawyers, and other classes of men
give the name of gnosis (_ma`rifat_) to right cognition (_`ilm_) of God,
but the Ṣúfí Shaykhs call right feeling (_ḥál_) towards God by that
name. Hence they have said that gnosis (_ma`rifat_) is more excellent
than cognition (_`ilm_), for right feeling (_ḥál_) is the result of
right cognition, but right cognition is not the same thing as right
feeling, i.e. one who has not cognition of God is not a gnostic
(_`árif_), but one may have cognition of God without being a gnostic.
Those of either class who were ignorant of this distinction engaged in
useless controversy, and the one party disbelieved in the other party.
Now I will explain the matter in order that both may be instructed.
SECTION.
You must know that there is a great difference of opinion touching the
gnosis and right cognition of God. The Mu`tazilites assert that gnosis
is intellectual and that only a reasonable person (_`áqil_) can possibly
have it. This doctrine is disproved by the fact that madmen, within
Islam, are deemed to have gnosis, and that children, who are not
reasonable, are deemed to have faith. Were the criterion of gnosis an
intellectual one, such persons must be without gnosis, while unbelievers
could not be charged with infidelity, provided only that they were
reasonable beings. If reason were the cause of gnosis, it would follow
that every reasonable person must know God, and that all who lack reason
must be ignorant of Him; which is manifestly absurd. Others pretend that
demonstration (_istidlál_) is the cause of knowledge of God, and that
such knowledge is not gained except by those who deduce it in this
manner. The futility of this doctrine is exemplified by Iblís, for he
saw many evidences, such as Paradise, Hell, and the Throne of God, yet
they did not cause him to have gnosis. God hath said that knowledge of
Him depends on His will (Kor. vi, 111). According to the view of
orthodox Moslems, soundness of reason and regard to evidences are a
means (_sabab_) to gnosis, but not the cause (_`illat_) thereof: the
sole cause is God’s will and favour, for without His favour (_`ináyat_)
reason is blind. Reason does not even know itself: how, then, can it
know another? Heretics of all sorts use the demonstrative method, but
the majority of them do not know God. On the other hand, whenever one
enjoys the favour of God, all his actions are so many tokens of gnosis;
his demonstration is search (_ṭalab_), and his neglect of demonstration
is resignation to God’s will (_taslím_); but, in reference to perfect
gnosis, resignation is no better than search, for search is a principle
that cannot be neglected, while resignation is a principle that excludes
the possibility of agitation (_iḍṭiráb_), and these two principles do
not essentially involve gnosis. In reality Man’s only guide and
enlightener is God. Reason and the proofs adduced by reason are unable
to direct anyone into the right way. If the infidels were to return from
the place of Judgment to this world, they would bring their infidelity
back with them (cf. Kor. vi, 28). When the Commander of the Faithful,
`Alí, was asked concerning gnosis, he said: “I know God by God, and I
know that which is not God by the light of God.” God created the body
and committed its life to the spirit (_ján_), and He created the soul
(_dil_) and committed its life to Himself. Hence, inasmuch as reason and
human faculties and evidences have no power to make the body live, they
cannot make the soul live, as God hath said: “_Shall he who was dead and
whom We have restored to life and to whom We have given a light whereby
he may walk among men...?_” (Kor. vi, 122), i.e. “I am the Creator of
the light in which believers are illumined”. It is God that opens and
seals the hearts of men (Kor. xxxix, 23; ii, 6): therefore He alone is
able to guide them. Everything except Him is a cause or a means, and
causes and means cannot possibly indicate the right way without the
favour of the Causer. He it is that imposes the obligation of piety,
which is essentially gnosis; and those on whom that obligation is laid,
so long as they are in the state of obligation, neither bring it upon
themselves nor put it away from themselves by their own choice:
therefore Man’s share in gnosis, unless God makes him know, is mere
helplessness. Abu ´l-Ḥasan Núrí says: “There is none to point out the
way to God except God Himself: knowledge is sought only for due
performance of His worship.” No created being is capable of leading
anyone to God. Those who rely on demonstration are not more reasonable
than was Abú Ṭálib, and no guide is greater than was Muḥammad; yet since
Abú Ṭálib was preordained to misery, the guidance of Muḥammad did not
avail him. The first step of demonstration is a turning away from God,
because demonstration involves the consideration of some other thing,
whereas gnosis is a turning away from all that is not God. Ordinary
objects of search are found by means of demonstration, but knowledge of
God is extraordinary. Therefore, knowledge of Him is attained only by
unceasing bewilderment of the reason, and His favour is not procured by
any act of human acquisition, but is miraculously revealed to men’s
hearts. What is not God is phenomenal (_muḥdath_), and although a
phenomenal being may reach another like himself he cannot reach his
Creator and acquire Him while he exists, for in every act of acquisition
he who makes the acquisition is predominant and the thing acquired is
under his power. Accordingly, the miracle is not that reason should be
led by the act to affirm the existence of the Agent, but that a saint
should be led by the light of the Truth to deny his own existence. The
knowledge gained is in the one case a matter of logic, in the other it
becomes an inward experience. Let those who deem reason to be the cause
of gnosis consider what reason affirms in their minds concerning the
substance of gnosis, for gnosis involves the negation of whatever is
affirmed by reason, i.e. whatever notion of God can be formed by reason,
God is in reality something different. How, then, is there any room for
reason to arrive at gnosis by means of demonstration? Reason and
imagination are homogeneous, and where _genus_ is affirmed gnosis is
denied. To infer the existence of God from intellectual proofs is
assimilation (_tashbíh_), and to deny it on the same grounds is
nullification (_ta`ṭíl_). Reason cannot pass beyond these two
principles, which in regard to gnosis are agnosticism, since neither of
the parties professing them is Unitarian (_muwaḥḥid_).
Therefore, when reason is gone as far as possible, and the souls of His
lovers must needs search for Him, they rest helplessly without their
faculties, and while they so rest they grow restless and stretch their
hands in supplication and seek a relief for their souls; and when they
have exhausted every manner of search in their power, the power of God
becomes theirs, i.e. they find the way from Him to Him, and are eased of
the anguish of absence and set foot in the garden of intimacy and win to
rest. And reason, when it sees that the souls have attained their
desire, tries to exert its control, but fails; and when it fails it
becomes distraught; and when it becomes distraught it abdicates. Then
God clothes it in the garment of service (_khidmat_) and says to it:
“While thou wert independent thou wert veiled by thy faculties and their
exercise, and when these were annihilated thou didst fail, and having
failed thou didst attain.” Thus it is the allotted portion of the soul
to be near unto God, and that of the reason is to do His service. God
causes Man to know Him through Himself with a knowledge that is not
linked to any faculty, a knowledge in which the existence of Man is
merely metaphorical. Hence to the gnostic egoism is utter perfidy; his
remembrance of God is without forgetfulness, and his gnosis is not empty
words but actual feeling.
Others, again, declare that gnosis is the result of inspiration
(_ilhám_). This also is impossible, because gnosis supplies a criterion
for distinguishing truth from falsehood, whereas the inspired have no
such criterion. If one says, “I know by inspiration that God is in
space,” and another says, “I know by inspiration that He is not in
space,” one of these contradictory statements must be true, but a proof
is necessary in order to decide where the truth lies. Consequently, this
view, which is held by the Brahmans and the inspirationists
(_ilhámiyán_), falls to the ground. In the present age I have met a
number of persons who carried it to an extreme and who connected their
own position with the doctrine of religious men, but they are altogether
in error, and their assertion is repugnant to all reasonable Moslems and
unbelievers. If it be said that whatever conflicts with the sacred law
is not inspiration, I reply that this argument is fundamentally unsound,
because, if inspiration is to be judged and verified by the standard of
the sacred law, then gnosis does not depend on inspiration, but on law
and prophecy and Divine guidance.
Others assert that knowledge of God is intuitive (_ḍarúrí_). This also
is impossible. Everything that is known in this way must be known in
common by all reasonable men, and inasmuch as we see that some
reasonable men deny the existence of God and hold the doctrines of
assimilation (_tashbíh_) and nullification (_ta`ṭíl_), it is proved that
knowledge of God is not intuitive. Moreover, if it were so, the
principle of religious obligation (_taklíf_) would be destroyed, for
that principle cannot possibly be applied to objects of intuitive
knowledge, such as one’s self, the heaven and the earth, day and night,
pleasure and pain, etc., concerning the existence of which no reasonable
man can have any doubt, and which he must know even against his will.
But some aspirants to Ṣúfiism, considering the absolute certainty
(_yaqín_) which they feel, say: “We know God intuitively,” giving the
name of intuition to this certainty. Substantially they are right, but
their expression is erroneous, because intuitive knowledge cannot be
exclusively restricted to those who are perfect; on the contrary, it
belongs to all reasonable men. Furthermore, it appears in the minds of
living creatures without any means or evidence, whereas the knowledge of
God is a means (_sababí_). But Master Abú `Alí Daqqáq and Shaykh Abú
Sahl Ṣu`lúkí[140] and his father, who was a leading religious authority
at Níshápúr, maintain that the beginning of gnosis is demonstrative and
that its end is intuitive, just as technical knowledge is first acquired
and finally becomes instinctive. “Do not you perceive,” they say, “that
in Paradise knowledge of God becomes intuitive? Why should it not become
intuitive in this world too? And the Apostles, when they heard the word
of God, either immediately or from the mouth of an angel or by
revelation, knew Him intuitively.” I reply that the inhabitants of
Paradise know God intuitively in Paradise, because in Paradise no
religious obligation is imposed, and the Apostles have no fear of being
separated from God at the last, but enjoy the same security as those who
know Him intuitively. The excellence of gnosis and faith lies in their
being hidden; when they are made visible, faith becomes compulsory
(_jabr_), and there is no longer any free will in regard to its visible
substance (_`ayn_), and the foundations of the religious law are shaken,
and the principle of apostasy is annulled, so that Bal`am[141] and Iblís
and Barṣíṣá[142] cannot properly be described as infidels, for it is
generally allowed that they had knowledge of God. The gnostic, while he
remains a gnostic, has no fear of being separated from God; separation
is produced by the loss of gnosis, but intuitive knowledge cannot
conceivably be lost. This doctrine is full of danger to the vulgar. In
order that you may avoid its evil consequences you must know that Man’s
knowledge and his gnosis of God depend entirely on the information and
eternal guidance of the Truth. Man’s certainty in gnosis may be now
greater and now less, but the principle of gnosis is neither increased
nor diminished, since in either case it would be impaired. You must not
let blind conformity enter into your knowledge of God, and you must know
Him through His attributes of perfection. This can be attained only
through the providence and favour of God, who has absolute control of
our minds. If He so will, He makes one of His actions a guide that shows
us the way to Himself, and if He will otherwise, He makes that same
action an obstacle that prevents us from reaching Him. Thus Jesus was to
some a guide that led them to gnosis, but to others he was an obstacle
that hindered them from gnosis; the former party said, “This is the
servant of God,” and the latter said, “This is the son of God.”
Similarly, some were led to God by idols and by the sun and moon, while
others were led astray. Such guides are a means of gnosis, but not the
immediate cause of it, and one means is no better than another in
relation to Him who is the author of them all. The gnostic’s affirmation
of a means is a sign of dualism (_zunnár_), and regard to anything
except the object of knowledge is polytheism (_shirk_). When a man is
doomed to perdition in the Preserved Tablet, nay, in the will and
knowledge of God, how can any proof and demonstration lead him aright?
The most high God, as He pleases and by whatever means He pleases, shows
His servant the way to Himself and opens to him the door of gnosis, so
that he attains to a degree where the very essence of gnosis appears
alien (_ghayr_) and its attributes become noxious to him, and he is
veiled by his gnosis from the object known and realizes that his gnosis
is a pretension (_da`wá_). Dhu `l-Nún the Egyptian says: “Beware lest
thou make pretensions to gnosis,” and it has been said in verse—
“_The gnostics pretend to knowledge,
But I avow ignorance: that is my knowledge._”
Therefore do not claim gnosis, lest thou perish in thy pretension, but
cleave to the reality thereof, that thou mayest be saved. When anyone is
honoured by the revelation of the Divine majesty, his existence becomes
a plague to him and all his attributes a source of corruption. He who
belongs to God and to whom God belongs is not connected with anything in
the universe. The real gist of gnosis is to recognize that to God is the
kingdom. When a man knows that all possessions are in the absolute
control of God, what further business has he with mankind, that he
should be veiled from God by them or by himself? All such veils are the
result of ignorance. As soon as ignorance is annihilated, they vanish,
and this life is made equal in rank to the life hereafter.
Footnote 140:
See _Nafaḥát_, No. 373.
Footnote 141:
See Baydáwí on Kor. vii, 174.
Footnote 142:
See Goldziher & Landberg, _Die Legende vom Mönch Barṣīṣā_ (1896), and
M. Hartmann, _Der heilige Barṣīṣā_ in _Der Islamische Orient_ (1905),
i, 23-8.]
SECTION.
Now, for instruction’s sake, I will mention some of the numerous sayings
which the Shaykhs have uttered on this subject.
`Abdalláh b. Mubárak says: “Gnosis consists in not being astonished by
anything,” because astonishment arises from an act exceeding the power
of the doer, and inasmuch as God is omnipotent it is impossible that a
gnostic should be astonished by His acts. If there be any room for
astonishment, one must needs marvel that God exalts a handful of earth
to such a degree that it receives His commands, and a drop of blood to
such an eminence that it discourses of love and knowledge of Him, and
seeks vision of Him, and desires union with Him. Dhu ´l-Nún the Egyptian
says: “Gnosis is in reality God’s providential communication of the
spiritual light to our inmost hearts,” i.e., until God, in His
providence, illuminates the heart of Man and keeps it from
contamination, so that all created things have not even the worth of a
mustard-seed in his heart, the contemplation of Divine mysteries, both
inward and outward, does not overwhelm him with rapture; but when God
has done this, his every look becomes an act of contemplation
(_musháhadat_). Shiblí says: “Gnosis is continual amazement (_ḥayrat_).”
Amazement is of two kinds: (1) amazement at the essence and (2)
amazement at the quality. The former is polytheism and infidelity,
because no gnostic can possibly be in doubt concerning the essential
nature of God; but the latter is gnosis, because the quality of God lies
beyond reason’s scope. Hence a certain one said: “O Guide of the amazed,
increase my amazement!” In the first place, he affirmed the existence of
God and the perfection of His attributes, and recognized that He is the
object of men’s search and the accomplisher of their prayers and the
author of their amazement; then he asked for increase of amazement and
recognized that in seeking God the reason has no alternative between
amazement and polytheism. This sentiment is very fine. It may be, again,
that knowledge of God’s being involves amazement at one’s own being,
because when a man knows God he sees himself entirely subdued by the
Divine omnipotence; and since his existence depends on God and his
non-existence proceeds from God, and his rest and motion are produced by
the power of God, he becomes amazed, saying: “Who and what am I?” In
this sense the Apostle said: “He who knows himself has come to know his
Lord,” i.e. he who knows himself to be annihilated knows God to be
eternally subsistent. Annihilation destroys reason and all human
attributes, and when the substance of a thing is not accessible to
reason it cannot possibly be known without amazement. Abú Yazíd said:
“Gnosis consists in knowing that the motion and rest of mankind depend
on God,” and that without His permission no one has the least control of
His kingdom, and that no one can perform any action until He creates the
ability to act and puts the will to act in his heart, and that human
actions are metaphorical and that God is the real agent. Muḥammad b.
Wási` says, describing the gnostic: “His words are few and his amazement
perpetual,” because only finite things admit of being expressed in
words, and since the infinite cannot be expressed it leaves no resource
except perpetual amazement. Shiblí says: “Real gnosis is the inability
to attain gnosis,” i.e. inability to know a thing, to the real nature of
which a man has no clue except the impossibility of attaining it.
Therefore, in attaining it, he will rightly take no credit to himself,
because inability (_`ajz_) is search, and so long as he depends on his
own faculties and attributes, he cannot properly be described by that
term; and when these faculties and attributes depart, then his state is
not inability, but annihilation. Some pretenders, while affirming the
attributes of humanity and the subsistence of the obligation to decide
with sound judgment (_taklíf ba-ṣiḥḥat-i khiṭáb_) and the authority
maintained over them by God’s proof, declare that gnosis is impotence,
and that they are impotent and unable to attain anything. I reply: “In
search of what thing have you become so helpless?” Impotence (_`ajz_)
has two signs, which are not to be found in you: firstly, the
annihilation of the faculties of search, and secondly, the manifestation
of the glory of God (_tajallí_). Where the annihilation of the faculties
takes place, there is no outward expression (_`ibárat_); and where the
glory of God is revealed, no clue can be given and no discrimination is
conceivable. Hence one who is impotent does not know that he is so, or
that the state attributed to him is called impotence. How should he know
this? Impotence is other than God, and the affirmation of knowledge of
other than God is not gnosis; and so long as there is room in the heart
for aught except God, or the possibility of expressing aught except God,
true gnosis has not been attained. The gnostic is not a gnostic until he
turns aside from all that is not God. Abú Ḥafṣ Ḥaddád says: “Since I
have known God, neither truth nor falsehood has entered my heart.” When
a man feels desire and passion he turns to the soul (_dil_) in order
that it may guide him to the lower soul (_nafs_), which is the seat of
falsehood; and when he finds the evidence of gnosis, he also turns to
the soul in order that it may guide him to the spirit, which is the
source of truth and reality. But when aught except God enters the soul,
the gnostic, if he turns to it, commits an act of agnosticism. There is
a great difference between one who turns to the soul and one who turns
to God. Abú Bakr Wásiṭí says: “He who knows God is cut off from all
things, nay, he is dumb and abject (_kharisa wa-´nqama`a_),” i.e. he is
unable to express anything and all his attributes are annihilated. So
the Apostle, while he was in the state of absence, said: “I am the most
eloquent of the Arabs and non-Arabs”; but when he was borne to the
presence of God, he said: “I know not how to utter Thy praise.” Answer
came: “O Muḥammad, if thou speakest not, I will speak; if thou deemest
thyself unworthy to praise Me, I will make the universe thy deputy, that
all its atoms may praise Me in thy name.”