THE UNCOVERING OF THE TENTH VEIL: EXPLAINING THEIR PHRASEOLOGY AND THE
DEFINITIONS OF THEIR TERMS AND THE VERITIES OF THE IDEAS WHICH ARE
SIGNIFIED.
Those employed in every craft and business, while discussing its
mysteries with one another, make use of certain words and expressions of
which the meaning is known only to themselves. Such expressions are
invented for a double purpose: firstly, in order to facilitate the
understanding of difficulties and bring them nearer to the comprehension
of the novice; and secondly, in order to conceal the mysteries of that
science from the uninitiated. The Ṣúfís also have technical terms for
the purpose of expressing the matter of their discourse and in order
that they may reveal or disguise their meaning as they please. I will
now explain some of these terms and distinguish between the
significations attached to various pairs of words.
_Ḥál_ and _Waqt_.
_Waqt_ (time) is a term with which Ṣúfís are familiar, and concerning
which much has been said by the Shaykhs, but my object is to establish
the truth, not to give long explanations. _Waqt_ is that whereby a man
becomes independent of the past and the future, as, for example, when an
influence from God descends into his soul and makes his heart collected
(_mujtami`_) he has no memory of the past and no thought of that which
is not yet come. All people fail in this, and do not know what our past
has been or what our future will be, except the possessors of _waqt_,
who say: “Our knowledge cannot apprehend the future and the past, and we
are happy with God in the present (_andar waqt_). If we occupy ourselves
with to-morrow, or let any thought of it enter our minds, we shall be
veiled (from God), and a veil is a great distraction (_parágandagí_).”
It is absurd to think of the unattainable. Thus Abú Sa`íd Kharráz says:
“Do not occupy your precious time except with the most precious of
things, and the most precious of human things is the state of being
occupied between the past and the future.” And the Apostle said: “I have
a time (_waqt_) with God, in which none of the cherubim nor any prophet
rivals me,” that is to say, “in which the eighteen thousand worlds do
not occur to my mind and have no worth in my eyes.” Therefore, on the
night of the Ascension, when the kingdom of earth and heaven was arrayed
before him in all its beauty, he did not look at anything (Kor. liii,
17), for Muṣṭafá was noble (_`azíz_), and the noble are not engrossed
save by that which is noble. The “times” (_awqát_) of the Unitarian are
two: one in the state of loss (_faqd_) and one in the state of gain
(_wajd_), one in the place of union and one in the place of separation.
At both these times he is overpowered (_maqhúr_), because both his union
and his separation are effected by God without such volition or
acquisition on his part as would make it possible to invest him with any
attribute. When a man’s power of volition is cut off from him, whatever
he does or experiences is the result of “time” (_waqt_). It is related
that Junayd said: ”I saw a dervish in the desert, sitting under a
mimosa-tree in a hard and uncomfortable spot, and asked him what made
him sit there so still. He answered: ‘I had a “time” and lost it here;
now I am sitting and mourning.’ I inquired how long he had been there.
He answered: ‘Twelve years. Will not the Shaykh offer up a prayer
(_himmatí kunad_) on my behalf, that perchance I may find my “time”
again?’ I left him,” said Junayd, ”and performed the pilgrimage and
prayed for him. My prayer was granted. On my return I found him seated
in the same place. ‘Why,’ I said, ‘do you not go from here, since you
have obtained your wish?’ He replied: ‘O Shaykh, I settled myself in
this place of desolation where I lost my capital: is it right that I
should leave the place where I have found my capital once more and where
I enjoy the society of God? Let the Shaykh go in peace, for I will mix
my dust with the dust of this spot, that I may rise at the Resurrection
from this dust which is the abode of my delight.’ No man can attain to
the reality of “time” by exerting his choice, for “time” is a thing that
does not come within the scope of human acquisition, that it should be
gained by effort, nor is it sold in the market, that anyone should give
his life in exchange for it, and the will has no power either to attract
or to repel it. The Shaykhs have said, “Time is a cutting sword,”
because it is characteristic of a sword to cut, and “time” cuts the root
of the future and the past, and obliterates care of yesterday and
to-morrow from the heart. The sword is a dangerous companion: either it
makes its master a king or it destroys him. Although one should pay
homage to the sword and carry it on one’s own shoulder for a thousand
years, in the moment of cutting it does not discriminate between its
master’s neck and the neck of another. Violence (_qahr_) is its
characteristic, and violence will not depart from it at the wish of its
master.
_Ḥál_ (state) is that which descends upon “time” (_waqt_) and adorns it,
as the spirit adorns the body. _Waqt_ has need of _ḥál_, for _waqt_ is
beautified by _ḥál_ and subsists thereby. When the owner of _waqt_ comes
into possession of _ḥál_, he is no more subject to change and is made
steadfast (_mustaqím_) in his state; for, when he has _waqt_ without
_ḥál_, he may lose it, but when _ḥál_ attaches itself to him, all his
state (_rúzgár_) becomes _waqt_, and that cannot be lost: what seems to
be coming and going (_ámad shud_) is really the result of becoming and
manifestation (_takawwun ú ẕuhúr_), just as, before this, _waqt_
descended on him who has it. He who is in the state of becoming
(_mutakawwin_) may be forgetful, and on him who is thus forgetful _ḥál_
descends and _waqt_ is made stable (_mutamakkin_); for the possessor of
_waqt_ may become forgetful, but the possessor of _ḥál_ cannot possibly
be so. The tongue of the possessor of _ḥál_ is silent concerning his
_ḥál_, but his actions proclaim the reality of his _ḥál_. Hence that
spiritual director said: “To ask about _ḥál_ is absurd,” because _ḥál_
is the annihilation of speech (_maqál_). Master Abú `Alí Daqqáq says:
“If there is joy or woe in this world or the next world, the portion of
_waqt_ is that (feeling) in which thou art.” But _ḥál_ is not like this;
when _ḥál_ comes on a man from God, it banishes all these feelings from
his heart. Thus Jacob was a possessor of _waqt_: now he was blinded by
separation, now he was restored to sight by union, now he was mourning
and wailing, now he was calm and joyful. But Abraham was a possessor of
_ḥál_: he was not conscious of separation, that he should be stricken
with grief, nor of union, that he should be filled with joy. The sun and
moon and stars contributed to his _ḥál_, but he, while he gazed, was
independent of them: whatever he looked on, he saw only God, and he
said: “_I love not them that set_” (Kor. vi, 76). Accordingly, the world
sometimes becomes a hell to the possessor of _waqt_, because he is
contemplating absence (_ghaybat_) and his heart is distressed by the
loss of his beloved; and sometimes his heart is like a Paradise in the
blessedness of contemplation, and every moment brings to him a gift and
a glad message from God. On the other hand, it makes no difference to
the possessor of _ḥál_ whether he is veiled by affliction or unveiled by
happiness; for he is always in the place of actual vision (_`iyán_).
_Ḥál_ is an attribute of the object desired (_murád_), while _waqt_ is
the rank of the desirer (_muríd_). The latter is with himself in the
pleasure of _waqt_, the former with God in the delight of _ḥál_. How far
apart are the two degrees!
_Maqám_ and _Tamkín_, and the difference between them.
_Maqám_ (station) denotes the perseverance of the seeker in fulfilling
his obligations towards the object of his search with strenuous exertion
and flawless intention. Everyone who desires God has a station
(_maqám_), which, in the beginning of his search, is a means whereby he
seeks God. Although the seeker derives some benefit from every station
through which he passes, he finally rests in one, because a station and
the quest thereof involve contrivance and design (_tarkíb ú ḥíla_), not
conduct and practice (_rawish ú mu`ámalat_). God hath said: “_None of us
but hath a certain station_” (Kor. xxxvii, 164). The station of Adam was
repentance (_tawbat_), that of Noah was renunciation (_zuhd_), that of
Abraham was resignation (_taslím_), that of Moses was contrition
(_inábat_), that of David was sorrow (_ḥuzn_), that of Jesus was hope
(_rajá_), that of John (the Baptist) was fear (_khawf_), and that of our
Apostle was praise (_dhikr_). They drew something from other sources by
which they abode, but each of them returned at last to his original
station. In discussing the doctrine of the Muḥásibís, I gave a partial
explanation of the stations and distinguished between _ḥál_ and _maqám_.
Here, however, it is necessary to make some further remarks on this
subject. You must know that the Way to God is of three kinds: (1)
_maqám_, (2) _ḥál_, (3) _tamkín_. God sent all the prophets to explain
the Way and to elucidate the principle of the different stations. One
hundred and twenty-four thousand apostles, and a few over that number,
came with as many stations. On the advent of our Apostle a _ḥál_
appeared to those in each station and attained a pitch where all human
acquisition was left behind, until religion was made perfect unto men,
as God hath said: “_To-day I have perfected your religion for you and
have completed My bounty unto you_” (Kor. v, 5); then the _tamkín_
(steadfastness) of the steadfast appeared; but if I were to enumerate
every _ḥál_ and explain every _maqám_, my purpose would be defeated.
_Tamkín_ denotes the residence of spiritual adepts in the abode of
perfection and in the highest grade. Those in stations can pass on from
their stations, but it is impossible to pass beyond the grade of
_tamkín_, because _maqám_ is the grade of beginners, whereas _tamkín_ is
the resting-place of adepts, and _maqámát_ (stations) are stages on the
way, whereas _tamkín_ is repose within the shrine. The friends of God
are absent (from themselves) on the way and are strangers (to
themselves) in the stages: their hearts are in the presence (of God),
and in the presence every instrument is evil and every tool is (a token
of) absence (from God) and infirmity. In the epoch of Paganism the poets
used to praise men for noble deeds, but they did not recite their
panegyric until some time had elapsed. When a poet came into the
presence of the person whom he had celebrated, he used to draw his sword
and hamstring his camel and then break his sword, as though to say: “I
needed a camel to bring me from a far distance to thy presence, and a
sword to repel the envious who would have hindered me from paying homage
to thee: now that I have reached thee, I kill my camel, for I will never
depart from thee again; and I break my sword, for I will not admit into
my mind the thought of being severed from thy court.” Then, after a few
days, he used to recite his poem. Similarly, when Moses attained to
_tamkín_, God bade him put off his shoes and cast away his staff (Kor.
xx, 12), these being articles of travel and Moses being in the presence
of God. The beginning of love is search, but the end is rest: water
flows in the river-bed, but when it reaches the ocean it ceases to flow
and changes its taste, so that those who desire water avoid it, but
those who desire pearls devote themselves to death and fasten the
plummet of search to their feet and plunge headlong into the sea, that
they may either gain the hidden pearl or lose their dear lives. And one
of the Shaykhs says: “_Tamkín_ is the removal of _talwín_.” _Talwín_
also is a technical term of the Ṣúfís, and is closely connected in
meaning with _tamkín_, just as _ḥál_ is connected with _maqám_. The
signification of _talwín_ is change and turning from one state to
another, and the above-mentioned saying means that he who is steadfast
(_mutamakkin_) is not vacillating (_mutaraddid_), for he has carried all
that belongs to him into the presence of God and has erased every
thought of other than God from his mind, so that no act that passes over
him alters his outward predicament and no state changes his inward
predicament. Thus Moses was subject to _talwín_: he fell in a swoon
(Kor. vii, 139) when God revealed His glory to Mount Sinai; but Muḥammad
was steadfast: he suffered no change, although he was in the very
revelation of glory from Mecca to a space of two bow-lengths from God;
and this is the highest grade. Now _tamkín_ is of two kinds—one
referring to the dominant influence of God (_sháhid-i ḥaqq_), and the
other referring to the dominant influence of one’s self (_sháhid-i
khud_). He whose _tamkín_ is of the latter kind retains his attributes
unimpaired, but he whose _tamkín_ is of the former kind has no
attributes; and the terms effacement (_maḥw_), sobriety (_ṣaḥw_),
attainment (_laḥq_), destruction (_maḥq_),[177] annihilation (_faná_),
subsistence (_baqá_), being (_wujúd_), and not-being (_`adam_) are not
properly applied to one whose attributes are annihilated, because a
subject is necessary for the maintenance of these qualities, and when
the subject is absorbed (_mustaghriq_) he loses the capacity for
maintaining them.
Footnote 177:
_Maḥq_ denotes annihilation of a man’s being in the essence of God,
while _maḥw_ denotes annihilation of his actions in the action of God
(Jurjání, _Ta`rífát_).
_Muḥáḍarat_ and _Mukáshafat_, and the difference between them.
_Muḥáḍarat_ denotes the presence of the heart in the subtleties of
demonstration (_bayán_), while _mukáshafat_ denotes the presence of the
spirit (_sirr_) in the domain of actual vision (_`iyán_). _Muḥáḍarat_
refers to the evidences of God’s signs (_áyát_), and _mukáshafat_ to the
evidences of contemplation (_musháhadát_). The mark of _muḥáḍarat_ is
continual meditation upon God’s signs, while the mark of _mukáshafat_ is
continual amazement at God’s infinite greatness. There is a difference
between one who meditates upon the Divine acts and one who is amazed at
the Divine majesty: the one is a follower of friendship, the other is a
companion of love. When the Friend of God (Abraham) looked on the
kingdom of heaven and meditated on the reality of its existence, his
heart was made “present” (_ḥáḍir_) thereby: through beholding the act he
became a seeker of the Agent; his “presence” (_ḥuḍúr_) made the act a
proof of the Agent, and in perfect gnosis he exclaimed: “_I turn my face
with true belief unto Him who created the heavens and the earth_” (Kor.
vi, 79). But when the Beloved of God (Muḥammad) was borne to Heaven he
shut his eyes from the sight of all things; he saw neither God’s act nor
created beings nor himself, but the Agent was revealed to him, and in
that revelation (_kashf_) his desire increased: in vain he sought
vision, proximity, union; in proportion as the exemption (_tanzíh_) of
his Beloved (from all such conceptions) became more manifest to him the
more did his desire increase; he could neither turn back nor go forward,
hence he fell into amazement. Where friendship was, amazement seemed
infidelity, but where love was, union was polytheism, and amazement
became the sole resource, because in friendship the object of amazement
was being (_hastí_), and such amazement is polytheism, but in love the
object of amazement was nature and quality (_chigúnagí_), and this
amazement is unification (_tawḥíd_). In this sense Shiblí used always to
say: “O Guide of the amazed, increase my amazement!” for in
contemplation (of God) the greater one’s amazement the higher one’s
degree. The story of Abú Sa`íd Kharráz and Ibráhím b. Sa`d `Alawí[178]
is well known—how they saw a friend of God on the seashore and asked him
“What is the Way to God?” and how he answered that there are two ways to
God, one for the vulgar and one for the elect. When they desired him to
explain this he said: “The way of the vulgar is that on which you are
going: you accept for some cause and you decline for some cause; but the
way of the elect is to see only the Causer, and not to see the cause.”
The true meaning of these anecdotes has already been set forth.
Footnote 178:
_Nafaḥát_, No. 15.
_Qabḍ_ and _Basṭ_, and the difference between them.
_Qabḍ_ (contraction) and _basṭ_ (expansion) are two involuntary states
which cannot be induced by any human act or banished by any human
exertion. God hath said: “_God contracts and expands_” (Kor. ii, 246).
_Qabḍ_ denotes the contraction of the heart in the state of being veiled
(_ḥijáb_), and _basṭ_ denotes the expansion of the heart in the state of
revelation (_kashf_). Both states proceed from God without effort on the
part of Man. The _qabḍ_ of gnostics is like the fear of novices, and the
_basṭ_ of gnostics is like the hope of novices. This is the sense in
which the Ṣúfís use the terms _qabḍ_ and _basṭ_. Some Shaykhs hold that
_qabḍ_ is superior in degree to _basṭ_, for two reasons: (1) it is
mentioned before _basṭ_ in the Koran, (2) _qabḍ_ involves dissolution
and oppression, whereas _basṭ_ involves nutrition and favour: it is
undoubtedly better to dissolve one’s humanity and oppress one’s lower
soul than to foster and favour them, since they are the greatest veil
(between Man and God). Others, again, hold that _basṭ_ is superior to
_qabḍ_. The fact, they say, that _qabḍ_ is mentioned before _basṭ_ in
the Koran shows the superiority of _basṭ_, for the Arabs are accustomed
to mention in the first place that which is inferior in merit, e.g. God
hath said: “_There is one of them who injures his own soul, and one who
keeps the middle way, and one who outstrips the others in good works by
the permission of God_” (Kor. xxxv, 29). Moreover, they argue that in
_basṭ_ there is joy and in _qabḍ_ grief; gnostics feel joy only in union
with the object of knowledge, and grief only in separation from the
object of desire, therefore rest in the abode of union is better than
rest in the abode of separation. My Shaykh used to say that both _qabḍ_
and _basṭ_ are the result of one spiritual influence, which descends
from God on Man, and either fills the heart with joy and subdues the
lower soul or subdues the heart and fills the lower soul with joy; in
the latter case contraction (_qabḍ_) of the heart is expansion (_basṭ_)
of the lower soul, and in the former case expansion of the heart is
contraction of the lower soul. He who interprets this matter otherwise
is wasting his breath. Hence Báyazíd said: “The contraction of hearts
consists in the expansion of souls, and the expansion of hearts in the
contraction of souls.” The contracted soul is guarded from injury, and
the expanded heart is restrained from falling into defect, because
jealousy is the rule in love, and contraction is a sign of God’s
jealousy; and it is necessary that lovers should reproach one another,
and expansion is a sign of mutual reproach. It is a well-known tradition
that John wept ever since he was born, while Jesus smiled ever since he
was born, because John was in contraction and Jesus in expansion. When
they met John used to say, “O Jesus, hast thou no fear of being cut off
(from God)?” and Jesus used to say, “O John, hast thou no hope of God’s
mercy? Neither thy tears nor my smiles will change the eternal decree of
God.”
_Uns_ and _Haybat_, and the difference between them.
_Uns_ (intimacy) and _haybat_ (awe) are two states of the dervishes who
travel on the Way to God. When God manifests His glory to a man’s heart
so that His majesty (_jalál_) predominates, he feels awe (_haybat_), but
when God’s beauty (_jamál_) predominates he feels intimacy (_uns_):
those who feel awe are distressed, while those who feel intimacy are
rejoiced. There is a difference between one who is burned by His majesty
in the fire of love and one who is illuminated by His beauty in the
light of contemplation. Some Shaykhs have said that _haybat_ is the
degree of gnostics and _uns_ the degree of novices, because the farther
one has advanced in the presence of God and in divesting Him of
attributes the more his heart is overwhelmed with awe and the more
averse he is to intimacy, for one is intimate with those of one’s own
kind, and intimacy with God is inconceivable, since no homogeneity or
resemblance can possibly exist between God and Man. If intimacy is
possible, it is possible only with the praise (_dhikr_) of Him, which is
something different from Himself, because that is an attribute of Man;
and in love, to be satisfied with another than the Beloved is falsehood
and pretension and self-conceit. _Haybat_, on the other hand, arises
from contemplating greatness, which is an attribute of God, and there is
a vast difference between one whose experience proceeds from himself
through himself and one whose experience proceeds from the annihilation
of himself through the subsistence of God. It is related that Shiblí
said: “For a long time I used to think that I was rejoicing in the love
of God and was intimate with contemplation of Him: now I know that
intimacy is impossible except with a congener.” Some, however, allege
that _haybat_ is a corollary of separation and punishment, while _uns_
is the result of union and mercy; therefore the friends of God must be
guarded from the consequences of _haybat_ and be attached to _uns_, for
_uns_ involves love, and as homogeneity is impossible in love (of God),
so it is impossible in _uns_. My Shaykh used to say: ”I wonder at those
who declare intimacy with God to be impossible, after God has said,
‘_Verily My servants_,’ and ‘_Say to My servants_’, and ‘_When My
servants shall ask thee_’, and ‘_O My servants, no fear shall come on
you this day, and ye shall not grieve_’ (Kor. xliii, 68). A servant of
God, seeing this favour, cannot fail to love Him, and when he has loved
he will become intimate, because awe of one’s beloved is estrangement
(_bégánagí_), whereas intimacy is oneness (_yagánagí_). It is
characteristic of men to become intimate with their benefactors, and
inasmuch as God has conferred on us so great benefits and we have
knowledge of Him, it is impossible that we should talk of awe.” I, `Alí
b. `Uthmán al-Jullábí, say that both parties in this controversy are
right, because the power of _haybat_ is exerted upon the lower soul and
its desires, and tends to annihilate human nature, while the power of
_uns_ is exerted upon the heart and tends to foster gnosis in the heart.
Therefore God annihilates the souls of those who love Him by revealing
His majesty and endows their hearts with everlasting life by revealing
His beauty. The followers of annihilation (_faná_) regard _haybat_ as
superior, but the followers of subsistence (_baqá_) prefer _uns_.
_Qahr_ and _Luṭf_, and the difference between them.
These two expressions are used by the Ṣúfís in reference to their own
state. By _qahr_ (violence) they signify the reinforcement given to them
by God in annihilating their desires and in restraining the lower soul
from its concupiscence; and by _luṭf_ (kindness) they signify God’s help
towards the subsistence of their hearts and towards the continuance of
contemplation and towards the permanence of ecstasy in the degree of
steadfastness (_istiqámat_). The adherents of _luṭf_ say Divine grace
(_karámat_) is the attainment of one’s desire, but the others say that
Divine grace is this—that God through His will should restrain a man
from his own will and should overpower him with will-lessness
(_bémurádí_), so that if he were thirsty and plunged into a river, the
river would become dry. It is related that in Baghdád were two eminent
dervishes, the one a believer in _qahr_ and the other a believer in
_luṭf_, who were always quarrelling and each preferring his own state to
that of his neighbour. The dervish who preferred _luṭf_ set out for
Mecca and entered the desert, but never reached his destination. No news
of him was heard for many years, but at last he was seen by a traveller
on the road between Mecca and Baghdád. “O my brother,” he said, “when
you return to `Iráq tell my friend at Karkh that if he wishes to see a
desert, with all its hardships, like Karkh of Baghdád, with all its
marvels, let him come here, for this desert is Karkh to me!” When the
traveller arrived at Karkh he delivered this message to the other
dervish, who said: “On your return, tell him that there is no
superiority in the fact that the desert has been made like Karkh to him,
in order that he may not flee from the court (of God); the superiority
lies in the fact that Karkh, with all its wondrous opulence, has been
made to me like a painful desert, and that nevertheless I am happy
here.” And it is related that Shiblí said, in his secret converse with
God: “O Lord, I will not turn from Thee, although Thou shouldst make the
heaven a collar for my neck and the earth a shackle for my foot and the
whole universe athirst for my blood.” My Shaykh used to say: “One year a
meeting of the saints of God took place in the midst of the desert, and
I accompanied my spiritual director, Ḥuṣrí, to that spot. I saw some of
them approaching on camels, some borne on thrones, and some flying, but
Ḥuṣrí paid no heed to them. Then I saw a youth with torn shoes and a
broken staff. His feet could scarcely support him, and his head was bare
and his body emaciated. As soon as he appeared Ḥuṣrí sprang up and ran
to meet him and led him to a lofty seat. This astonished me, and
afterwards I questioned the Shaykh about the youth. He replied: ‘He is
one of God’s saints who does not follow saintship, but saintship follows
him; and he pays no attention to miracles (_karámát_).’” In short, what
we choose for ourselves is noxious to us. I desire only that God should
desire for me, and therein preserve me from the evil thereof and save me
from the wickedness of my soul. If He keep me in _qahr_ I do not wish
for _luṭf_, and if He keep me in _luṭf_ I do not wish for _qahr_. I have
no choice beyond His choice.
_Nafy_ and _Ithbát_, and the difference between them.
The Shaykhs of this Path give the names of _nafy_ (negation) and
_ithbát_ (affirmation) to the effacement of the attributes of humanity
by the affirmation of Divine aid (_ta´yíd_). By negation they signify
the negation of the attributes of humanity, and by affirmation they mean
the affirmation of the power of the Truth, because effacement (_maḥw_)
is total loss, and total negation is applicable only to the attributes;
for negation of the essence is impossible while the Universal
(_kulliyyat_) subsists. It is necessary, therefore, that blameworthy
attributes should be negated by the affirmation of praiseworthy
qualities, i.e. the pretension to love of God is negated by affirmation
of the reality, for pretension is one of the vanities of the lower soul.
But the Ṣúfís, when their attributes are overpowered by the might of the
Truth, habitually say that the attributes of humanity are negated by
affirming the subsistence of God. This matter has already been discussed
in the chapter on poverty and purity and in that on annihilation and
subsistence. They say also that the words in question signify the
negation of Man’s choice by the affirmation of God’s choice. Hence that
blessed one said: “God’s choice for His servant with His knowledge of
His servant is better than His servant’s choice for himself with his
ignorance of his Lord,” because love, as all agree, is the negation of
the lover’s choice by affirmation of the Beloved’s choice. I have read
in the Anecdotes that a dervish was drowning in the sea, when some one
cried: “Brother, do you wish to be saved?” He said: “No.” “Then do you
wish to be drowned?” “No.” “It is a wonder that you will not choose
either to die or to be saved.” “What have I to do with safety,” said the
dervish, “that I should choose it? My choice is that God should choose
for me.” The Shaykhs have said that negation of one’s own choice is the
least grade in love. Now, God’s choice has no beginning in time and
cannot possibly be negated, but Man’s choice is accidental (_`araḍí_)
and admits of negation, and must be trodden under foot, that the eternal
choice of God may subsist for ever.[179] There has been much debate on
this matter, but my sole aim is that you should know the signification
of the terms used by the Ṣúfís. I have mentioned some of these, e.g.,
_jam`_ and _tafriqa_, and _faná_ and _baqá_, and _ghaybat_ and _ḥuḍúr_,
and _sukr_ and _ṣaḥw_, in the chapter treating of the doctrines of the
Ṣúfís, and you must look there for the explanation of them.
Footnote 179:
Here the author refers to the example of Moses, whose prayer for
vision of God was refused (Kor. vii, 139), because he was exercising
his own choice.
_Musámarat_ and _Muḥádathat_, and the difference between them.
These terms denote two states of the perfect Ṣúfí. _Muḥádathat_
(conversation) is really spiritual talk conjoined with silence of the
tongue, and _musámarat_ (nocturnal discourse) is really continuance of
unrestraint (_inbisáṭ_) combined with concealment of the most secret
thoughts (_kitmán-i sirr_). The outward meaning of _musámarat_ is a
spiritual state (_waqtí_) existing between God and Man at night, and
_muḥádathat_ is a similar state, existing by day, in which there is
exoteric and esoteric conversation. Hence secret prayers (_munáját_) by
night are called _musámarat_, while invocations made by day are called
_muḥádathat_. The daily state is based on revelation (_kashf_), and the
nightly state on occupation (_satr_). In love _musámarat_ is more
perfect than _muḥádathat_, and is connected with the state of the
Apostle, when God sent Gabriel to him with Buráq and conveyed him by
night from Mecca to a space of two bow-lengths from His presence. The
Apostle conversed secretly with God, and when he reached the goal his
tongue became dumb before the revelation of God’s majesty, and his heart
was amazed at His infinite greatness, and he said: “I cannot tell Thy
praise.” _Muḥádathat_ is connected with the state of Moses, who, seeking
communion with God, after forty days came to Mount Sinai and heard the
speech of God and asked for vision of Him, and failed of his desire.
There is a plain difference between one who was conducted (Kor. xvii, 1)
and one who came (Kor. vii, 139). Night is the time when lovers are
alone with each other, and day is the time when servants wait upon their
masters. When a servant transgresses he is reprimanded, but a lover has
no law by the transgression of which he should incur blame, for lovers
cannot do anything displeasing to each other.
_`Ilm al-Yaqín_ and _`Ayn al-Yaqín_ and _Ḥaqq al-Yaqín_, and the
difference between them.
According to the principles of theology, all these expressions denote
knowledge (_`ilm_). Knowledge without certain faith (_yaqín_) in the
reality of the object known is not knowledge, but when knowledge is
gained that which is hidden is as that which is actually seen. The
believers who shall see God on the Day of Judgment shall see Him then in
the same wise as they know Him now: if they shall see Him otherwise,
either their vision will be imperfect then or their knowledge is faulty
now. Both these alternatives are in contradiction with unification
(_tawḥíd_), which requires that men’s knowledge of God should be sound
to-day and their vision of God should be sound to-morrow. Therefore
certain knowledge (_`ilm-i yaqín_) is like certain sight (_`ayn-i
yaqín_), and certain truth (_ḥaqq-i yaqín_) is like certain knowledge.
Some have said that _`ayn al-yaqín_ is the complete absorption
(_istighráq_) of knowledge in vision, but this is impossible, because
vision is an instrument for the attainment of knowledge, like hearing,
etc.: since knowledge cannot be absorbed in hearing, its absorption in
vision is equally impossible. By _`ilm al-yaqín_ the Ṣúfís mean
knowledge of (religious) practice in this world according to the Divine
commandments; by _`ayn al-yaqín_ they mean knowledge of the state of
dying (_naz`_) and the time of departure from this world; and by _ḥaqq
al-yaqín_ they mean intuitive knowledge of the vision (of God) that will
be revealed in Paradise, and of its nature. Therefore _`ilm al-yaqín_ is
the rank of theologians (_`ulamá_) on account of their correct
observance of the Divine commands, and _`ayn al-yaqín_ is the station of
gnostics (_`árifán_) on account of their readiness for death, and _ḥaqq
al-yaqín_ is the annihilation-point of lovers (_dústán_) on account of
their rejection of all created things. Hence _`ilm al-yaqín_ is obtained
by self-mortification (_mujáhadat_), and _`ayn al-yaqín_ by intimate
familiarity (_mu´ánasat_), and _ḥaqq al-yaqín_ by contemplation
(_musháhadat_). The first is vulgar, the second is elect, and the third
is super-elect (_kháṣṣ al-kháṣṣ_).
_`Ilm_ and _Ma`rifat_, and the difference between them.
Theologians have made no distinction between _`ilm_ and _ma`rifat_,
except when they say that God may be called _`álim_ (knowing), but not
_`árif_ (gnostic), inasmuch as the latter epithet lacks Divine blessing.
But the Ṣúfí Shaykhs give the name of _ma`rifat_ (gnosis) to every
knowledge that is allied with (religious) practice and feeling (_ḥál_),
and the knower of which expresses his feeling; and the knower thereof
they call _`árif_. On the other hand, they give the name of _`ilm_ to
every knowledge that is stripped of spiritual meaning and devoid of
religious practice, and one who has such knowledge they call _`álim_.
One, then, who knows the meaning and reality of a thing they call
_`árif_ (gnostic), and one who knows merely the verbal expression and
keeps it in his memory without keeping the spiritual reality they call
_`álim_. For this reason, when the Ṣúfís wish to disparage a rival they
call him _dánishmand_ (possessing knowledge). To the vulgar this seems
objectionable, but the Ṣúfís do not intend to blame the man for having
acquired knowledge, they blame him for neglecting the practice of
religion, because the _`álim_ depends on himself, but the _`árif_
depends on his Lord. This question has been discussed at length in the
chapter entitled “The Removal of the Veil of Gnosis”, and I need not say
any more now.
_Sharí`at_ and _Ḥaqíqat_, and the difference between them.
These terms are used by the Ṣúfís to denote soundness of the outward
state and maintenance of the inward state. Two parties err in this
matter: firstly, the formal theologians, who assert that there is no
distinction between _sharí`at_ (law) and _ḥaqíqat_ (truth), since the
Law is the Truth and the Truth is the Law; secondly, some heretics, who
hold that it is possible for one of these things to subsist without the
other, and declare that when the Truth is revealed the Law is abolished.
This is the doctrine of the Carmathians (_Qarámiṭa_) and the Shí`ites
and their satanically inspired followers (_muwaswisán_). The proof that
the Law is virtually separate from the Truth lies in the fact that in
faith belief is separate from profession; and the proof that the Law and
the Truth are not fundamentally separate, but are one, lies in the fact
that belief without profession is not faith, and conversely profession
without belief is not faith; and there is a manifest difference between
profession and belief. _Ḥaqíqat_, then, signifies a reality which does
not admit of abrogation and remains in equal force from the time of Adam
to the end of the world, like knowledge of God and like religious
practice, which is made perfect by sincere intention; and _sharí`at_
signifies a reality which admits of abrogation and alteration, like
ordinances and commandments. Therefore _sharí`at_ is Man’s act, while
_ḥaqíqat_ is God’s keeping and preservation and protection, whence it
follows that _sharí`at_ cannot possibly be maintained without the
existence of _ḥaqíqat_, and _ḥaqíqat_ cannot be maintained without
observance of _sharí`at_. Their mutual relation may be compared to that
of body and spirit: when the spirit departs from the body the living
body becomes a corpse and the spirit vanishes like wind, for their value
depends on their conjunction with one another. Similarly, the Law
without the Truth is ostentation, and the Truth without the Law is
hypocrisy. God hath said: “_Whosoever mortify themselves for Our sake,
We will assuredly guide them in Our ways_” (Kor. xxix, 69):
mortification is Law, guidance is Truth; the former consists in a man’s
observance of the external ordinances, while the latter consists in
God’s maintenance of a man’s spiritual feelings. Hence the Law is one of
the acts acquired by Man, but the Truth is one of the gifts bestowed by
God.
Another class of terms and expressions are used by the Ṣúfís
metaphorically. These metaphorical terms are more difficult to analyse
and interpret, but I will explain them concisely.
_Ḥaqq._ By _ḥaqq_ (truth) the Ṣúfís mean God, for _ḥaqq_ is one of the
names of God, as He hath said: “_This is because God is the Truth_”
(Kor. xxii, 6).
_Ḥaqíqat._ By this word they mean a man’s dwelling in the place of union
with God, and the standing of his heart in the place of abstraction
(_tanzíh_).
_Khaṭarát._ Any judgments of separation (_aḥkám-i tafríq_) that occur to
the mind.
_Waṭanát._ Any Divine meanings that make their abode in the heart.
_Ṭams._ Negation of a substance of which some trace is left.
_Rams._ Negation of a substance, together with every trace thereof, from
the heart.
_`Alá´iq._ Secondary causes to which seekers of God attach themselves
and thereby fail to gain the object of their desire.
_Wasá´iṭ._ Secondary causes to which seekers of God attach themselves
and thereby gain the object of their desire.
_Zawá´id._ Excess of lights (spiritual illumination) in the heart.
_Fawá´id._ The apprehension by the spirit of what it cannot do without.
_Malja´._ The heart’s confidence in the attainment of its desire.
_Manjá._ The heart’s escape from the place of imperfection.
_Kulliyyat._ The absorption (_istighráq_) of the attributes of humanity
in the Universal (_kulliyyat_).
_Lawá´iḥ._ Affirmation of the object of desire, notwithstanding the
advent of the negation thereof (_ithbát-i murád bá wurúd-i nafy-i án_).
_Lawámi`._ The manifestation of (spiritual) light to the heart while its
acquirements (_fawá´id_) continue to subsist.
_Ṭawáli`._ The appearance of the splendours of (mystical) knowledge to
the heart.
_Ṭawáriq._ That which comes into the heart, either with glad tidings or
with rebuke, in secret converse (with God) at night.
_Laṭá´if._ A symbol (_isháratí_), presented to the heart, of subtleties
of feeling.
_Sirr._ Concealment of feelings of love.
_Najwá._ Concealment of imperfections from the knowledge of other (than
God).
_Ishárat._ Giving information to another of the object of desire,
without uttering it on the tongue.
_Ímá._ Addressing anyone allusively, without spoken or unspoken
explanation (_bé `ibárat ú ishárat_).
_Wárid._ The descent of spiritual meanings upon the heart.
_Intibáh._ The departure of heedlessness from the heart.
_Ishtibáh._ Perplexity felt in deciding between truth and falsehood.
_Qarár._ The departure of vacillation from the reality of one’s feeling.
_Inzi`áj._ The agitation of the heart in the state of ecstasy (_wajd_).
Another class of technical terms are those which the Ṣúfís employ,
without metaphor, in unification (_tawḥíd_) and in setting forth their
firm belief in spiritual realities.
_`Álam._ The term _`álam_ (world) denotes the creatures of God. It is
said that there are 18,000 or 50,000 worlds. Philosophers say there are
two worlds, an upper and a lower, while theologians say that _`álam_ is
whatever exists between the Throne of God and the earth. In short,
_`álam_ is the collective mass of created things. The Ṣúfís speak of the
world of spirits (_arwáḥ_) and the world of souls (_nufús_), but they do
not mean the same thing as the philosophers. What they mean is “the
collective mass of spirits and souls”.
_Muḥdath._ Posterior in existence, i.e. it was not and afterwards was.
_Qadím._ Anterior in existence, i.e. it always was, and its being was
anterior to all beings. This is nothing but God.
_Azal._ That which has no beginning.
_Abad._ That which has no end.
_Dhát._ The being and reality of a thing.
_Ṣifat._ That which does not admit of qualification (_na`t_), because it
is not self-subsistent.
_Ism._ That which is not the object named (_ghayr-i musammá_).
_Tasmiyat._ Information concerning the object named.
_Nafy._ That which entails the non-existence of every object of
negation.
_Ithbát._ That which entails the existence of every object of
affirmation.
_Siyyán._ The possibility of the existence of one thing with another.
_Ḍiddán._ The impossibility of the existence of one thing simultaneously
with the existence of another.
_Ghayrán._ The possibility of the existence of either of two things,
notwithstanding the annihilation of the other.
_Jawhar._ The basis (_aṣl_) of a thing; that which is self-subsistent.
_`Araḍ._ That which subsists in _jawhar_ (substance).
_Jism._ That which is composed of separate parts.
_Su´ál._ Seeking a reality.
_Jawáb._ Giving information concerning the subject-matter of a question
(_su´ál_).
_Ḥusn._ That which is conformable to the (Divine) command.
_Qubḥ._ That which is not conformable to the (Divine) command.
_Safah._ Neglect of the (Divine) command.
_Ẓulm._ Putting a thing in a place that is not worthy of it.
_`Adl._ Putting everything in its proper place.
_Malik._ He with whose actions it is impossible to interfere.
Another class of terms requiring explanation are those which are
commonly used by the Ṣúfís in a mystical sense that is not familiar to
philologists.
_Kháṭir._ By _kháṭir_ (passing thought) the Ṣúfís signify the occurrence
in the mind of something which is quickly removed by another thought,
and which its owner is able to repel from his mind. Those who have such
thoughts follow the first thought in matters which come directly from
God to Man. It is said that the thought occurred to Khayr Nassáj that
Junayd was waiting at his door, but he wished to repel it. The same
thought returned twice and thrice, whereupon he went out and discovered
Junayd, who said to him: “If you had followed the first thought it would
not have been necessary for me to stand here all this time.” How was
Junayd acquainted with the thought which occurred to Khayr? This
question has been asked, and has been answered by the remark that Junayd
was Khayr’s spiritual director, and a spiritual director cannot fail to
be acquainted with all that happens to one of his disciples.
_Wáqi`a._ By _wáqi`a_ they signify a thought which appears in the mind
and remains there, unlike _kháṭir_, and which the seeker has no means
whatever of repelling: thus they say, _khaṭara `alá qalbí_, “it occurred
to my mind,” but _waqa`a fí qalbí_, “it sank into my mind.” All minds
are subject to _kháṭir_ (passing thought), but _wáqi`a_ is possible only
in a mind that is entirely filled with the notion of God. Hence, when
any obstacle appears to the novice on the Way to God, they call it “a
fetter” (_qayd_) and say: “A _wáqi`a_ has befallen him.” Philologists
also use the term _wáqi`a_ to signify any difficult question, and when
it is answered satisfactorily they say, _wáqi`a ḥall shud_, “the
difficulty is solved.” But the mystics say that _wáqi`a_ is that which
is insoluble, and that whatever is solved is a _kháṭir_, not a _wáqi`a_,
since the obstacles which confront mystics are not unimportant matters
on which varying judgments are continually being formed.
_Ikhtiyár._ By _ikhtiyár_ they signify their preference of God’s choice
to their own, i.e. they are content with the good and evil which God has
chosen for them. A man’s preference of God’s choice is itself the result
of God’s choice, for unless God had caused him to have no choice, he
would never have let his own choice go. When Abú Yazíd was asked, “Who
is the prince (_amír_)?” he replied, “He to whom no choice is left, and
to whom God’s choice has become the only choice.” It is related that
Junayd, having caught fever, implored God to give him health. A voice
spoke in his heart: “Who art thou to plead in My kingdom and make a
choice? I can manage My kingdom better than thou. Do thou choose My
choice instead of coming forward with thine.”
_Imtiḥán._ By this expression they signify the probation of the hearts
of the saints by diverse afflictions which come to them from God, such
as fear, grief, contraction, awe, etc. God hath said: “_They whose
hearts God hath proved for piety’s sake: they shall win pardon and a
great reward_” (Kor. xlix, 3). This is a lofty grade.
_Balá._ By _balá_ (affliction) they signify the probation of the bodies
of God’s friends by diverse troubles and sicknesses and tribulations.
The more severely a man is afflicted the nearer does he approach unto
God, for affliction is the vesture of the saints and the cradle of the
pure and the nourishment of the prophets. The Apostle said, “We prophets
are the most afflicted of mankind;” and he also said, “The prophets are
the most afflicted of mankind, then the saints, and then other men
according to their respective ranks.” _Balá_ is the name of a
tribulation, which descends on the heart and body of a true believer and
which is really a blessing; and inasmuch as the mystery thereof is
concealed from him, he is divinely recompensed for supporting the pains
thereof. Tribulation that befalls unbelievers is not affliction
(_balá_), but misery (_shaqáwat_), and unbelievers never obtain relief
from misery. The degree of _balá_ is more honourable than that of
_imtiḥán_, for _imtiḥán_ affects the heart only, whereas _balá_ affects
both the heart and the body and is thus more powerful.
_Taḥallí._ Imitation of praiseworthy people in word and deed. The
Apostle said: “Faith is not acquired by _taḥallí_ (adorning one’s self
with the qualities of others) and _tamanní_ (wishing), but it is that
which sinks deep into the heart and is verified by action.” _Taḥallí_,
then, is to imitate people without really acting like them. Those who
seem to be what they are not will soon be put to shame, and their secret
character will be revealed. In the view of spiritualists, however, they
are already disgraced and their secret character is clear.
_Tajallí._ The blessed effect of Divine illumination on the hearts of
the blest, whereby they are made capable of seeing God with their
hearts. The difference between spiritual vision (_ru´yat ba-dil_) and
actual vision (_ru´yat-i `iyán_) is this, that those who experience
_tajallí_ (manifestation of God) see or do not see, according as they
wish, or see at one time and do not see at another time, while those who
experience actual vision in Paradise cannot but see, even though they
wish not to see; for it is possible that _tajallí_ should be hidden,
whereas _ru´yat_ (vision) cannot possibly be veiled.
_Takhallí._ Turning away from distractions which prevent a man from
attaining to God. One of these is the present world, of which he should
empty his hands; another is desire for the next world, of which he
should empty his heart; a third is indulgence in vanity, of which he
should empty his spirit; and a fourth is association with created
beings, of which he should empty himself and from the thought of which
he should disengage his mind.
_Shurúd._ The meaning of _shurúd_ is “seeking restlessly to escape from
(worldly) corruptions and veils”; for all the misfortunes of the seeker
arise from his being veiled, and when the veil is lifted he becomes
united with God. The Ṣúfís apply the term _shurúd_ to his becoming
unveiled (_isfár_) and his using every resource for that purpose; for in
the beginning, i.e. in search, he is more restless; in the end, i.e. in
union, he becomes more steadfast.
_Quṣúd._ By _quṣúd_ (aims) they signify perfect resolution to seek the
reality of the object of search. The aims of the Ṣúfís do not depend on
motion and rest, because the lover, although he be at rest in love, is
still pursuing an aim (_qáṣid_). In this respect the Ṣúfís differ from
ordinary men, whose aims produce in them some effect outwardly or
inwardly; whereas the lovers of God seek Him without any cause and
pursue their aim without movement of their own, and all their qualities
are directed towards that goal. Where love exists, all is an aim.
_Iṣṭiná`._ By this term they mean that God makes a man faultless through
the annihilation of all his selfish interests and sensual pleasures, and
transforms in him the attributes of his lower soul, so that he becomes
selfless. This degree belongs exclusively to the prophets, but some
Shaykhs hold that it may be attained by the saints also.
_Iṣṭifá._ This signifies that God makes a man’s heart empty to receive
the knowledge of Himself, so that His knowledge (_ma`rifat_) diffuses
its purity through his heart. In this degree all believers, the vulgar
as well as the elect, are alike, whether they are sinful or pious or
saints or prophets, for God hath said: “_We have given the Book as a
heritage unto those of our servants whom We have chosen_ (iṣṭafayná):
_some of them are they who injure their own souls; some are they who
keep the mean; and some are they who excel in good works_” (Kor. xxxv,
29).
_Iṣṭilám._ The manifestations (_tajalliyát_) of God which cause a man to
be entirely overpowered by a merciful probation (_imtiḥán_), while his
will is reduced to naught. _Qalb-i mumtaḥan_, “a proved heart,” and
_qalb-i muṣṭalam_, “a destroyed heart,” bear the same meaning, although
in the current usage of Ṣúfí phraseology _iṣṭilám_ is more particular
and exquisite than _imtiḥán_.
_Rayn._ A veil on the heart, i.e. the veil of infidelity and error,
which cannot be removed except by faith. God hath said, describing the
hearts of the unbelievers (Kor. lxxxiii, 14): “_By no means, but what
they used to do hath covered their hearts_” (rána `alá qulúbihim). Some
have said that _rayn_ cannot possibly be removed in any manner, since
the hearts of unbelievers are not capable of receiving Islam, and those
who do receive it must have been, in the foreknowledge of God, true
believers.
_Ghayn._ A veil on the heart which is removed by asking pardon of God.
It may be either thin or dense. The latter is for those who forget (God)
and commit great sins; the former is for all, not excepting saint or
prophet. Did not the Apostle say, “Verily, my heart is obscured
(_yughánu `alá qalbí_), and verily I ask pardon of God a hundred times
every day.” For removing the dense veil a proper repentance is
necessary, and for removing the thin veil a sincere return to God.
Repentance (_tawbat_) is a turning back from disobedience to obedience,
and return (_rujú`_) is a turning back from self to God. Repentance is
repentance from sin: the sin of common men is opposition to God’s
command, while the sin of lovers (of God) is opposition to God’s will:
therefore, the sin of common men is disobedience, and that of lovers is
consciousness of their own existence. If anyone turns back from wrong to
right, they say, “He is repentant (_tá´ib_);” but if anyone turns back
from what is right to what is more right, they say, “He is returning
(_á´ib_).“ All this I have set forth in the chapter on repentance.
_Talbís._ They denote by _talbís_ the appearance of a thing when its
appearance is contrary to its reality, as God hath said: ”_We should
assuredly have deceived them_ (lalabasná `alayhim) _as they deceive
others_” (Kor. vi, 9). This quality of deception cannot possibly belong
to anyone except God, who shows the unbeliever in the guise of a
believer and the believer in the guise of an unbeliever, until the time
shall come for the manifestation of His decree and of the reality in
every case. When a Ṣúfí conceals good qualities under a mask of bad,
they say: “He is practising deception (_talbís_),” but they use this
term in such instances only, and do not apply it to ostentation and
hypocrisy, which are fundamentally _talbís_, because _talbís_ is not
used except in reference to an act performed by God.
_Shurb._ The Ṣúfís call the sweetness of piety and the delight of
miraculous grace and the pleasure of intimacy _shurb_ (drinking); and
they can do nothing without the delight of _shurb_. As the body’s drink
is of water, so the heart’s drink is of (spiritual) pleasure and
sweetness. My Shaykh used to say that a novice without _shurb_ is a
stranger to (i.e. unacquainted with the duties of) the novitiate, and
that a gnostic with _shurb_ is a stranger to gnosis, because the novice
must derive some pleasure (_shurbí_) from his actions in order that he
may fulfil the obligations of a novice who is seeking God; but the
gnostic ought not to feel such pleasure, lest he should be transported
with that pleasure instead of with God: if he turn back to his lower
soul he will not rest (with God).
_Dhawq._ _Dhawq_ resembles _shurb_, but _shurb_ is used solely in
reference to pleasures, whereas _dhawq_ is applied to pleasure and pain
alike. One says _dhuqtu ´l-ḥaláwat_, “I tasted sweetness,” and _dhuqtu
´l-balá_, “I tasted affliction;” but of _shurb_ they say, _sharibtu
bi-ka´si ´l-waṣl_, “I drank the cup of union,” and _sharibtu bi-ka´si
´l-wudd_, “I drank the cup of love,” and so forth.[180]
Footnote 180:
This distinction between _shurb_ and _dhawq_ is illustrated by
citations from the Koran, viz., lii, 19; xliv, 49; and liv, 48.