Sign in with Facebook
Sufism and Taoism Quotes
Sufism and Taoism: A Comparative Study of Key Philosophical Concepts
by
Toshihiko Izutsu162 ratings, 4.43 average rating, 25 reviews
Sufism and Taoism Quotes
Showing 1-17 of 17
“Dream and Reality
so called 'reality', the sensible world which surrounds us and which we are accustomed to regard as 'reality', is, for Ibn 'Arabi, but a dream. we perceive by the senses a large number of things, distinguish them one from another, put them in order by our reason, and thus end up by establishing something solid around us. we call that construct 'reality' and do not doubt that it is real.
According to Ibn 'Arabi, however, that kind of 'reality' is not reality in the true sense of the word. in other terms, such a thing is not Being (wujud) as it really is. living as we do in this phenomenal world, Being in its metaphysical reality is no less imperceptible to us than phenomenal things are in their phenomenal reality to a man who is asleep and dreaming of them”
― Sufism and Taoism: A Comparative Study of Key Philosophical Concepts
so called 'reality', the sensible world which surrounds us and which we are accustomed to regard as 'reality', is, for Ibn 'Arabi, but a dream. we perceive by the senses a large number of things, distinguish them one from another, put them in order by our reason, and thus end up by establishing something solid around us. we call that construct 'reality' and do not doubt that it is real.
According to Ibn 'Arabi, however, that kind of 'reality' is not reality in the true sense of the word. in other terms, such a thing is not Being (wujud) as it really is. living as we do in this phenomenal world, Being in its metaphysical reality is no less imperceptible to us than phenomenal things are in their phenomenal reality to a man who is asleep and dreaming of them”
― Sufism and Taoism: A Comparative Study of Key Philosophical Concepts
“However this may be, the preceding explanation has at least made it clear that the Way has two opposite aspects, one positive and the other negative. The negative side is comparable with the metaphysical Darkness of Ibn Arabi. In the world-view of the latter too, the Absolute (haqq) in itself, i.e., in its absoluteness, is absolutely invisible, inaudible and ungraspable as any 'form' whatsoever. it is an absolute Transcendent, and as such it is 'Nothing' in relation to human cognition. But, as we remember, the Absolute in the metaphysical intuition of the Arab sage is 'Nothing', not because it is 'nothing' in the purely negative sense, but rather because it is too fully existent-rather, it is Existence itself. Likewise, it is Darkness not because it is deprived of light, but rather because it is too full of light, too luminous-rather, it is the Light itself.
Exactly the same holds true of the Way as Lao-tzu intuits it. The Way is not dark, but it seems dark because it is too luminous and bright. He says:
A 'way' which is (too) bright seems dark.
The Way in itself, that is, from the point of view of the Way itself, is bright. But since 'it is too profound to be known by man' it is, from the point of view of man, dark. The Way is 'Nothing' in this sense.
This negative aspect, however, does not exhaust the reality of the Absolute. If it did, there would be no world, no creatures. In the thought of Ibn Arabi, the Absolute by its own unfathomable Will comes down from the stage of abysmal Darkness or 'nothingness' to that of self-manifestation. The Absolute, although it is in itself a Mystery having nothing to do with any other thing, and a completely self-sufficient Reality-has another, positive aspect in which it is turned toward the world. And in this positive aspect, the Absolute contains all things in the form of Names and Attributes. In the same way, the Way of Lao-Tzu too, although it is in itself Something 'nameless', a Darkness which transcends all things, is the 'Named' and the 'Mother of the ten thousand things'. Far from being Non-Being, it is, in this respect, Being in the fullest sense.
The Nameless is the beginning of Heaven and Earth. The Named is the Mother of ten thousand things.
This passage can be translated as follows:
The term 'Non-Being' could be applied to the beginning of Heaven and Earth. The term 'Being' could be applied to the Mother of ten thousand things.
Whichever translation we may choose, the result comes to exactly the same thing. For in the metaphysical system of Lao-Tzu, the 'Nameless' is, as we have already seen, synonymous with 'Non-Being', while the 'Named' is the same as 'Being'.
What is more important to notice is that metaphysically the Nameless or Non-Being represents a higher - or more fundamental - stage than the Named or Being within the structure of the Absolute itself. Just as in Ibn 'Arabi' even the highest 'self-manifestation' (tajalli) is a stage lower than the absolute Essence (dhat) of the Absolute, so in Lao-Tzu Being represents a secondary metaphysical stage with regard to the absoluteness of the Absolute.
The ten thousand things under Heaven are born out of Being (yu), and Being is born out of Non-Being (wu).”
― Sufism and Taoism: A Comparative Study of Key Philosophical Concepts
Exactly the same holds true of the Way as Lao-tzu intuits it. The Way is not dark, but it seems dark because it is too luminous and bright. He says:
A 'way' which is (too) bright seems dark.
The Way in itself, that is, from the point of view of the Way itself, is bright. But since 'it is too profound to be known by man' it is, from the point of view of man, dark. The Way is 'Nothing' in this sense.
This negative aspect, however, does not exhaust the reality of the Absolute. If it did, there would be no world, no creatures. In the thought of Ibn Arabi, the Absolute by its own unfathomable Will comes down from the stage of abysmal Darkness or 'nothingness' to that of self-manifestation. The Absolute, although it is in itself a Mystery having nothing to do with any other thing, and a completely self-sufficient Reality-has another, positive aspect in which it is turned toward the world. And in this positive aspect, the Absolute contains all things in the form of Names and Attributes. In the same way, the Way of Lao-Tzu too, although it is in itself Something 'nameless', a Darkness which transcends all things, is the 'Named' and the 'Mother of the ten thousand things'. Far from being Non-Being, it is, in this respect, Being in the fullest sense.
The Nameless is the beginning of Heaven and Earth. The Named is the Mother of ten thousand things.
This passage can be translated as follows:
The term 'Non-Being' could be applied to the beginning of Heaven and Earth. The term 'Being' could be applied to the Mother of ten thousand things.
Whichever translation we may choose, the result comes to exactly the same thing. For in the metaphysical system of Lao-Tzu, the 'Nameless' is, as we have already seen, synonymous with 'Non-Being', while the 'Named' is the same as 'Being'.
What is more important to notice is that metaphysically the Nameless or Non-Being represents a higher - or more fundamental - stage than the Named or Being within the structure of the Absolute itself. Just as in Ibn 'Arabi' even the highest 'self-manifestation' (tajalli) is a stage lower than the absolute Essence (dhat) of the Absolute, so in Lao-Tzu Being represents a secondary metaphysical stage with regard to the absoluteness of the Absolute.
The ten thousand things under Heaven are born out of Being (yu), and Being is born out of Non-Being (wu).”
― Sufism and Taoism: A Comparative Study of Key Philosophical Concepts
“The 'knower' is a man who completely identifies himself with God in very possible respect and sees God with God's own eyes from the very viewpoint of God. Since he sees God with God's eyes, all the self-manifestations of God are within his sight. He actually witnesses the whole world of Being as it pulsates with Divine Life.
As to the 'non-knower', though he sees the Absolute in the Absolute and from the viewpoint of the Absolute, the eye with which he sees is his own. So the reality cannot but be deformed his sight.
The 'ignorant' is by no means in a position to see the Absolute as it really is. His mind is naturally restricted in an extreme degree. Each 'ignorant' adores and worships God only in a form peculiar to a particular religion which he happens to hold, and denies all other forms of worshipping God.”
― Sufism and Taoism: A Comparative Study of Key Philosophical Concepts
As to the 'non-knower', though he sees the Absolute in the Absolute and from the viewpoint of the Absolute, the eye with which he sees is his own. So the reality cannot but be deformed his sight.
The 'ignorant' is by no means in a position to see the Absolute as it really is. His mind is naturally restricted in an extreme degree. Each 'ignorant' adores and worships God only in a form peculiar to a particular religion which he happens to hold, and denies all other forms of worshipping God.”
― Sufism and Taoism: A Comparative Study of Key Philosophical Concepts
“All men are naturally endowed with the same ontological 'comprehensiveness' but not all men are equally conscious of the 'comprehensiveness' in themselves. They are variously conscious of it, ranging from the highest degree of lucidity which comes very close to that of the Divine Consciousness of the Names and Attributes, down to the lowest which is practically the same as complete opaqueness. And only at the highest degree of lucidity can the human mind play the role of a 'polished mirror'. Only at the highest degree of lucidity can Man be the Perfect Man. This is the gist of the whole problem.”
― Sufism and Taoism: A Comparative Study of Key Philosophical Concepts
― Sufism and Taoism: A Comparative Study of Key Philosophical Concepts
“These three, the minerals, plants, and animals, having no Reason, know God by a natural 'unveiling' or immediate evidential knowledge. Man, on the contrary, possesses Reason, and the Reason develops his ego to a full extent, and he becomes veiled by his own ego.
'Thus from the viewpoint of the ideal state of 'servant-ness', Man is situated on the lowest level on the scale of Being. In order to climb to scale upward, he must first of all dispel from himself Reason - which is, paradoxically, exactly the thing that makes him a Man - and bring to naught al the properties that derive from Reason. Only when he succeeds in doing so, does he ascend to the rank of animals. He must then go on to ascent to the rank of plants, and thence finally to the rank of minerals. Then only does he find himself in the highest position on the whole scale of Being. There will no longer remain in him even a shadow of Reason, and the Light of the Absolute will illumine him undimmed, unhindered, in its original splendor.'
These considerations make us aware of the fact that Man as an Idea is per se 'perfect' and occupies the highest position, but that in his actual situation he is far from being a perfect realization of his own ideal. We can maintain that Man is the highest being in the world only when we take the viewpoint of a philosophical anthropology standing on the supposition that the ideal of Man is perfectly realized in the actual Man. The actual Man, however, is a being in full possession of Reason, a being dependent upon his Reason and brandishing it everywhere in his understanding of everything. He who brandishes his Reason is not capable of penetrating the mystery of Being.
But while making this observation, we realize that we are already far removed from the sphere in which we began our discussion of Man. We started from the basic assumption that Man can be considered on two entirely different levels: cosmic and individual. And the purpose of the present chapter has been to elucidate the concept of Man on the cosmic level, as Microcosm. And on this level, Man is certainly the highest of all beings. However, in the last section of this chapter, we have been moving down to the concept of Man on the individual level. We have learnt that on this latter level, Man is, in a certain sense, even lower than animals, plants and minerals. On this level, not all men, but only a small number of special men are worthy to be called 'perfect men'. They are 'perfect' because, having already died to their own ego through the mystical experience of self-annihilation and subsistence, they are no longer veiled by Reason.”
― Sufism and Taoism: A Comparative Study of Key Philosophical Concepts
'Thus from the viewpoint of the ideal state of 'servant-ness', Man is situated on the lowest level on the scale of Being. In order to climb to scale upward, he must first of all dispel from himself Reason - which is, paradoxically, exactly the thing that makes him a Man - and bring to naught al the properties that derive from Reason. Only when he succeeds in doing so, does he ascend to the rank of animals. He must then go on to ascent to the rank of plants, and thence finally to the rank of minerals. Then only does he find himself in the highest position on the whole scale of Being. There will no longer remain in him even a shadow of Reason, and the Light of the Absolute will illumine him undimmed, unhindered, in its original splendor.'
These considerations make us aware of the fact that Man as an Idea is per se 'perfect' and occupies the highest position, but that in his actual situation he is far from being a perfect realization of his own ideal. We can maintain that Man is the highest being in the world only when we take the viewpoint of a philosophical anthropology standing on the supposition that the ideal of Man is perfectly realized in the actual Man. The actual Man, however, is a being in full possession of Reason, a being dependent upon his Reason and brandishing it everywhere in his understanding of everything. He who brandishes his Reason is not capable of penetrating the mystery of Being.
But while making this observation, we realize that we are already far removed from the sphere in which we began our discussion of Man. We started from the basic assumption that Man can be considered on two entirely different levels: cosmic and individual. And the purpose of the present chapter has been to elucidate the concept of Man on the cosmic level, as Microcosm. And on this level, Man is certainly the highest of all beings. However, in the last section of this chapter, we have been moving down to the concept of Man on the individual level. We have learnt that on this latter level, Man is, in a certain sense, even lower than animals, plants and minerals. On this level, not all men, but only a small number of special men are worthy to be called 'perfect men'. They are 'perfect' because, having already died to their own ego through the mystical experience of self-annihilation and subsistence, they are no longer veiled by Reason.”
― Sufism and Taoism: A Comparative Study of Key Philosophical Concepts
“The relative existence is - to use a favorite metaphor of Ibn Arabi - the Absolute Existence as reflected in the mirror of relative determinations.”
― Sufism and Taoism: A Comparative Study of Key Philosophical Concepts
― Sufism and Taoism: A Comparative Study of Key Philosophical Concepts
“The annihilation/re-creation is done so quickly that man does not notice any discontinuum between the two units of time in his sense perception and imagines that everything continues to be as it has been.”
― Sufism and Taoism: A Comparative Study of Key Philosophical Concepts
― Sufism and Taoism: A Comparative Study of Key Philosophical Concepts
“Thus in Ibn Arabi's thought, everything in the world (and therefore the world itself) is constantly changing, but underlying this universal flux of changing things there is Something eternally unchanging. Using scholastic terminology he calls this unchanging Something the 'Substance', the absolute substratum of all changes. In this particular perspective, all things - not only the 'accidents' so called but the 'substances' so called - are represented as 'accidents' appearing and disappearing at every moment.”
― Sufism and Taoism: A Comparative Study of Key Philosophical Concepts
― Sufism and Taoism: A Comparative Study of Key Philosophical Concepts
“First, he criticizes the sophists of the Hisbanite school. The Hisbanites maintain that nothing remains existent for two units of time, that everything in the world, whether it be substance or accident, is changing from moment to moment. From this they conclude that there is no Reality in the objective sense. Reality or Truth exists only subjectively, for it can be nothing other than the constant flux of things as you perceive it in a fixed form at this present moment.
Though the Hisbanites are right in maintaining that the world as a whole and in its entirety is in perpetual transformation, they are mistaken in that they fail to see that the real oneness of the Substance which underlies all these (changing) forms. (They thereby overlook the fact that) the Substance could not exist (in the external world) if it were not for them (i.e. these changing forms) nor would the forms be conceivable if it were not for the Substance. If the Hisbanites could see this point too (in addition to the first point), their theory would be perfect with regard to this problem.
Thus, for Ibn Arabi, the merit and demerit of the Hisbanite thesis are quite clear. They have hit upon a part of the truth in that they have seen the constant change of the world. But they overlook the most important part of the matter in that they do not know the true nature of the Reality which is the very substrate in which all these changes are happening, and consider it merely a subjective construct of each individual mind.
Concerning the Ash'arites, Ibn Arabi says:
As for the Ash'arites, they fail to see that the world in its entirety (including even the so-called 'substances') is a sum of 'accidents', and that, consequently, the whole world is changing from moment to moment since no 'accident' (as they themselves hold) remains for two units of time.
And al-Qashani:
The Ash'arites do not know the reality of the world; namely, that the world is nothing other than the whole of all these 'forms' which they call 'accidents'. Thus they only assert the existence of substances (i.e., atoms) which are in truth nothin, having no existence (in the real sense of the word). And they are not aware of the one Entity ('ayn) which manifests itself in these forms ('accidents' as they call them); nor do they know that this one Entity is the He-ness of the Absolute. This is why they assert (only) the (perpetual) change of the accidents.
According to the basic thesis of the Ash'arite ontology, the world is reduced to an infinite number of 'indivisible parts', i.e., atoms. These atoms are, in themselves, unknowable. They are knowable only in terms of the 'accidents' that occur to them, one accident appearing in a locus at one moment and disappearing in the next to be replaced by another.
The point Ibn Arabi makes against this thesis is that these 'accidents' that go on being born and annihilated in infinitely variegated forms are nothing but so many self-manifestations of the Absolute. And thus behind the kaleidoscopic scene of the perpetual changes and transformations there is always a Reality which is eternally 'one'. And it is this one Reality itself that goes on manifesting itself perpetually in ever new forms. The Ash'arites who overlook the existence of this one Reality underlies all 'accidents' are, according to Ibn Arabi, driven into the self-contradictory thesis that a collection of a number of transitory 'accidents' that appear and disappear and never remain for two moments constitute 'things' that subsist by themselves and continue to exist for a long time.”
― Sufism and Taoism: A Comparative Study of Key Philosophical Concepts
Though the Hisbanites are right in maintaining that the world as a whole and in its entirety is in perpetual transformation, they are mistaken in that they fail to see that the real oneness of the Substance which underlies all these (changing) forms. (They thereby overlook the fact that) the Substance could not exist (in the external world) if it were not for them (i.e. these changing forms) nor would the forms be conceivable if it were not for the Substance. If the Hisbanites could see this point too (in addition to the first point), their theory would be perfect with regard to this problem.
Thus, for Ibn Arabi, the merit and demerit of the Hisbanite thesis are quite clear. They have hit upon a part of the truth in that they have seen the constant change of the world. But they overlook the most important part of the matter in that they do not know the true nature of the Reality which is the very substrate in which all these changes are happening, and consider it merely a subjective construct of each individual mind.
Concerning the Ash'arites, Ibn Arabi says:
As for the Ash'arites, they fail to see that the world in its entirety (including even the so-called 'substances') is a sum of 'accidents', and that, consequently, the whole world is changing from moment to moment since no 'accident' (as they themselves hold) remains for two units of time.
And al-Qashani:
The Ash'arites do not know the reality of the world; namely, that the world is nothing other than the whole of all these 'forms' which they call 'accidents'. Thus they only assert the existence of substances (i.e., atoms) which are in truth nothin, having no existence (in the real sense of the word). And they are not aware of the one Entity ('ayn) which manifests itself in these forms ('accidents' as they call them); nor do they know that this one Entity is the He-ness of the Absolute. This is why they assert (only) the (perpetual) change of the accidents.
According to the basic thesis of the Ash'arite ontology, the world is reduced to an infinite number of 'indivisible parts', i.e., atoms. These atoms are, in themselves, unknowable. They are knowable only in terms of the 'accidents' that occur to them, one accident appearing in a locus at one moment and disappearing in the next to be replaced by another.
The point Ibn Arabi makes against this thesis is that these 'accidents' that go on being born and annihilated in infinitely variegated forms are nothing but so many self-manifestations of the Absolute. And thus behind the kaleidoscopic scene of the perpetual changes and transformations there is always a Reality which is eternally 'one'. And it is this one Reality itself that goes on manifesting itself perpetually in ever new forms. The Ash'arites who overlook the existence of this one Reality underlies all 'accidents' are, according to Ibn Arabi, driven into the self-contradictory thesis that a collection of a number of transitory 'accidents' that appear and disappear and never remain for two moments constitute 'things' that subsist by themselves and continue to exist for a long time.”
― Sufism and Taoism: A Comparative Study of Key Philosophical Concepts
“From the point of view of Ibn Arabi, the atomism of the Ash'arites, though it is not a perfect description of the real structure of Being, does grasp at least an important part of the reality. Mentioning together with the Ash'arites a group of sophists knows as Hisbaniyyah or Husbaniyyah, he begins to criticize them in the following manner:
The Ash'arites have hit upon the truth concerning some of the existents, namely, accidents, while the Hisbanites have chanced to find the truth concerning the whole of the world. The Philosophers consider these people simply ignorant. But (they are not ignorant; the truth is rather that) they both (i.e. the Ash'arites and the Hisbanites) are mistaken.”
― Sufism and Taoism: A Comparative Study of Key Philosophical Concepts
The Ash'arites have hit upon the truth concerning some of the existents, namely, accidents, while the Hisbanites have chanced to find the truth concerning the whole of the world. The Philosophers consider these people simply ignorant. But (they are not ignorant; the truth is rather that) they both (i.e. the Ash'arites and the Hisbanites) are mistaken.”
― Sufism and Taoism: A Comparative Study of Key Philosophical Concepts
“The most salient feature of Ash'arite atomism is the thesis of the perpetual renewal (tajdid) of accidents. According to this theory, of all the accidents of the things there is not even one that continues to exist for two units of time. Every accident comes into being at this moment and is annihilated at the very next moment to be replaced by another accident which is 'similar' to its being created anew in the same locus. This is evidently the thesis of 'new creation'.
Now if we examine Ibn Arabi's thought in relation to this Ash'arite thesis, we find a striking similarity between them. Everything is, for Ibn Arabi, a phenomenal form of the Absolute, having no basis for independent subsistence (qiwam) in itself. All are, in short, 'accidents' which appear and disappear in the one eternal-everlasting Substance (jawhar). Otherwise expressed, the existence itself of the Absolute comes into appearance at every moment in milliards of new clothes. With every breath of God, a new world is created.”
― Sufism and Taoism: A Comparative Study of Key Philosophical Concepts
Now if we examine Ibn Arabi's thought in relation to this Ash'arite thesis, we find a striking similarity between them. Everything is, for Ibn Arabi, a phenomenal form of the Absolute, having no basis for independent subsistence (qiwam) in itself. All are, in short, 'accidents' which appear and disappear in the one eternal-everlasting Substance (jawhar). Otherwise expressed, the existence itself of the Absolute comes into appearance at every moment in milliards of new clothes. With every breath of God, a new world is created.”
― Sufism and Taoism: A Comparative Study of Key Philosophical Concepts
“If a man happens to obtain the true knowledge of qadar, the knowledge surely brings him a perfect peace of mind and an intolerable pain at the same time. The unusual peace of mind arises from the consciousness that everything in the world occurs as it has been determined from eternity. And whatever may happen to himself or others, he will be perfectly content with it. Instead of struggling in vain for obtaining what is not in his capacity, he will be happy with anything that is given him. He must be tormented, on the other hand, by an intense pain at the sight of all the so-called 'injustices', 'evils', and 'sufferings' that reign rampant around him, being keenly conscious that it is not in his 'preparedness' to remove them from the world.”
― Sufism and Taoism: A Comparative Study of Key Philosophical Concepts
― Sufism and Taoism: A Comparative Study of Key Philosophical Concepts
“In a passage of the Fusus, in connection with the problems of the absolute inalterability of the cause-caused relationship in this world, Ibn Arabi discusses the 'eternity'-'temporality' of the archetypes in the following way.
'There is absolutely no way of making the causes effectless because they are what is required by the permanent archetypes. And nothing is actualized except in the form established for it in the archetypal state. For 'there is no altering for the words of God' (X, 64). And the 'words of God' are nothing other than the archetypes of the things in existence. Thus 'eternity' is ascribed to the archetypes in regard to their permanent subsistence, and 'temporality' is ascribed to it in regard to their actual existence and appearance.'
These words clarify the intermediary state peculiar to the archetypes between 'eternity' and 'temporality'.”
― Sufism and Taoism: A Comparative Study of Key Philosophical Concepts
'There is absolutely no way of making the causes effectless because they are what is required by the permanent archetypes. And nothing is actualized except in the form established for it in the archetypal state. For 'there is no altering for the words of God' (X, 64). And the 'words of God' are nothing other than the archetypes of the things in existence. Thus 'eternity' is ascribed to the archetypes in regard to their permanent subsistence, and 'temporality' is ascribed to it in regard to their actual existence and appearance.'
These words clarify the intermediary state peculiar to the archetypes between 'eternity' and 'temporality'.”
― Sufism and Taoism: A Comparative Study of Key Philosophical Concepts
“Generally speaking, and particularly in cases of this kind, the true nature of anything intermediary is impossible to describe adequately by language. Thus one is forced to resort, as Ibn Arabi actually does, to a clumsy expression, like 'it is neither eternal nor temporal, but it is, on the other hand, both eternal and temporal'. If from the whole of this complex expression we pick up only the phrase, '(it is) eternal' and draw from it the conclusion that Ibn Arabi maintained the doctrine of the eternity of the world, we would be doing him gross injustice.”
― Sufism and Taoism: A Comparative Study of Key Philosophical Concepts
― Sufism and Taoism: A Comparative Study of Key Philosophical Concepts
“Thus we see that it is not strictly exact to regard the archetypes as non-existent. More exact it is to say they are neither existent nor non-existent. And, in fact, Ibn Arabi himself explicitly says so in a short, but exceedingly important article to which incidental reference was made in an earlier place. It is to be noted that in this passage he takes up a more philosophical position than in his Fusus in dealing with the problem of the archetypes.
'The third thing is neither qualified by existence nor by non-existence, neither by temporality nor by eternity (a parte ante). But it has always been with the Eternal from eternity....It is neither existent nor non-existent....But it is the root (i.e., the ontological ground) of the world....For from this third thing has the world come into being. Thus it is the very essential reality of all the realities of the world. It is a universal and intelligible reality subsisting in the Mind. It appears as eternal in the Eternal and as temporal in the temporal. So, if you say that this thing is the world, you are right. And if you say that it is the Absolute, the Eternal, you are equally right. But you are no less right if you say that it is neither the world nor the Absolute, but something different from both. All these statements are true of this thing.
Thus it is the most general Universal comprising both temporality (huduth) and eternity (qidam). It multiplies itself with the multiplicity of the existent things. And yet it is not divided by the division of the existent things; it is divided by the division of the intelligibles. In short, it is neither existent nor non-existent. It is not the world, and yet it is the world. It is 'other', and yet it is not 'other'.”
― Sufism and Taoism: A Comparative Study of Key Philosophical Concepts
'The third thing is neither qualified by existence nor by non-existence, neither by temporality nor by eternity (a parte ante). But it has always been with the Eternal from eternity....It is neither existent nor non-existent....But it is the root (i.e., the ontological ground) of the world....For from this third thing has the world come into being. Thus it is the very essential reality of all the realities of the world. It is a universal and intelligible reality subsisting in the Mind. It appears as eternal in the Eternal and as temporal in the temporal. So, if you say that this thing is the world, you are right. And if you say that it is the Absolute, the Eternal, you are equally right. But you are no less right if you say that it is neither the world nor the Absolute, but something different from both. All these statements are true of this thing.
Thus it is the most general Universal comprising both temporality (huduth) and eternity (qidam). It multiplies itself with the multiplicity of the existent things. And yet it is not divided by the division of the existent things; it is divided by the division of the intelligibles. In short, it is neither existent nor non-existent. It is not the world, and yet it is the world. It is 'other', and yet it is not 'other'.”
― Sufism and Taoism: A Comparative Study of Key Philosophical Concepts
“For, as Al-Qashani says, 'The fundamental ground of the possible things is non-existence. And existence is the Form of God. So if He did not appear in His Form, which is existence qua existence, the whole world would remain in pure non-existence'.”
― Sufism and Taoism: A Comparative Study of Key Philosophical Concepts
― Sufism and Taoism: A Comparative Study of Key Philosophical Concepts
“Idolatry is right in so far as the worshipper is aware that the object of his worship is a manifested form of God and that, therefore, by worshipping the idol he is worshipping God. Once, however, he forgets this fundamental fact, he is liable to be deceived by his own imagination and ascribe real divinity to the idol (a piece of wood, or a stone, for example) and begin to worship it as a god existing independently of, and side by side with, God. If he reaches this point, his attitude is a pure tashbih which completely excludes tanzih.”
― Sufism and Taoism: A Comparative Study of Key Philosophical Concepts
― Sufism and Taoism: A Comparative Study of Key Philosophical Concepts
