 |
| Concept of Wahdat Ul Wajud Developed by Ibne Arabi |
To understand the Ibn-e-Arabi's doctrine of the Unity of Existence (Wahdat-ul-Wujud) first we should study the meaning and connotation of the Existence (wujud) itself The etymology of existence suggests two different meanings. First, it means the concept or the idea of 'Being' existent. Secondly it means that it has an existence. Absolute existence (wujud-e-mutlaq) or universal existence (wujud-al kulli) is the reality to which all existence ows its existence. Ibn-e-Arabi, as Affifi points out, uses the term existence in both the senses.Absolute existence has been used by Ibn-e-Arabi to communicate at least four senses, which are mentioned below:
- Absolute in the sense that it is limited to no form and common to all forms (Immanence).
- Absolute in the sense of not being in any form but transcending all forms (transcendence).
- Absolute in the sense of not being the cause of anything, self subsisting.
- Absolute in the sense of reality of realities (Supreme).
Let us now understand the different meanings to which extract leads us.
- It may mean the unity of all individual beings in the past, present and future in one being whether it be the universal substance, primary matter of God.
- It may mean that the absolute being manifests itself in all form and discourse.
- It may mean as the source of all existence that has a being.
- It may mean the universal and the beings of any other existence to a particular mode or manifestation.
Ibn-e-Arabi envisages that the absolute reality is the source of all existence.
Existence as concept is Identical with the existence in the external world. From
it follows that all existence owes its existence to one which is an absolute
reality. We know only the limited existence which Ibn-e-Arabi regards cannot
origin in themselves and so must have a source and cause of all existence.
There has been a controversy regarding the essence and existence (zat and
wujud). Some believe them to be Identical and others separable Ibn-e-Arabi
agrees with the former. He says the absolute existence whose existence and
essence are Identical or whose existence is necessary is the source of all being
in the sense of a reality. This essence is all realized or realizable with the
properties and accidents. Upon the manifestations of existence and essence, the
mind exerts the notion of abstract existence.
With it we come to the problem of the separation of existence in thought. The
absolute existence is separable from the absolute existent in thought. The
quality of a thing separated in the mind is mere conception. The existence
cannot be conceived in any thing other than mahiyat' of a thing. According to Affifi, Ibn-e-Arabi, when separate the existence and concept of a thing commit
a logical contradiction by making an existential proposition a predication
proposition. In this way Ibn-e-Arabi seeks to prove that the absolute existence is
the source of all that exists.* With this we come to the problem of being and not
being. According to Ibn-e-Arabi, all that has a being must exist in one form or
the other, to this he calls 'awalim' or 'maratib' (Planes or stages). According
to him there are four types of being:
- Being in the external world.
- Intelligible being.
- Being of a thing in spoken word and.
- Being of a thing in script.
All that exist must manifest itself in one or the other of these stages. Existing
in none of them is not being. If a thing exists in one of these planes and does
not exist in the other is a being in the plane in which it exists and is not a being
in the plane in which it does not exist. Here it seems, as if Ibn-e-Arabi were to
prove that a thing may exists conceptually and may not exist as a concrete
object.
Regarding Allah Ibn-e-Arabi thinks that He has the knowledge of things prior to
their existence in the external world. Thus things exist in two planes:
(1) Intelligible being.
(2) Concrete being (being of a thing in the external world.
To us they may exist in the concrete form in the external world. The intelligible
being of them is in God. On it he bases his concept of universe and man. He
regards the universe to the eternal and temporal simultaneously. It is eternal
because, it is hi the knowledge of God and temporal because it has a concrete
being, that is, it exists in the external world.
Relative 'being' may either be actual external world or potential. To this, he
sometimes calls possible being. By not being he means, a thing exiting in
neither of the planes. A thing existing in one and not existing in the other plane,
for existence in the external world is not being. Pure non- being is not possible,
it can only be imagined. We can conceive its opposite, logical contradiction or
a reason of its non-existence.
There are three types of being:
(1) Necessary being
(2) Contingent being
(3) Impossible being
Necessary being means the being whose existence is itself necessitated or
which exists itself. It is Allah alone. A contingent being is one whose existence
is not essential. Its being and not being are equally possible. An impossible
being is one whose non existence is derived from some reason.'
In the doctrine of Ibn-e-Arabi, there is no place for possible or contingent being
except that he calls Ayan-e-thabita as possible. In reality they exist as
potentialities which must necessarily be actualized. The categories of
contingent being are denied because an existence must either be necessary or
be made necessary (wajib-ul-wujud-e-tul-ghayr). In this way Ibn-e-Arabi comes
to conclude that there are two types of beings, mainly the necessary being and
the impossible being.
Ibn-e-Arabi considers that there is only one reality but it is viewed from two
angels. In the sense of reality we call it Khalq, manifesting its essence. Both are
Identical. There is a unity in diversity. Haq' and 'Khalq' are two subjective
aspects of one. The diversity is empirical. When we regard him through him,
He is all essence. When we regard Him through ourselves, He is in things or
He is in His manifestation.
The existing difference between one and many is actually no difference
multiplicity is due to different points of view not to an actual dimension in one
essence (Ayn). In the philosophy of Ibn-e-Arabi, onto logically speaking, there
is a reality' transcending the phenomenal world and a multiplicity of
subjectivity finding their explanation in the grounds of essential unity.
Ibn-e-Arabi explains this duality on logical grounds. The objects in the
phenomenal world are contingent beings, but it is necessary that they should be
self subsisting and thereby necessary beings. Their eternity is affirmed on the same ground. Logically speaking the contingent beings must have their
existence in a necessary being in the form of potentiality or they could not have
come in the existence.
Let us recall as we have said before, that Ibn-i Arab! reduces all into one
reality, one stands as a continuance to its occurants or a substance to its
accidents. The one is logically different from them but actually one with them.
It is due to our finite minds that we make a distinction between one and many
and consider that there is plurality of beings. According to Ibn-e-Arabi, a Sufi
can transcend into a super mental state - intuition and see the underlying reality
of many. We multiply the one due to ahkam (prediction). The fact regarding
the difference of colour shape, and spatio-temporal relation are actually
nothing.
All that has been written till know beings us to some paradoxes like 'He is I and 'I am not He'. Haq is khalq and Khalq is not Haq. These paradoxes are
seeming paradoxes. In reality there is nothing like that. According to Ibn-e-Arabi, there is a complete reciprocity and a mutual dependence between one
and many. None of them has a without the other.
Ibn-e-Arabl's concept of Tauhid
In his Wujudi or Tawhidi doctrine, we find a unity of Hallaj's doctrine of
'Lahut and 'Nasut Hallaj's doctrine of form and essence seems to have paved
the way for Ibn-e-Arabi's wujudi doctrine, but there is a fundamental difference between the two, for Hallaj's Lahut and Nasut (spiritual and material) are of
the different nature, but for Ibn-i Arabi, they are the two aspects of the one, in
the form and the essence the are one; different names for the one.'Like Hallaj, Ibn-e-Arabi never admits the theory of Hulul. He neither separates
man from reality nor believes in the fusion of reality in man. Repudiating
Hallaj, Ibn-e-Arabi says, "the two are always there and there is no sense of
saying that one becomes the other"
Relation between the real and the phenomenal
Ibn-e-Arabi often explains the relation between the real and the
phenomenal world metaphorically. Since these metaphors are ambiguous,
much care should be taken in interpreting them, else He may be understood
contrary to what he is.
First, he explains the relation between the real and the phenomenal with the
help of the metaphor of the mirror and the Image. The one as an object sees its
image in many mirrors appearing different in each of them. The world is a
screen on which the shadow falls, whatever is seen on the screen is nothing but
real. Secondly, he offers the metaphor of the permeation. The many permeates
the one in the way as the qualities and colour permeate the substance, the one
permeates the many as the food permeates the body. God is, as Ibn-e-Arabi
conceives, our spiritual food for He is our essence and through us He is
realized. Thirdly, he offers the metaphor of 'Vessel'. The many springs from the one and shall return to it. The one is like a vessel to the many in which its
essence subsists. Fourthly, he explains the relation with the metaphor of
number like mathematical one. The one is a diacritical point. The relation
between the one and the many is like the relation between one and other
infinite numbers coming from it. Fifthly, we come to the analogy of the body
and its part. The body is an organic whole. Its parts though possessing an entity
of their own, have none if departed from the body. The phenomenal world is
like the parts having no entity without the organic whole, the one the parts are
important for without them the body cannot be conceived. The phenomenal
world thereby even after being the parts is important and necessary for the
realization of the one. In spite of these metaphors the unity remains
unexplained. Finally, Ibn-e-Arabi conceives that the super mental state or
intuition alone is able to perceive the unity.'Ibn-e-Arabi shoxild not be mistaken. He never regards the phenomenal world to
be real in the sense the One is - He, of course, calls it Haqq, the reality but
never considers it to be, Al-Haqq, the real. According to him, the many has
two aspects namely (i) the aspect of difference and (ii) essentially oneness with
one another, actually, this is one aspect of unity. The former aspect is summed
up in what Ibn-e-Arabi calls contingency (Imkan), Slavery (Ubudiyyah) and
temporal ness (Huduth). The latter is what he calls necessity (wujub) lordship
(rububiyyah) and eternity (qidam) and so on, and now we know what sense the slave in the lord and the apparent is the real and in what sense we should
interpret Ibn-e-Arabi's paradoxes.
It has been clearly explained that the duality of Haq and Khalq, the real and the material, is not actually any duality in Ibn-e-Arabi. This duality may be comprehended as Identical to what we call differentiating the attributes. As regard to this, Ibn-e-Arabi uses two Arabic terms 'tanzih' and 'tashbih'. For him, God hears and sees not because He has eyes or ears, but because He is immanent and hears and sees in the beings capable of these attributes. In this sense. He is immanent. He is transcendent because His essence lays above all beings and in spite of being everywhere and in everything He is on par. Thus His essence can not be individualized and so He is transcendent. In this way he reduces the term Uanzih' and tashbih' to mean absoluteness and limitlessness. Ibn-e-Arabi asserts, it is true that God has hands and feet as the Qur'an describes but When the Qur'an ascribes these attributes to Him, it means that he is hands and feet of all those having hands and feet. The very being of God is beyond all limitations. He is in every thing and yet above all things. On the same contention Ibn-e-Arabi rejects the Christian doctrine of incarnation 'Hulul To him, it is true that God is Christ but he is Christ in the sense in which He is in everything. To make it explicit we may say that He is Christ and He is other created beings either but to say that Christ is God is identical to limit Him to one form which according to Ibn-e-Arabi is Infidelity. Ibn-e-Arabi envisages that complete reality can be understood only when it is viewed by taking the transcendence and immanence both into account. He adds that Islam is the only religion which treats the both of reality at par.
Ibn-e-Arabi whenever says that God is in everything treats it as a logical proposition but always denies the compares of it that everything is 'God'. The two aspects transcendence and Immanence constitute reality. The Haq constitute transcendence and Khalq constitute immanence. Let us see all the possibilities by which transcendence can be comprehended and asserted.
There can be three possibilities. In the first a man asserts God to be transcendent. Now man has his own limitations so Ibn-e-Arabi holds the view that man's assertion of his (his God) transcendence is limited whatever abstract form man may apply, it will remain limited and God's transcendence is beyond all limitations. The other possibility of admitting His transcendence is created by our intellect. According to Ibn-e-Arabi our intellect cannot perceive anything beyond the phenomenal world, for its knowledge in based on it. The intellect conceives the unity (Tawhid) but as Ibn-e-Arabi says it is of 'Muwahid' (Unitarian) and not of God. 'God's' unity in the sense of complete transcendence is not possible to be understood by the Intellect which has its own limitations. Another possibility of its comprehension is correct in the unaided intellect. Ibn-e-Arabi's view of transcendence is an echo of Hallaj's view. A Sufi can understand the complete unity in ecstatic flight otherwise God alone knows the real transcendence. A Sufi understands it with the help of super-mental intuition. This higher form of transcendence is beyond all assertions. The unity of transcendence by Ibn-e-Arabi is called 'tanzih-ul-tawhid. Transcendence in the real sense is different from that understood by intellect. The one comprehended by it is a logical co-relative of immanence.
As regards to the definition of God, Ibn-e-Arabi says that no complete definition of God can be given for the higher form of transcendence comprehended by us is one reached by our intellect, the logical correlative of immanence. It is, therefore, whatever definition of God is given, will be on the basis of the transcendence and immanence comprehended by us and since human knowledge is incomplete, no real and complete definition of God can be put forward.
Thus there are two forms of transcendence, one belonging to the divine essence and the other belonging to Godhood comprehended by intellect as a logical correlative of immanence. The attributes of transcendence are predicable of the later form. These attributes are summed up in absoluteness as contrasted with the limitedness. The transcendence asserted by intellect assumes the following forms. He is transcendent in the sense of being absolute or He is transcendent in the sense of necessary being, self, begotten and self caused as contrasted with contingent being created being or caused being of the phenomenal world. He may he called transcendent in the sense that he is unknowable and incommunicable and beyond all proofs. This second kind of transcendence if taken as the whole explanation of immanence is rejected by Ibn-e-Arabi.
According to him, reality is constituted of both transcendence and immanance.
It has been clearly explained that the duality of Haq and Khalq, the real and the material, is not actually any duality in Ibn-e-Arabi. This duality may be comprehended as Identical to what we call differentiating the attributes. As regard to this, Ibn-e-Arabi uses two Arabic terms 'tanzih' and 'tashbih'. For him, God hears and sees not because He has eyes or ears, but because He is immanent and hears and sees in the beings capable of these attributes. In this sense. He is immanent. He is transcendent because His essence lays above all beings and in spite of being everywhere and in everything He is on par. Thus His essence can not be individualized and so He is transcendent. In this way he reduces the term Uanzih' and tashbih' to mean absoluteness and limitlessness. Ibn-e-Arabi asserts, it is true that God has hands and feet as the Qur'an describes but When the Qur'an ascribes these attributes to Him, it means that he is hands and feet of all those having hands and feet. The very being of God is beyond all limitations. He is in every thing and yet above all things. On the same contention Ibn-e-Arabi rejects the Christian doctrine of incarnation 'Hulul To him, it is true that God is Christ but he is Christ in the sense in which He is in everything. To make it explicit we may say that He is Christ and He is other created beings either but to say that Christ is God is identical to limit Him to one form which according to Ibn-e-Arabi is Infidelity. Ibn-e-Arabi envisages that complete reality can be understood only when it is viewed by taking the transcendence and immanence both into account. He adds that Islam is the only religion which treats the both of reality at par.
Ibn-e-Arabi whenever says that God is in everything treats it as a logical proposition but always denies the compares of it that everything is 'God'. The two aspects transcendence and Immanence constitute reality. The Haq constitute transcendence and Khalq constitute immanence. Let us see all the possibilities by which transcendence can be comprehended and asserted.
There can be three possibilities. In the first a man asserts God to be transcendent. Now man has his own limitations so Ibn-e-Arabi holds the view that man's assertion of his (his God) transcendence is limited whatever abstract form man may apply, it will remain limited and God's transcendence is beyond all limitations. The other possibility of admitting His transcendence is created by our intellect. According to Ibn-e-Arabi our intellect cannot perceive anything beyond the phenomenal world, for its knowledge in based on it. The intellect conceives the unity (Tawhid) but as Ibn-e-Arabi says it is of 'Muwahid' (Unitarian) and not of God. 'God's' unity in the sense of complete transcendence is not possible to be understood by the Intellect which has its own limitations. Another possibility of its comprehension is correct in the unaided intellect. Ibn-e-Arabi's view of transcendence is an echo of Hallaj's view. A Sufi can understand the complete unity in ecstatic flight otherwise God alone knows the real transcendence. A Sufi understands it with the help of super-mental intuition. This higher form of transcendence is beyond all assertions. The unity of transcendence by Ibn-e-Arabi is called 'tanzih-ul-tawhid. Transcendence in the real sense is different from that understood by intellect. The one comprehended by it is a logical co-relative of immanence.
As regards to the definition of God, Ibn-e-Arabi says that no complete definition of God can be given for the higher form of transcendence comprehended by us is one reached by our intellect, the logical correlative of immanence. It is, therefore, whatever definition of God is given, will be on the basis of the transcendence and immanence comprehended by us and since human knowledge is incomplete, no real and complete definition of God can be put forward.
Thus there are two forms of transcendence, one belonging to the divine essence and the other belonging to Godhood comprehended by intellect as a logical correlative of immanence. The attributes of transcendence are predicable of the later form. These attributes are summed up in absoluteness as contrasted with the limitedness. The transcendence asserted by intellect assumes the following forms. He is transcendent in the sense of being absolute or He is transcendent in the sense of necessary being, self, begotten and self caused as contrasted with contingent being created being or caused being of the phenomenal world. He may he called transcendent in the sense that he is unknowable and incommunicable and beyond all proofs. This second kind of transcendence if taken as the whole explanation of immanence is rejected by Ibn-e-Arabi.
According to him, reality is constituted of both transcendence and immanance.
Causality and its place in Ibn-e-Arabi's system
It should be born in mind that Wahdat-ul-Wujud hardly admits any possibility
of causality for the proponents believe that the phenomenal world is the self realization or manifestation of God and reality (Haq) and (Khalq) is one. Ibn-e-Arabi similarly asserts that cause and effect are more terms which, to him, are
nothing but subjective categories. If at all the causality is to be upheld, Ibn-e-Arabi says God is the cause and the phenomenal world is the effect. In this
way, he believes in it, but in the other he refutes it which we shall see later.
To begin with, he makes a distinction between the two ways of causality
(1) causality applied to the universe as a whole which would mean that the
universe is caused by something which is its cause. The question comes, what
is it that has caused it?
(2) The causality applied to the parts of the universe meaning thereby the
causal connection perceived in the parts of the universe Ibn-e-Arabi raises no
objection to it, but this kind of causality is immanent and not transcendent, the
part of the universe on an organic whole stand in a causal relation noticed in
the universe is actually a relation between one divine aspect and the other
belonging to the same, continuance. The 'Lahut' one divine aspect is the cause and the 'Nasuf in the effect. He does not admit the reality of other causes for
doing so, because it will make him a polytheist.
This assertion of Ibn-e-Arabi makes the cause and effect identical. The unaided
intellect is at a loss to understand and explain it. A Sufi by virtue of his
intuition understands the problem in the following manner. Cause and effect
both are the aspects of reality. The cause (so called) is as a being both an
essence and a form. By virtue of its being an essence it is a cause of some other
aspects and by virtue of its being a form it is an effect of some other aspect. In
this way cause and effect are Identical that is a cause is a cause and an effect
simultaneously. The cause factors are determined by effect factors, to say in
other words a cause is an effect of its own effect, not in the sense of being
produced but m the sense of being determined. This doctrine can be
apprehended if we believe in the impossibility of the plurality of causes,
considering a cause to be having the other cause brings us to the question as to
what is the other. If the cause and effect are taken to be one, all is then
considered as the modes of one cause or the modes of one effect. This motion
of causality helps to explain 'becoming'. All changes taking place in the world,
which Ibn-e-Arabi calls creation, are thus explained. The activity and the
passivity of the form and essence run side by side.
At the outset of it, Ibn-e-Arabi asks a question whether between the world and
God there is a causal relation or a conditional relation. If God is a cause (illat)
or a condition (shart) it means universe is taken as a contingent being as contrasted with necessary being. The necessary being is self existent and self
subsistence. God is a condition to the universe, Ibn-e-Arabi refutes. He thinks
that from a condition of a thing it does not follow that it must exist. For
instance to be alive is a condition to acquire knowledge or to as to have legs is
a condition to be able to walk but from the condition of life the knowledge does
not entail or the condition of having legs does not necessarily mean the ability
of walking. This condition of a thing does not necessarily entail the existence
of a thing. Of course, the existence of a thing presumes a condition.
A cause as cause must produce its effect. Thus existence of effect necessarily
entails from the cause. In this way Ibn-e-Arabi considers that between God and
world there is a causal relation. The Shaikh argues that God had the universe in
«
His knowledge and since it was in Him, it must have come into existence. He
does not share this view of creation that the universe was created out of
nothing. He refutes the creation ex nihilio.
Regarding the eternity of the world Ibn-e-Arabi says that it is eternal because it
was never non-existent but apart from it he believes that God is the only eternal
being and the universe being the outward expression of eternal, infinite and
everlasting being is also eternal, infinite and everlasting. Regarding the next
world Ibn-e-Arabi thinks that it is always in making. This world and the next
world are mere names; the things when annihilated are transformed to the next
world to come into existence again. The moment in which one from disappears
is similar to the one in which the other comes into existence. There is no other process of creation apart from it. The time interval, as conceived by others in
the process of creation has no meaning for Ibn-e-Arabi. He only believes in the
logical priority of cause and effect.
Ibn-i Arabi believes that a thing is a renewed existence. He thinks that a thing
is an eternal existent in its 'Subut' and a temporal existence in its 'Zuhoor' To
say that a thing exists is nothing more than to say that some one appeared in the
house today. The appearance of today does not employ that he had no previous
existence. In a passage in 'Fusu-sul-Hikam' Ibn-e-Arabi says that God does not
create anything. Creation is the concrete manifestation of a thing and it belongs
to itself To say that something is an existence means that it has manifested
itself God only wills a thing to reveal itself in concrete manifestation. God
does not will and command which does not necessarily entail from the things
themselves or from the nature or laws of things. Laws of things, accordingly to
Ibn-e-Arabi, are nothing but God. All things in their essence exist in one course,
that is, the divine essence which manifests itself in concrete form. To explain
causality on logical grounds, Ibn-e-Arabi admits the possibility of two triads,
each corresponding to the other. One tried consists of essence, will and word.
It is the trinity of God. The second trinity is constituted of essence, obedience
and learning.
God is the creator or course in this sense only. The world is eternal in the same
sense. He derived the eternity of the world in the sense that co-eternal with God
is only the essence of the world and not the forms. Ibn-e-Arabi does not admit the temporal interval in the process of creation. He only believes in the logical
priority or before and after. Going to step forward he says that the creator and
created are related in the way as yesterday with today. They can not be
conceived to be temporally related for they are themselves time.
Causality of the divine names
Ibn-e-Arabi considers the divine names to be the cause of things. The divine
names are considered by him as the line of force, each of them demands. They
are the attributes of God head. For instance the knower demands something to
be known and the creator something to be created. Each of them corresponds to
an aspect of reality and in a way it is the cause of that aspect. Every aspect (wajah) and every reality (haqiqah) corresponds to some divine name. It may
be made clear that he always does not call the divine names as causes. He some
times calls them conditions. He goes on saying that God was when the world
was not. This statement should be taken to mean that God was when the world
was not and divines names express the potentialities of God. With a view to
reconciling his wujudi doctrine with the Islamic concept of Allah, he indulges
in a metaphysical paradox and asserts at one place that we are attributes of God
and that the divine names have no meaning without the phenomenal world.
And it another place, he says that God existed will all His divine names before
the existence of the phenomenal world.
Essence-Attributes and names
As it has already been mentioned that the divine essence is the universal substance and the divine names are the names of the aspects of the divine essence they are, as Ibn-e-Arabi thinks, the manifestation of divine essence in the external world (Mazhar). The attributes are the manifestation; they are limited or determined to one or the other aspect. The divine names are the manifestations of the divine substance in different degrees (maratib).
Ibn-e-Arabi considers that the attributes of God are neither the same nor other than the same. He considers them to be mere relations, determining the manifestation. The attributes of Ibn-e-Arabi are like the intelligible ideas. Thus he considers attributes to be neither Identical with God nor apart from Him. The divine names are multiplicity, determining the manifestation of the divine essence in one aspect or the other. Each of these qualities as aspect is also identical with God. They even after determining as aspect remain one with the divine essence.
Reality in relation to our Knowledge
Reality in relation to our knowledge has three aspects (1) Reality as we know it, we need not explain it for it stands evident and explained (2) Reality as manifested in the external world which is limited to our senses and intellect and in which the relations are thought of and seen. Though it is seen as multiplicity, yet Ibn-e-Arabi regards it a unity. Every part of the phenomenal world is the whole and thereby a unity in itself. It has the capacity of manifesting itself. The third aspect of reality can be viewed by intuition alone. It can be realized by a Sufi but its logical existence can be inferred. It is certainly God very much different from a fictitious deity. Ibn-e-Arabi admits no such conception of God which deprives Hun of this absoluteness and makes Him a lesser unity. He never admits any reality apart from Him.
According to Ibn-e-Arabi, reality can be conceived through the phenomenal world. A quotation to make it clear is rendered. 'The key to the mystery of "Lordship" is (The Phenomenal). Apart from it the reality as conceived is a logical correlative of the world. So the attributes of the phenomenal world do demand their logical correlatives such as contingency demands necessity,finitude infinity and relativeness absoluteness.
(1) Transcendental attributes are logical correlatives of immanent attributes which have no application and the attributes of God in relation to the universe. The latter have been already explained. Now we have to explain the transcendental attributes and the immanent attributes. We must not predicate of Him the attributes like hearing or seeing. Although he is the essence of all that hears and sees. It is by way of marking out the God - head from the two subjective aspects of reality. Let us enquire into the meaning of this proposition of Ibn-e-Arabi that we ourselves including the phenomenal world are the attributes of God. There is nothing in the phenomenal world which can be attributed to Him. His meaning and spirit are not found in the phenomenal world. The first part of the preposition explains the eminence of God; the second part gives an account of His transcendence. The reality which is not directly perceived, but logically inferred is like a substance perceived by its accidents. It admits no oppositions or contradictions. It has no quality or quantity, yet all qualities and quantities come from it. Like substance it can be perceived in the states (modes) only, which, in this case, is the phenomenal world. This reality is often referred by vague terms as "Pure light", or "Pure good" or blindness 'Al-Ama'
It is a state of complete unity. It is not an object of worship. The object of worship is the Lord not the one. This unity admits no plurality. Though multiplicity belongs to it, yet it is a unity. Multiplicity belongs to blindness (Al-Ama) of which it can never be emancipated. It is the state of the 'one to who belong the burning splendor. The manifestation of multiplicity in the phenomenal world is to vanish; no one will remain except God. The veil of unity can in ever be removed. To quote: "Do not hope. O my friend: the Veil of the unity will ever be removed", limit your hope, therefore, to the attainment of knowledge of the Oneness, the unity of the divine Names."
According to Ibn-e-Arabi reality as explained in absolute Agnosticism and Gnosticism meet in the essential unity. Only God knows what He really is. The divine essence is not known even by a Sufi because he belongs to multiplicity. Ibn-e-Arabi admits no such personal God either within or outside the universe controlling it extremely. This forms the nucleus of Ibn-e-Arabi's Wahdat-al Wujud. God being an object of belief is an object of our knowledge. He has both positive and negative attributes. He is known to us by us. In this sense God becomes only a phrase.
In place of ethical God of Islam Ibn-i Arabi's God is identical with the universe who is a principle controlling the universe. The absolute is reduced into a mere nominal or logical relation. His attributes belongs to his rank (al-martaba, al- daraja). God does not create but createdness belongs to His rank. In fact, the creator and the created are one and the same.
Explanation of ethical and personal names
In order to explain the ethical and personal names of God, he uses two methods. In the first place he reduced the names in the mere logical and psychological relations. In the second place he gives a physiology of terms. Ibn-e-Arabi does not touch those attributes which have wujudi bearing. A common name of God, if it fits in his doctrine of Wahdat-al Wujud, he steals the sight from it. Only those attributes are explained which have no wujudi bearing and interprets them in accordance with his methods mentioned above. The explanation of such attributes follows in Futuhat-e-Makkiya. The presence of God which he calls 'Hadrat' is a state of mystic mind. A mystic realizes His presence in the objects. Here the meaning of 'Hazrat is different from the meaning of five 'Hadra' which are the five states of being. The presence of Godhead (al-hadrat-al illahiya) is the state in which God is revealed as 'Allah'. The attributes of His mercifuhiess is revealed in the mercifulness in the universe. The interpretation belongs to Ibn-i Arabi himself.
Each of the 'Hadara' has two aspects, one transcendental and the other Immanent we shall first consider the aspects of transcendence which is explained with the help of philological method. The philological method even changes the forms of the names. To illustrate it the following examples are given:
1. The name 'Al-momin (peace giver) is interpreted as extinction of the supplication of the soul, and is identified with the mystic intuition.
2. Al-jabbar (all compeller). Jabbar is derived from 'Jabr' which means compulsion but this compulsion, according to Ibn-e-Arabi is internal not external. He interprets it as necessity against contingency All things follow their law of necessity, and so compulsion on the part of God is the necessary manifestation of Him in things.
3. Al-Mutakabbir (The proud), is interpreted to mean that he transcends his contingent attributes
4. Al-ghqffar (the pardoner). He derives it from Ghaffar the veil or cover and interprets it as His veiling in the forms 'Azzahar the external is the greatest form in which he veils.
5. Aadil (Just one) is derived from (al-adl) which he takes to mean to incline from one thing to another. According to him, God has incUned from His essential necessity (hazrat-ul-wujub-e-dhati) to that phenomenal necessity (hadrat-ul-wajib-ul ghayr). Ibn-i Arabi explains the will (Irada) in a similar manner, the state unmanifested is in the state of equilibrium (ittadal) and the manifestation is adl. The divine essence is inclined to manifest itself in the phenomenal world.
6. Al-latif(the subtle, the benevolent and the most pleasant) is understood by him us substance. The explanation that Ibn-e-Arabi prefers for it is almost materialistic God can not be more subtle than he is m the phenomenal world. He is most obvious in the manifestations. No eyes see anything other then He. Ibn-e-Arabi quotes all the passages of Qur'an and Hadith to support his wujudi doctrine.
7. Al-Hafiz (All preserving one) is rendered to interpretation as the preserver of all existence in the sense of being. He submits in all beings to preserve their essence.
8. Al-Muqit (The provider) is interpreted to mean the feeder with all beings.
9. Al-Raqib (The watchful) is interpreted to mean the being watchful as the essence of all things. God is watchful of all things because He is essence of all things.
10. Al-Sami (Hearing one) is often interpreted in relation all knowing (alalim) in the sense of revealing Himself to Himself All hearing Ibn-e-Arabi thinks, on the part of God means responding to the inner call of the things lying in the state of latency. Hallaj and Ibn-e-Arabi both agree to this view with a difference of potentiality of multiplicity, one believing in it and the other disagreeing with it. It is on this basis that Ibn-e-Arabi builds the edifice of Ayan-e-thabita' which shall be considered later.
11. Al-Dahr. (Time), by him it is taken to mean infinity. Time to him is eternity and everlastingness and in between God is extended to infinity.
Similarly he interprets many other names. His interpretation is based on the object he has in his concept. The creative of God of Islam is more creative but remains in the infinite forms. The problem of ethical and personal attributes comes when there is a duality of God and universe that is something other than God, but Ibn-e-Arabi's system admits no such possibility. Any kind of duality or plurality whether it be the duality of God and universe or the plurality of attributes is according to him subjective. But Ibn-e-Arabi himself often makes the subjective as objective inspite of his warning to us. The duality of God and universe which is held by his as subjective often becomes more concrete and real than his system should admit it.
The two aspects of the divine names.
The description of the two aspects of the divine name is another way of explaining the distinction between the real and the phenomenal. One aspect of the divine names belongs to the real unity and other to the external world. Each of the divine names expresses one or the other activity of the infinite activities of the divine essence. The external world being manifestation is nothing but the divine names and it is passive. The former aspect is Al Tahaqquq (the point of view of the real), the later he calls Al-Takhalluq (the point of view of the created). The way with which the manifestation becomes possible is called Al-talluq.
The divine names are active in relation to Ayan-e-thabita. They are nothing but the phenomenal world in latency. It is a hierarchy. The higher one is active in relation to the lower one and the lower is passive in relation to the higher one. It is an important point in the metaphysics of Ibn-e-Arabi that he is categorically convinced that there is only one reality. Multiplicity, activity passivity attributes and names are merely the modes of that one Reality. The fixed prototypes are the latent realities.
Ayn-e-thabita
It is for the first time that Ibn-e-Arabi uses the term(Ayan-e-thabith) in Muslim philosophy by which he means the latent reality in the divine essence.
According to Ibn-e-Arabi, the phenomenal world was present in the divine essence as potentiality. Their knowledge is the divine knowledge of His becoming in future. God knows Himself through Himself. The eternal knowledge of Him made Him known of ''Ayan-e-thabita" lying in him as potentialities. They are expressed in the terms of divine names. The Ayn-i thabita has a two fold nature. As Ayan, they are the intelligible Ideas of God and they are the modes of the divine essence. This two fold nature is explained by using the terms of' Mahiya" and "Huwayyah". As Mahiya the 'Ayn' are the intelligible ideas. As huwayyah they are the essential modes of the divine essence.
Since the Ayan-e-thabita are tiie potentialities m the divine essence they cannot be regarded as separate from it. They, as states of the divine essence, have no other existence than the divine essence. We can say so because the mental states of own mind are nothing apart from it. In the same way the Ayn-e-thabita are the divine essence themselves. Conceptually, of course, we can separate them from the essence as states, as we do it in case of our mind and its states. Similarly the Ayan-e-thabita"are the parts of the divine essence as potentialities, but as states they can conceptually be separated from the divine essence. Ibn-e-Arabi calls them as non-existent. By saying so he only means that they do not exist externally. Having gone through his theory of Ayn-e-thabita one is led to think if Ayan-e-thabita can stand apart as concrete forms or if they are simply the intelligible ideas of God. In connection with this we shall quote Ibn-e-Arabi himself. Regarding the question about 'Ayan-e-thabita' Ibn-e-Arabi prefers two explanations. In accordance with the first the Ayan-e-thabita are the states of non-existence transferred into existence. In accordance with the first the Ayan-e-thabita are the states of non-existence transferred into existence. In accordance with the second, it is 'hukm' or command through with the Ayan of God. It is the relation of the Image and the mirror. The so called thing, the external object, the contingent 'Ayari' must see each other in and through the mirror of Ayan of God. God manifests them and them they see each other when He manifests Himself in the other. In the state of latency they are mere non existents. However, in any case, Ibn-i Arabi emphasizes on the denial of the existence of Ayan-e-tabita. It is never considered as the objective being having an Independent existence. Even as intelligible ideas, the Ayan-e-thabita are but the essence not determined of particularized. In order to explain it Ibn-e-Arabi uses rhetoric language. God revealed Himself to Himself in the most holy emanation in the forms of Ayan (al-faydul-aqdas). Ibna-e-Arabi holds that there was nothing in the beginning. God at the outset manifested 'Himself in Aayn-e- thabita" with existence. To say it explicitly, God first manifested Himself in the essence of things and there after bestowed the existence on it. It means that the very being of things includmg His own being is Him and by manifesting Himself in the being of things (ayan) and enveloping them with existence. He manifested Himself in the world. It is for this reason that the followers of Wahdat-al Wujud emphatically advocate that God is the only existence and the other existences are nothing but the manifestation of the one.
Ibn-e-Arabi often presents 'Ayan-e-thabita' as the pure and simple ideas and sometimes he describes them to be essence of things. Not only this, but he also calls them the spirits.Ayan-e-thabita' as he views them, are the intelligible forms in the consciousness of God. Because God recognizes them with the help of their essence or spirit (Ruh). His knowledge of them is not based on perception, but he recognizes them as they are with him in his consciousness with their own essence. The knowledge based on perception is acquired by the mind of man in which there is a duality lying in thinking and being thought. His knowledge of them is based on the complete unity of them with Him.'Having described the Ayart-e-thabita, we now come to their position in the world. The Aayan-e-thabita have an intermediary position between God and the phenomenal world. They are the beginnings of the future manifestations to describe it more clearly; we can say that by cognizing the Ayan-e-thabita. He revealed Himself in them and through them in the 'Ayan' of things. To Ibn-e-Arabi no Sufi can have the knowledge of the beginning of this process that is to say when God cognized the intelligible forms, present in his consciousness. The knowledge of Ayn-e-thabita is possible for a Sufi by making efforts to know his own essence 'ayan Having realized his own essence, he can attain the knowledge of the divine essence. The Ayan-e-thabita, being intermediary between the divine and the phenomenal world, are at the same time passive and active. They are passive as the intelligible forms in the consciousness of the divine being and active as the potentialities to become the future existent. Ibn-e-Arabi attributes function and activity to Ayan-e-thabita. This attribute makes them potentiality, having a determination to become actuality. The determination or (Hukm) is only a logical determination.
His Wahdat-ul-Wujud
We have explained the doctrine of Ibn-e-Arabi to a great extent. Our explanation was so far based on logical grounds. We shall now speak of the metaphysical grounds of his Wahdat- ul-Wujud Ibn-e-Arabi, like other wujudi considers God to be the only existence. He exists above all times. His existence of self proved and self evident. To him no proof of existence is required for it stands indispensable and proved. He thinks what proof can be required when we know that He exists in every thing or, in other words, all the objects are His manifestation. He is present in the essence or ayn of everything. Owing to this, no proof of His existence is required. He existed all times and shall over be. There is not even a 'there' 'where', the essence of all things is one. It means that God alone exists and there is no other existence apart from His. The multiplicity of existence is simply the modes of the Reality. God alone is the ultimate reality. He is infinite, eternal and real.''Ibn-e-Arabi tries to base his doctrine of wujud in Islam, but there is undoubtedly a difference between God of Islam and doctrine of Wahdat of Ibn-e-Arabi.
Islam proposition that there is God and God exists alone. He is eternal, infinite and real. The difference is seen in proposition of Wahdat-al Wujud that God is in every thing. To be is difference from to be in everything. The doctrine of Wahdat-al Wujud is based on the philosophical speculations of the unity of the universe with God. Like other Wujudi, Ibn-e-Arabi also believes in only one existence and it is the existence of God. There is something more which distinguishes him from other wujudi like "Hallaj". Before coming to this, let us make it clear that wujud is eitlier looked upon from a philosophical point of view or a Sufi point of view. A Sufi arrives at wujud with the help of his experience. The philosopher infers wujud from the unity of the universe witii God. Ibn-e-Arabi reaches it with the help of both. Having perceived the essence of the universe, he concludes its unity with God. Unlike other wujudi Sufis, he defies the belief in the union with God. Contrary to this he holds that for a Sufi to become one with Him, has to realize himself He has to see what exist in Him. It means that there is nothing like becoming one with Him as it shows the duality of existence. He is the only existence and is present in Hun as well. What is required on the part of a Sufi is to realize his own essence (ayan) through which he manifests Himself Thus there is no question of union with Him for He is in everything. This belief makes Ibn-e-Arabi distinguished from other wujudi. What he shares with others is the belief in the unity and absoluteness of God. The wujudi advocate the belief in 'tauhid-ul-mutlaq God is one and absolute.'
Inspite of the fact that all the objects are the manifestation of God, there is bound to be a distinction between Him and His manifestations. His manifestations are the forms, and as forms, we depend on Him. Our dependence distinguishes us from Him who is independent. Ibn-e-Arabi holds 'so on Him alone we depend on everything - our dependence on other things is in reality dependence on Him for they are nothing but His modes. In connection with the dependence on God Bayazid Bustami reached the similar truth. He once asked: "O Lord, with that can I draw near to thee? Where upon God replied: ''with that which does not belong to me, with servility and dependence". Thus it is clear that the manifesting and the manifested are different from one another. The manifested depends on the manifesting. In this way the worship to God is justified. We inspite of being His manifestation, worship Him as forms depending on Him.Ibn-e-Arabi does not believe in God's immanence only. He also holds the belief in His transcendence. Although He is manifested in everything, yet He transcends the universe. He sometimes emphasizes on His imminence and Identifies Him with the primal substance and the phenomenal with its states or accidents. Contrary to this he sometimes speaks of His transcendence. As a matter of fact, what he holds is that God is reflected in the objects as He manifests Himself in them. In other words the objects the mirror reflecting His being and perfection. It is obvious that the reflection is different from reflects. That is to say the being reflected in the mirror is not mere reflection but more than that. The reflection makes him immanent. But he stands apart as being reflecting. To conclude we quote Ibn-e-Arabi.
He says "For He, glory to Him, has no resemblance whatever to His creation. His essence cannot be apprehended by us, so we cannot compare it with tangible objects, neither are his actions like own etc.'We have spoken of the immanence and transcendence of God. Let us understand his wujudi philosophy. Ibn-e-Arabi uses the term like (Faiz) the over flow of the emanation of the divine being. Ibn-e-Arabi propounds a theory of manifestation, not of emanation. He does not believe that one thing at one time was emanated from God and from it came certain other things, contrary to this, Ibn-e-Arabi believes in the infinite manifestation of God. He manifests Himself in the infinite forms. In Ibn-e-Arabi's doctrine there is a circular movement. It ends where it begins. Ibn-e-Arabi believes in the infinity of manifestation without any temporal association. The terms like first and last are relatives. The intelligible forms or Ayn-e-thabita' were present in his consciousness. He cognized them, as a divine tradition explains, due to love of being known God asserts in a divine tradition, "I was a hidden treasure, and I loved to be known, so I created the world that I might be known". We quote it here to assert that no temporal possibility can be associated with manifestation, Ibn-e-Arabi propounds. It is because that we do not know, not can we know as to when He cognized the intelligible forms out of His love to be known. This we can safely assert that Ibn-e-Arabi speaks of the degree of manifestation. The perfect most is in man and the lowest is in the minerals. He also speaks of the different forms of manifestation. The perfect most is in man and the lowest is in the minerals. He also speaks about the different forms of manifestation.When He reveals Himself to Himself, it is 'al-Ahadiyah' (State of Unity), when he reveals Himself in the essence or the blindness; it is 'al-Ama' His revelation in the phenomenal world is 'al-jism al kulli. His revelations in the state of God head is al-martaba al illahiyah' or Ayn-i thabita. His manifestation, in the state of lordship, is ''al-rubbiyyah'. His revelation in the universal consciousness is the state called as haqiqat-ul-haqaiq'. In this way he has given different names to the states and forms of manifestation. As he ascribes these names to Him, many of his critics are led to believe that he is following the doctrine of emanation. Let us understand Mt clearly that in Ibn-e-Arabi's doctrine there is only one existence manifesting itself in different forms. No other form manifested from Him can manifest itself into others. It is thus clear that he is not propounding the doctrine of emanation." His wahdat- ul-wujud is based on Islamic sources.
Essence-Attributes and names
As it has already been mentioned that the divine essence is the universal substance and the divine names are the names of the aspects of the divine essence they are, as Ibn-e-Arabi thinks, the manifestation of divine essence in the external world (Mazhar). The attributes are the manifestation; they are limited or determined to one or the other aspect. The divine names are the manifestations of the divine substance in different degrees (maratib).
Ibn-e-Arabi considers that the attributes of God are neither the same nor other than the same. He considers them to be mere relations, determining the manifestation. The attributes of Ibn-e-Arabi are like the intelligible ideas. Thus he considers attributes to be neither Identical with God nor apart from Him. The divine names are multiplicity, determining the manifestation of the divine essence in one aspect or the other. Each of these qualities as aspect is also identical with God. They even after determining as aspect remain one with the divine essence.
Reality in relation to our Knowledge
Reality in relation to our knowledge has three aspects (1) Reality as we know it, we need not explain it for it stands evident and explained (2) Reality as manifested in the external world which is limited to our senses and intellect and in which the relations are thought of and seen. Though it is seen as multiplicity, yet Ibn-e-Arabi regards it a unity. Every part of the phenomenal world is the whole and thereby a unity in itself. It has the capacity of manifesting itself. The third aspect of reality can be viewed by intuition alone. It can be realized by a Sufi but its logical existence can be inferred. It is certainly God very much different from a fictitious deity. Ibn-e-Arabi admits no such conception of God which deprives Hun of this absoluteness and makes Him a lesser unity. He never admits any reality apart from Him.
According to Ibn-e-Arabi, reality can be conceived through the phenomenal world. A quotation to make it clear is rendered. 'The key to the mystery of "Lordship" is (The Phenomenal). Apart from it the reality as conceived is a logical correlative of the world. So the attributes of the phenomenal world do demand their logical correlatives such as contingency demands necessity,finitude infinity and relativeness absoluteness.
(1) Transcendental attributes are logical correlatives of immanent attributes which have no application and the attributes of God in relation to the universe. The latter have been already explained. Now we have to explain the transcendental attributes and the immanent attributes. We must not predicate of Him the attributes like hearing or seeing. Although he is the essence of all that hears and sees. It is by way of marking out the God - head from the two subjective aspects of reality. Let us enquire into the meaning of this proposition of Ibn-e-Arabi that we ourselves including the phenomenal world are the attributes of God. There is nothing in the phenomenal world which can be attributed to Him. His meaning and spirit are not found in the phenomenal world. The first part of the preposition explains the eminence of God; the second part gives an account of His transcendence. The reality which is not directly perceived, but logically inferred is like a substance perceived by its accidents. It admits no oppositions or contradictions. It has no quality or quantity, yet all qualities and quantities come from it. Like substance it can be perceived in the states (modes) only, which, in this case, is the phenomenal world. This reality is often referred by vague terms as "Pure light", or "Pure good" or blindness 'Al-Ama'
It is a state of complete unity. It is not an object of worship. The object of worship is the Lord not the one. This unity admits no plurality. Though multiplicity belongs to it, yet it is a unity. Multiplicity belongs to blindness (Al-Ama) of which it can never be emancipated. It is the state of the 'one to who belong the burning splendor. The manifestation of multiplicity in the phenomenal world is to vanish; no one will remain except God. The veil of unity can in ever be removed. To quote: "Do not hope. O my friend: the Veil of the unity will ever be removed", limit your hope, therefore, to the attainment of knowledge of the Oneness, the unity of the divine Names."
According to Ibn-e-Arabi reality as explained in absolute Agnosticism and Gnosticism meet in the essential unity. Only God knows what He really is. The divine essence is not known even by a Sufi because he belongs to multiplicity. Ibn-e-Arabi admits no such personal God either within or outside the universe controlling it extremely. This forms the nucleus of Ibn-e-Arabi's Wahdat-al Wujud. God being an object of belief is an object of our knowledge. He has both positive and negative attributes. He is known to us by us. In this sense God becomes only a phrase.
In place of ethical God of Islam Ibn-i Arabi's God is identical with the universe who is a principle controlling the universe. The absolute is reduced into a mere nominal or logical relation. His attributes belongs to his rank (al-martaba, al- daraja). God does not create but createdness belongs to His rank. In fact, the creator and the created are one and the same.
Explanation of ethical and personal names
In order to explain the ethical and personal names of God, he uses two methods. In the first place he reduced the names in the mere logical and psychological relations. In the second place he gives a physiology of terms. Ibn-e-Arabi does not touch those attributes which have wujudi bearing. A common name of God, if it fits in his doctrine of Wahdat-al Wujud, he steals the sight from it. Only those attributes are explained which have no wujudi bearing and interprets them in accordance with his methods mentioned above. The explanation of such attributes follows in Futuhat-e-Makkiya. The presence of God which he calls 'Hadrat' is a state of mystic mind. A mystic realizes His presence in the objects. Here the meaning of 'Hazrat is different from the meaning of five 'Hadra' which are the five states of being. The presence of Godhead (al-hadrat-al illahiya) is the state in which God is revealed as 'Allah'. The attributes of His mercifuhiess is revealed in the mercifulness in the universe. The interpretation belongs to Ibn-i Arabi himself.
Each of the 'Hadara' has two aspects, one transcendental and the other Immanent we shall first consider the aspects of transcendence which is explained with the help of philological method. The philological method even changes the forms of the names. To illustrate it the following examples are given:
1. The name 'Al-momin (peace giver) is interpreted as extinction of the supplication of the soul, and is identified with the mystic intuition.
2. Al-jabbar (all compeller). Jabbar is derived from 'Jabr' which means compulsion but this compulsion, according to Ibn-e-Arabi is internal not external. He interprets it as necessity against contingency All things follow their law of necessity, and so compulsion on the part of God is the necessary manifestation of Him in things.
3. Al-Mutakabbir (The proud), is interpreted to mean that he transcends his contingent attributes
4. Al-ghqffar (the pardoner). He derives it from Ghaffar the veil or cover and interprets it as His veiling in the forms 'Azzahar the external is the greatest form in which he veils.
5. Aadil (Just one) is derived from (al-adl) which he takes to mean to incline from one thing to another. According to him, God has incUned from His essential necessity (hazrat-ul-wujub-e-dhati) to that phenomenal necessity (hadrat-ul-wajib-ul ghayr). Ibn-i Arabi explains the will (Irada) in a similar manner, the state unmanifested is in the state of equilibrium (ittadal) and the manifestation is adl. The divine essence is inclined to manifest itself in the phenomenal world.
6. Al-latif(the subtle, the benevolent and the most pleasant) is understood by him us substance. The explanation that Ibn-e-Arabi prefers for it is almost materialistic God can not be more subtle than he is m the phenomenal world. He is most obvious in the manifestations. No eyes see anything other then He. Ibn-e-Arabi quotes all the passages of Qur'an and Hadith to support his wujudi doctrine.
7. Al-Hafiz (All preserving one) is rendered to interpretation as the preserver of all existence in the sense of being. He submits in all beings to preserve their essence.
8. Al-Muqit (The provider) is interpreted to mean the feeder with all beings.
9. Al-Raqib (The watchful) is interpreted to mean the being watchful as the essence of all things. God is watchful of all things because He is essence of all things.
10. Al-Sami (Hearing one) is often interpreted in relation all knowing (alalim) in the sense of revealing Himself to Himself All hearing Ibn-e-Arabi thinks, on the part of God means responding to the inner call of the things lying in the state of latency. Hallaj and Ibn-e-Arabi both agree to this view with a difference of potentiality of multiplicity, one believing in it and the other disagreeing with it. It is on this basis that Ibn-e-Arabi builds the edifice of Ayan-e-thabita' which shall be considered later.
11. Al-Dahr. (Time), by him it is taken to mean infinity. Time to him is eternity and everlastingness and in between God is extended to infinity.
Similarly he interprets many other names. His interpretation is based on the object he has in his concept. The creative of God of Islam is more creative but remains in the infinite forms. The problem of ethical and personal attributes comes when there is a duality of God and universe that is something other than God, but Ibn-e-Arabi's system admits no such possibility. Any kind of duality or plurality whether it be the duality of God and universe or the plurality of attributes is according to him subjective. But Ibn-e-Arabi himself often makes the subjective as objective inspite of his warning to us. The duality of God and universe which is held by his as subjective often becomes more concrete and real than his system should admit it.
The two aspects of the divine names.
The description of the two aspects of the divine name is another way of explaining the distinction between the real and the phenomenal. One aspect of the divine names belongs to the real unity and other to the external world. Each of the divine names expresses one or the other activity of the infinite activities of the divine essence. The external world being manifestation is nothing but the divine names and it is passive. The former aspect is Al Tahaqquq (the point of view of the real), the later he calls Al-Takhalluq (the point of view of the created). The way with which the manifestation becomes possible is called Al-talluq.
The divine names are active in relation to Ayan-e-thabita. They are nothing but the phenomenal world in latency. It is a hierarchy. The higher one is active in relation to the lower one and the lower is passive in relation to the higher one. It is an important point in the metaphysics of Ibn-e-Arabi that he is categorically convinced that there is only one reality. Multiplicity, activity passivity attributes and names are merely the modes of that one Reality. The fixed prototypes are the latent realities.
Ayn-e-thabita
It is for the first time that Ibn-e-Arabi uses the term(Ayan-e-thabith) in Muslim philosophy by which he means the latent reality in the divine essence.
According to Ibn-e-Arabi, the phenomenal world was present in the divine essence as potentiality. Their knowledge is the divine knowledge of His becoming in future. God knows Himself through Himself. The eternal knowledge of Him made Him known of ''Ayan-e-thabita" lying in him as potentialities. They are expressed in the terms of divine names. The Ayn-i thabita has a two fold nature. As Ayan, they are the intelligible Ideas of God and they are the modes of the divine essence. This two fold nature is explained by using the terms of' Mahiya" and "Huwayyah". As Mahiya the 'Ayn' are the intelligible ideas. As huwayyah they are the essential modes of the divine essence.
Since the Ayan-e-thabita are tiie potentialities m the divine essence they cannot be regarded as separate from it. They, as states of the divine essence, have no other existence than the divine essence. We can say so because the mental states of own mind are nothing apart from it. In the same way the Ayn-e-thabita are the divine essence themselves. Conceptually, of course, we can separate them from the essence as states, as we do it in case of our mind and its states. Similarly the Ayan-e-thabita"are the parts of the divine essence as potentialities, but as states they can conceptually be separated from the divine essence. Ibn-e-Arabi calls them as non-existent. By saying so he only means that they do not exist externally. Having gone through his theory of Ayn-e-thabita one is led to think if Ayan-e-thabita can stand apart as concrete forms or if they are simply the intelligible ideas of God. In connection with this we shall quote Ibn-e-Arabi himself. Regarding the question about 'Ayan-e-thabita' Ibn-e-Arabi prefers two explanations. In accordance with the first the Ayan-e-thabita are the states of non-existence transferred into existence. In accordance with the first the Ayan-e-thabita are the states of non-existence transferred into existence. In accordance with the second, it is 'hukm' or command through with the Ayan of God. It is the relation of the Image and the mirror. The so called thing, the external object, the contingent 'Ayari' must see each other in and through the mirror of Ayan of God. God manifests them and them they see each other when He manifests Himself in the other. In the state of latency they are mere non existents. However, in any case, Ibn-i Arabi emphasizes on the denial of the existence of Ayan-e-tabita. It is never considered as the objective being having an Independent existence. Even as intelligible ideas, the Ayan-e-thabita are but the essence not determined of particularized. In order to explain it Ibn-e-Arabi uses rhetoric language. God revealed Himself to Himself in the most holy emanation in the forms of Ayan (al-faydul-aqdas). Ibna-e-Arabi holds that there was nothing in the beginning. God at the outset manifested 'Himself in Aayn-e- thabita" with existence. To say it explicitly, God first manifested Himself in the essence of things and there after bestowed the existence on it. It means that the very being of things includmg His own being is Him and by manifesting Himself in the being of things (ayan) and enveloping them with existence. He manifested Himself in the world. It is for this reason that the followers of Wahdat-al Wujud emphatically advocate that God is the only existence and the other existences are nothing but the manifestation of the one.
Ibn-e-Arabi often presents 'Ayan-e-thabita' as the pure and simple ideas and sometimes he describes them to be essence of things. Not only this, but he also calls them the spirits.Ayan-e-thabita' as he views them, are the intelligible forms in the consciousness of God. Because God recognizes them with the help of their essence or spirit (Ruh). His knowledge of them is not based on perception, but he recognizes them as they are with him in his consciousness with their own essence. The knowledge based on perception is acquired by the mind of man in which there is a duality lying in thinking and being thought. His knowledge of them is based on the complete unity of them with Him.'Having described the Ayart-e-thabita, we now come to their position in the world. The Aayan-e-thabita have an intermediary position between God and the phenomenal world. They are the beginnings of the future manifestations to describe it more clearly; we can say that by cognizing the Ayan-e-thabita. He revealed Himself in them and through them in the 'Ayan' of things. To Ibn-e-Arabi no Sufi can have the knowledge of the beginning of this process that is to say when God cognized the intelligible forms, present in his consciousness. The knowledge of Ayn-e-thabita is possible for a Sufi by making efforts to know his own essence 'ayan Having realized his own essence, he can attain the knowledge of the divine essence. The Ayan-e-thabita, being intermediary between the divine and the phenomenal world, are at the same time passive and active. They are passive as the intelligible forms in the consciousness of the divine being and active as the potentialities to become the future existent. Ibn-e-Arabi attributes function and activity to Ayan-e-thabita. This attribute makes them potentiality, having a determination to become actuality. The determination or (Hukm) is only a logical determination.
His Wahdat-ul-Wujud
We have explained the doctrine of Ibn-e-Arabi to a great extent. Our explanation was so far based on logical grounds. We shall now speak of the metaphysical grounds of his Wahdat- ul-Wujud Ibn-e-Arabi, like other wujudi considers God to be the only existence. He exists above all times. His existence of self proved and self evident. To him no proof of existence is required for it stands indispensable and proved. He thinks what proof can be required when we know that He exists in every thing or, in other words, all the objects are His manifestation. He is present in the essence or ayn of everything. Owing to this, no proof of His existence is required. He existed all times and shall over be. There is not even a 'there' 'where', the essence of all things is one. It means that God alone exists and there is no other existence apart from His. The multiplicity of existence is simply the modes of the Reality. God alone is the ultimate reality. He is infinite, eternal and real.''Ibn-e-Arabi tries to base his doctrine of wujud in Islam, but there is undoubtedly a difference between God of Islam and doctrine of Wahdat of Ibn-e-Arabi.
Islam proposition that there is God and God exists alone. He is eternal, infinite and real. The difference is seen in proposition of Wahdat-al Wujud that God is in every thing. To be is difference from to be in everything. The doctrine of Wahdat-al Wujud is based on the philosophical speculations of the unity of the universe with God. Like other Wujudi, Ibn-e-Arabi also believes in only one existence and it is the existence of God. There is something more which distinguishes him from other wujudi like "Hallaj". Before coming to this, let us make it clear that wujud is eitlier looked upon from a philosophical point of view or a Sufi point of view. A Sufi arrives at wujud with the help of his experience. The philosopher infers wujud from the unity of the universe witii God. Ibn-e-Arabi reaches it with the help of both. Having perceived the essence of the universe, he concludes its unity with God. Unlike other wujudi Sufis, he defies the belief in the union with God. Contrary to this he holds that for a Sufi to become one with Him, has to realize himself He has to see what exist in Him. It means that there is nothing like becoming one with Him as it shows the duality of existence. He is the only existence and is present in Hun as well. What is required on the part of a Sufi is to realize his own essence (ayan) through which he manifests Himself Thus there is no question of union with Him for He is in everything. This belief makes Ibn-e-Arabi distinguished from other wujudi. What he shares with others is the belief in the unity and absoluteness of God. The wujudi advocate the belief in 'tauhid-ul-mutlaq God is one and absolute.'
Inspite of the fact that all the objects are the manifestation of God, there is bound to be a distinction between Him and His manifestations. His manifestations are the forms, and as forms, we depend on Him. Our dependence distinguishes us from Him who is independent. Ibn-e-Arabi holds 'so on Him alone we depend on everything - our dependence on other things is in reality dependence on Him for they are nothing but His modes. In connection with the dependence on God Bayazid Bustami reached the similar truth. He once asked: "O Lord, with that can I draw near to thee? Where upon God replied: ''with that which does not belong to me, with servility and dependence". Thus it is clear that the manifesting and the manifested are different from one another. The manifested depends on the manifesting. In this way the worship to God is justified. We inspite of being His manifestation, worship Him as forms depending on Him.Ibn-e-Arabi does not believe in God's immanence only. He also holds the belief in His transcendence. Although He is manifested in everything, yet He transcends the universe. He sometimes emphasizes on His imminence and Identifies Him with the primal substance and the phenomenal with its states or accidents. Contrary to this he sometimes speaks of His transcendence. As a matter of fact, what he holds is that God is reflected in the objects as He manifests Himself in them. In other words the objects the mirror reflecting His being and perfection. It is obvious that the reflection is different from reflects. That is to say the being reflected in the mirror is not mere reflection but more than that. The reflection makes him immanent. But he stands apart as being reflecting. To conclude we quote Ibn-e-Arabi.
He says "For He, glory to Him, has no resemblance whatever to His creation. His essence cannot be apprehended by us, so we cannot compare it with tangible objects, neither are his actions like own etc.'We have spoken of the immanence and transcendence of God. Let us understand his wujudi philosophy. Ibn-e-Arabi uses the term like (Faiz) the over flow of the emanation of the divine being. Ibn-e-Arabi propounds a theory of manifestation, not of emanation. He does not believe that one thing at one time was emanated from God and from it came certain other things, contrary to this, Ibn-e-Arabi believes in the infinite manifestation of God. He manifests Himself in the infinite forms. In Ibn-e-Arabi's doctrine there is a circular movement. It ends where it begins. Ibn-e-Arabi believes in the infinity of manifestation without any temporal association. The terms like first and last are relatives. The intelligible forms or Ayn-e-thabita' were present in his consciousness. He cognized them, as a divine tradition explains, due to love of being known God asserts in a divine tradition, "I was a hidden treasure, and I loved to be known, so I created the world that I might be known". We quote it here to assert that no temporal possibility can be associated with manifestation, Ibn-e-Arabi propounds. It is because that we do not know, not can we know as to when He cognized the intelligible forms out of His love to be known. This we can safely assert that Ibn-e-Arabi speaks of the degree of manifestation. The perfect most is in man and the lowest is in the minerals. He also speaks of the different forms of manifestation. The perfect most is in man and the lowest is in the minerals. He also speaks about the different forms of manifestation.When He reveals Himself to Himself, it is 'al-Ahadiyah' (State of Unity), when he reveals Himself in the essence or the blindness; it is 'al-Ama' His revelation in the phenomenal world is 'al-jism al kulli. His revelations in the state of God head is al-martaba al illahiyah' or Ayn-i thabita. His manifestation, in the state of lordship, is ''al-rubbiyyah'. His revelation in the universal consciousness is the state called as haqiqat-ul-haqaiq'. In this way he has given different names to the states and forms of manifestation. As he ascribes these names to Him, many of his critics are led to believe that he is following the doctrine of emanation. Let us understand Mt clearly that in Ibn-e-Arabi's doctrine there is only one existence manifesting itself in different forms. No other form manifested from Him can manifest itself into others. It is thus clear that he is not propounding the doctrine of emanation." His wahdat- ul-wujud is based on Islamic sources.