Read Free Catalog Glossary About

Read Free / Lawā’iḥ: Flashes of Light

Notes

[vii.1] See the article on ‘Mystical Theology’ in Addis and Arnold’s ‘Catholic Dictionary.’ Return

[vii.2] See Dr. William James’s ‘Varieties of Religious Experience’ (Longmans, 1902). It may be doubted whether the ‘subliminal self’ affords a satisfactory solution of the problem. Return

[viii.1] Haji Khalfa, iii. 479. Return

[viii.2] Ibn Khallikan, iv. 153. This Shihāb-ud-dīn must not be confounded with his more famous namesake who died at Baghdad in the odour of sanctity in 632 A.H. Ibn Khallikan, ii. 382. Return

[viii.3] Shea and Troyer’s translation, iii. 281. Return

[viii.4] Ibid., ii. 374 ; see also iii. 139. Return

[viii.5] Haji Khalfa, ii. 308. Return

[viii.6] See ‘Masnavī,’ p. 168. Return

[ix.1] ‘Notices et Extraits des Manuscrits,’ xii., pp. 301, 302. Return

[ix.2] See Schmölders, ‘Écoles Philosophiques chez les Arabes,’ p. 55. Return

[ix.3] See the passage on ‘Tauḥīd’ given in Appendix I. Return

[ix.4] Khurāsān was the ‘focus of culture,’ as Hammer says, and most of the philosophers came from that Eastern province. Return

[ix.5] Whittaker’s ‘Neoplatonists,’ p. 133 ; and Schmölders, ‘Documenta Philosophiæ Arabum’ (Bonn, 1836), Introduction. Return

[ix.6] See Dieterici’s ‘Die Weltseele’ (Leipzig, 1872). Return

[ix.7] See Haarbrücker’s German translation of Shahrastānī’s ‘Book of Sects,’ ii. 192 (Halle, 1850). Return

[ix.8] See Dr. Brönnle’s note, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, April, 1901. The book was published with a Latin translation by Petrus Nicolaus in 1518. Return

[ix.9] The late Professor Palmer published a summary of this book under the title of ‘Oriental Mysticism’ (Cambridge, 1867). Return

[ix.10] Edited and translated by me (Trübner, 1880). Return

[x.1] Mr. Nicholson has brought this out in his ‘Dīwāni Shamsi Tabrīz’ (Cambridge, 1898). For a sketch of the system of Plotinus see Appendix II. Return

[x.2] Cp. Wordsworth, ‘Lines on Tintern Abbey’ :

‘A sense sublimeOf something far more deeply interfused,Whose dwelling is the light of setting suns,And the round ocean and the living air,And the blue sky, and in the heart of man ;A motion and a spirit that impelsAll thinking things, all objects of all thought,And rolls through all things.’

[x.3] ‘Or omneity,’ as Sir Thomas Browne calls it in the ‘Religio Medici,’ § 35. Return

[xi.1] Surah, lxxii. 14 ; Hirschfeld, p. 14 ; and Suhrawardy’s ‘Sayings of Muhammad.’ Jorjānī defines Islām as unquestioning obedience and submission to Allah’s commands (‘Notices et Extraits des Manuscrits,’ x., p. 53. Return

[xi.2] See the rules about ablution, etc., in the ‘Mishcāt ul Masābīḥ,’ translated by Matthews (Calcutta, 1809). Cp. Omar Khayyām’s ‘whimsical complaint,’ Quatrain 180. Return

[xi.3] They seem opposed to the spirit of the text : ‘Righteousness does not consist in turning to the east or to the west,’ etc. (Surah, ii. 172). Return

[xi.4] Purgatory (Canto XVII.). Return

[xi.5] ‘Gulshan i Rāz,’ l. 877 ; and ‘Masnavī,’ p. 100, and Introduction, p. xxxiv (second edition). But elsewhere (at p. 76) Jalāl-ud-dīn says forms and symbols are generally needed. In default of some outward and visible sign which they can perceive, men find it hard to conceive the inward spirit. Return

[xii.1] ‘Gulshan i Rāz,’ l. 701. Return

[xii.2] See Omar Khayyām (second edition), Appendix, p. 358. Return

[xii.3] Koran, xvi. 38, 39. Return

[xii.4] The Qadarians would be classed as semi-Pelagians by Western theologians. Return

[xii.5] See ‘Gulshan i Rāz,’ l. 105 and 538. Return

[xiii.1] See ‘Masnavī’ (second edition), Introduction, p. xxx, etc., and Flash XXVII. in this treatise. Return

[xiii.2] See the parable of Moses and the shepherd who was faulty in theology, but fervent in spirit (‘Masnavī,’ p. 82, and also p. 139). Return

[xiii.3] See ‘Masnavī,’ p. 260. Newman (‘Apologia,’ p. 19) quotes Keble as saying, ‘The firmness of assent which we give to religious doctrine is due, not to the probabilities which introduced it, but to the living power of faith and love which accepted it.’ This is worked out in Newman’s ‘Grammar of Assent.’ Return

[xiii.4] See the ‘Sayings of Muhammad,’ by Suhrawardy (Constable, 1905), Nos. 125, 304, 186, etc. Return

[xiv.1] Jalāl-ud-dīn Rūmī, however, takes occasion to warn his disciples that this counsel of perfection is not to be taken too literally. See the parable of the peacock who tore off his plumage to avoid the pursuit of the fowlers (‘Masnavī,’ p. 228). Return

[xiv.2] See ‘Masnavī,’ p. 224. Return

[xiv.3] Gibbon’s ‘Decline and Fall,’ chapter xxi. Return

[xiv.4] ‘Paulus genuit Augustinum et Augustinus genuit Calvinum.’ With Paul should be coupled Plotinus. See Bigg’s ‘Introduction to Augustine’s Confessions’ (Methuen, 1903). Return

[xiv.5] For a sketch of the system of Plotinus, who is the best exponent of Neoplatonism, see Appendix II. Return

[xv.1] Haji Khalfa, v. 344. Return

[xv.2] The Munich ‘Catalogue,’ p. 21, mentions a manuscript of the ‘Lawāyih’ (sic) with a different beginning. Return

[17.1] A saying of Muḥammad. Return

[17.2] Fluegel (Haji Khalfa, v. 344) translates, ‘Quomodo possim ?’ Cp. Surah, xvii. 46, ‘Neither is there aught which doth not celebrate Thy praise,’ and Ps. cxlv. 10. Return

[17.3] Referring to the saying, ‘I am the most eloquent of those who pronounce the letter Zād (Dzād),’ the Arab shibboleth. Return

[18.1] ‘It may be, O Muḥammad, that thy Lord will raise thee to a glorious station’ (Koran, xvii. 81), interpreted to mean, his power of intercession. Return

[18.2] The headings are all omitted in this manuscript, but spaces are left, which were probably intended to be filled in with gold lettering. Return

[18.3] A prayer ascribed to Muḥammad. See ‘Gulshan i Rāz,’ p. 21, note 1. Return

[18.4] The divine Real Being is reflected in ‘Notbeing’ (‘adm) as in a mirror, and gives it all the reality it possesses. See ‘Gulshan i Rāz,’ p. 14, l. 134. This idea comes from Plotinus, ‘the Shaikh of the Greeks.’ Return

[19.1] Haji Khalfa (v., p. 344) says Sayyid Kāseh Karrānī wrote a Persian commentary upon it. Return

[19.2] The person referred to is probably Shāh Manuchahr, Governor of Hamadān, who paid much attention to Jāmī when he visited the town in 877 A.H. See Lee’s preface to the ‘Nafaḥāt,’ p. 11. Note the pun on ‘Hama Dān’ (‘All-knowing’). Amīr Sayyid ‘Alī of Hamadān, a Ṣūfī saint, is mentioned in the ‘Nafaḥāt,’ p. 515, but as he died in 786 A.H., it is not likely that Jāmī is speaking of him. Return

[20.1] ‘Lā’ihah.’ These headings, which are found in other manuscripts, are omitted in this, as before remarked. Return

[20.2] Koran, xxxiii. 4. Return

[20.3] Also ‘tranquillity,’ ‘congregation,’ ‘totality.’ Return

[20.4] Nasnās ; literally, a fabulous monster, a satyr. Return

[20.5] Sālik. Return

[22.1] Spenser in the ‘Hymn of Heavenly Love’ expresses the same idea, which comes from Plato. Return

[22.2] Literally, ‘Torch of Tirāz,’ a town in Turkistān famed for its beautiful women. Return

[23.1] Variant, ‘hide thyself from the sight of the world.’ Return

[23.2] The saying of Manṣūr i Ḥallāj (or Ibn Ḥallāj), the Ṣūfī martyr. Return

[24.1] Compare the story of the Ṣūfī aspirant who was refused admittance by his Pīr till he ceased to speak of ‘me’ and called himself ‘thee’ (‘Masnavī,’ p. 47). Return

[25.1] See the passage from Ghazzālī in Appendix III. Return

[25.2] Dadī, brutishness. Some manuscripts read duwī, disease, but this does not suit the rhyme, which in verses with a burden (radīf) always precedes it. Scan dădĭyī, dissolving long ī and lengthening the iẓāfat. Return

[25.3] Seemingly a Ḥadīth. Poverty, utter annihilation of self (‘Gulshan i Rāz,’ l. 128, and note). Return

[25.4] So Ghazzālī, quoted in Appendix III. Return

[26.1] Tauḥīd is the Henōsis of Plotinus, the becoming one with the ‘One.’ Return

[26.2] This sentence occurs only in the British Museum copy, Add. 16,819. Khwāja ’Abdullāh Anṣārī of Herāt, who died 481 A.H., was named the Shaikh of Islām, and is often quoted by Jāmī in the ‘Nafaḥāt.’ See Haji Khalfa, i., 235. Return

[26.3] Alluding to the ‘Discourse of the Birds and their Pilgrimage to the Sīmurgh,’ by Farīd-ud-dīn ‘Aṭṭār. ‘Other’ the Heterotēs of Plotinus. Return

[27.1] So in the Stabat Mater :

‘Fac me cruce inebriari.’

[27.2] I prefer to emphasize the religious rather than the philosophic and abstract aspect of the ‘Truth,’ and therefore use the personal pronoun. Thus, the ‘Ideal Good’ of Plato’s ‘Republic,’ Book VI., is spoken of as ‘God’ in the ‘Timæus.’ Just so ‘To Kurion’ has changed into ‘Dominus’ in the Western version of the Nicene Creed. Return

[28.1] Birangī. Absence of visible or knowable qualities. Return

[28.2] Koran, ii. 132. Return

[28.3] Wajūd, usually ‘necessary being’ as opposed to ‘contingent.’ Jāmī wrote a treatise on it, quoted in the ‘Dabistān,’ chapter xii. Return

[28.4] Ma‘qūlāt i thānīyah. In scholastic terminology terms of the second intention are those which express abstractions from concrete individual objects—e.g., genus, species, etc. Rabelais made fun of this term : ‘Utrum chimæra bombinans in vacuo comedere possit secundas intentiones ?’ Return

[28.5] Quidity, what a thing is, a word derived by the Schoolmen from māhīyat. See Schmölders, ‘Documenta Philosophiæ Arabum,’ p. 133. Return

[28.6] ‘In Him we live and move and have our being’ (Acts xvii. 28). Return

[30.1] Cp. ‘Rosa mystica’ in the Litany of the Virgin. Jalāl-ud-dīn Rūmī apologizes for applying such terms to God (‘Masnavī,’ p. 34). Return

[30.2] Ta‘ayyun. The first Emmanation is ‘Unity’ with the ‘Truth’ as being His image and mind (Logos endiathetos), but when evolved to view (Logos prophorikos), and as the channel of Being downwards, it is ‘Unity’ with a difference, which is sought to be expressed by the term ‘Singleness’ (Wāḥidīyat instead of Aḥadīyat). Return

[31.1] Martaba i Jam‘. The second emanation, Universal Soul, which comprehends in itself all particular souls, rational, animal, and vegetive. This Aristotelian doctrine of the soul became a commonplace of the schools, and is referred to by Milton, Dryden, etc. Return

[31.2] Substance is quod substat—i.e., the reality underlying sensible phenomena. Ḥaqāiq i ilāhīya. Return

[31.3] I.e., the first stage of His revelation. Return

[31.4] Marātib i kaunīya. Return

[31.5] Difference, property, accident, genus, and species, are the five heads under which Aristotle classed the general terms capable of being used as predicates. Return

[31.6] Ḥaqāiq i kaunīya. Return

[31.7] Aḥadīyat i Jam‘. This is the second emanation (see Flash XXIV.). It is usually called nafs i kull, or Universal Soul. Return

[32.1] I.e., plurality summed up in Unity. Return

[32.2] The world of ‘ideas’ is the Platonic ‘intelligible’ world of ideas or archetypes, apprehended only by Reason (nous), as opposed to the ‘sensible’ world of phenomena apprehended by the senses—‘ālam i ‘ilmī as opposed to ‘ālam i ‘ainī. Return

[32.3] In Aristotle’s language the end (telos) of a thing is its ‘final cause’—i.e., the reason of its existence. Return

[32.4] Koran, xxix. 5. Return

[33.1] Cp. Omar Khayyām, Quatrain 475, and ‘Gulshan i Rāz,’ p. 15, l. 143. ‘He [God] is at once seer and thing seen.’ Return

[33.2] Contingent being is opposed to necessary being. It is, so to speak, unreal matter permeated with Real Being. ‘It thus is, and is not, and partakes both of existence and of non-existence,’ as Jowett says. Return

[33.3] So Manṣūr-i-Ḥallāj : ‘The numbers of Unity are only the counting of Unity.’ Return

[33.4] The controversy of realism and nominalism raged among Moslems as well as among European Schoolmen (see Schmölders, ‘Documenta,’ etc., p. 3). Jāmī was evidently a realist. He holds genus and similar general terms to be actual realities (ma‘nī), and not mere names. The whole argument in this section rests on the assumption that these genera are real entities. Return

[34.1] A‘yān i thābitah, the ‘Ideas’ of Plato’s ‘Intelligible World,’ the archetypes or patterns of all things in the external and ‘sensible world.’ In the system of Plotinus these ideas are all contained in the first emanation, reason (nous). Jāmī expresses ‘intelligible world’ by ‘ālam i ‘ilm, and ‘sensible world’ by ‘ālam i ‘ain. Return

[34.2] Martaba i ‘ilm, i.e., ‘aql i kull, nous, or Logos, the first epiphany or emanation. Return

[35.1] Potentiality and actuality are two of Aristotle’s forms of thought, dunamis and energeia (qūwat and fi‘l). Return

[35.2] God pervades everything, but everything is not God. Thus the strict Monism of some previous statements is considerably toned down. Return

[35.3] Shā’n. The ‘Modalists’ used the term ‘modes’ to indicate differences of form appearing in the One Substance (Harnack ‘On Dogma,’ iii. 53), and thus to avoid ditheism. Return

[37.1] Faiẓ i azal. Return

[37.2] Maqām i Jam‘ i Aḥadīyat. Note the change of phrase. Return

[37.3] Martaba i tafṣīl wa kithrat. Return

[37.4] Ta‘ayyun i wajūd. Return

[37.5] Wajūd i muta‘ayyin. Return

[38.1] Ṣuwar i ‘ilmīya. Return

[38.2] Blank left as usual for the Arabic sentence. Return

[38.3] I.e., the ‘Ālam i ‘ilm, the intelligible world of the Divine ‘Ideas.’ Return

[38.4] Plotinus and the ‘Gulshan i Rāz’ make not-being the mirror of Very Being. Jāmī here inverts the metaphor. Return

[38.5] The following passage omitted in this text. It is probably a gloss which has crept into some manuscripts. Return

[38.6] Ḥaml, affirming a predicate of a subject. Return

[38.7] See Flash II. Return

[38.8] So ‘Gulshan i Rāz,’ l. 883 : ‘See but One, say but One, know but One.’ Return

[39.1] Ṣiddīq, veracious, like Abu Bakr ‘aṣ-Ṣiddīq.’ Return

[39.2] Zindīq. Return

[39.3] See note 2, p. 27. Return

[39.4] Ḥairānī. In the ‘Manṭiq uṭ-Ṭair,’ Ḥairat is the last valley in the Ṣūfī pilgrim’s progress. To know God he must rise to ecstasy. Return

[40.1] Rūmī describes love as spiritual clairvoyance. See ‘Masnavī, Introduction, p. xxviii. Return

[40.2] Ta‘ayyun i awwal, usually called ‘aql i kull, universal reason—i.e., nous or Logos, as by Jāmī himself in ‘Salāmān wa Absal.’ ‘The first thing created was reason’ (Ḥadīth). Return

[40.3] Aḥadīyat i Jam‘, usually called nafs i kull, universal soul, pneuma. Return

[40.4] Ilāhīyat. See De Sacy’s note in ‘Notices et Extraits des Manuscrits,’ x. 77. Return

[40.5] Wajūb. It belongs to the sphere of ‘Necessary Being.’ Return

[40.6] Martaba i kaunīya i imkānīya. Return

[40.7] ‘Ālam. Return

[40.8] The object of this distinction is to keep God from contact with matter. Contingency is not found in the immediate reflections of Being, but only in the reflections from the intelligible world of Divine Ideas. Return

[41.1] Wāḥidīyat. See note 2, p. 30. Return

[41.2] A saying attributed to Muḥammad. A blank is left for it in this manuscript. Return

[41.3] Ḥaqāiq i Jauharīya i maṭbū‘a. Return

[41.4] Ḥaqāiq i ‘araẓīya i ṭābi‘a. Return

[41.5] See note 8, p. 38. Return

[42.1] Koran, lvii. 3. Cp. Rev. i. 8, ‘I am Alpha and Omega.’ Return

[42.2] Literally, ‘horizons’—i.e., objects of aspiration. Return

[42.3] I.e., the grade of plurality in Unity, or Universal Soul. Return

[42.4] Muḥyi-ud-dīn Muḥammad Andalūsī, commonly called Ibn Arabī, died 638 A.H. Wrote the Faṣūṣ-ul Ḥikam (Haji Khalfa, iv. 424). Each section is named after some patriarch—e.g., Shu‘aib (Jethro). Return

[42.5] Koran, l. 14. See ‘Gulshan i Rāz,’ l. 670. Text omitted in this manuscript. Return

[43.1] Ahl-i naẓr, as opposed to ahl-i shahūd, men of spiritual intuition. Return

[43.2] The followers of Abū-l Ḥasan al Ashārī, died about 330 A.H. (Ibn Khallikan, ii. 227). Return

[43.3] The Ḥasbānīya. Return

[43.4] This is the Heracleitean doctrine that all phenomena are in constant flux, issuing from the ‘Fiery Breath’ (Pneuma) and remerged in it every moment. Jalāl-ud-dīn quotes the saying of ‘Arqlitus’ that ‘Contraries are congruous,’ the first suggestion of the Hegelian doctrine that contraries always involve a higher unity which embraces both. See Lumsden, ‘Persian Grammar,’ ii: 323. Return

[44.1] See ‘Masnavī,’ p. 24. Return

[44.2] Koran lv. 29. Return

[44.3] Lutf and Qahr, or Jamāl and Jalāl, the opposite Divine attributes of mercy and vengeance, beauty and terror. The Divine economy is sometimes represented as effected by the eternal struggle between these two opposite phases of Deity, as manifested in Adam and Iblīs, Abraham and Nimrod, Moses and Pharaoh, etc. (see ‘Masnavī, p. 301), a daring Monist hypothesis, which, needless to say, is not pursued into its consequences. Return

[44.4] These ‘names,’ like the Stoic logoi, are sometimes spoken of as ideas, sometimes as forces or energies. Return

[45.1] Ifīẓat, production by emanation. See ‘Notices et Extraits des Manscrits,’ x., p. 66. Return

[45.2] Sein evolved into dasein. Return

[46.1] Cp. 1 Cor. ii. 15, ‘He that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.’ Or, as Hegelians would put it, the deliverances of intuitive reason are not to be tried by the canons of the discursive reason (verstand). Return

[46.2] Koran, xxxiii. 4. A blank is again left for the text in this manuscript. Return

[47.1] Quyūd. Return

[47.2] Alluding to four famous works of Ibn Sīnā (Avicena), ‘Shifā,’ ‘Qānūn, ‘Nijāt,’ and ‘Ishārāt.’ Return

[47.3] Alluding to ‘Mawāqif,’ a theological work by Al Ijī ; ‘Maqāṣid,’ by Al Taftāzānī ; and ‘Maṭāli‘,’ a work on logic by Al Ormawī. See Otto Loth, ‘Catalogue of India Office Arabic Manuscripts,’ pp. 114, 460, and 143. Return

[47.4] A‘yān i thābitah dar ḥaẓrat i ‘ilm, the Ideas or archetypes in Plato’s ‘Intelligible World’ (see ‘Notices et Extraits des Manuscrits,’ vol. x., p. 65. ‘Ain has the double meaning of ‘eye’ and ‘essence,’ and its derivatives A‘yān and Ta‘ayyun are used to denote the reflections of the One Being ; in other words, His emanations which constitute the existences or substances in the world of visible and sensible phenomena (‘Ālam i ‘Ain). Return

[47.5] Literally, ‘smell.’ Return

[48.1] See Masnavī, p. 42. Return

[48.2] The following passage in brackets is omitted in this manuscript. Return

[48.3] In the ‘Gulshan i Rāz,’ l. 134, Very Being is said to be reflected in the mirror of not-being. Return

[49.1] Verse 146. Return

[49.2] The Shaikh Muḥyi-ud-dīn Ibn al‘Arabī. The ‘Ḥikmat i ‘Aliyya’ is the first section of his ‘Faṣūṣ-ul Ḥikam. Return

[49.3] Koran, xxxvii. 94. A blank left for the text. Return

[49.4] The Ṣūfīs call God, the ‘One Real Agent’—Fā‘il-i Ḥaqīqī. Determinism is a necessary corollary of Monism. Return

[49.5] Cp. the Ḥadīth, ‘God is more jealous than Sa‘d’ (‘Masnavī,’ p. 29, note). Self-assertion is presumption towards God. Return

[50.1] ‘Being is good in whatever it be. If a thing contains evil, that proceeds from “other”’ (‘Gulshan i Rāz,’ l. 871). This represents evil as something positive. So Dante says matter is intractable (‘Paradiso,’ Canto I.). Augustine, like Jāmī, makes evil merely a deficiency of good. See ‘Confessions,’ Book VII., chapter xii. Return

[50.2] Ẓarūrat. Necessary truths are those of which the contrary is inconceivable. Of course, in Jāmī’s time necessity of thought was supposed to involve necessity of the object of thought. Return

[50.3] The ideas that God is all and determines all, and that evil is unreal, may seem true to men like Augustine, glowing with religious emotion, but are untenable in practice, and if translated into hard theological formulas become a stumbling-block. Jalāl-ud-dīn quietly drops them when it comes to a question of practice. Return

[51.1] ‘Gulshan i Rāz,’ l. 871. Return

[51.2] ‘An-Nuṣūṣ fī taḥqīq i ṭaur il makhṣūṣ,’ by the celebrated Ṣūfī Shaikh Ṣadr-ud-dīn Muḥammad bin Isḥāq al Qūniavī, died 672 A.H. See Haji Khalfa, vi. 349. Return

[51.3] The more ‘necessary being’ a thing has, the less it has of ‘contingent being’—i.e., less intermixture with not-being. See note 2, p. 33. Return

[52.1] I.e., in unconscious objects. Thus Aristotle says plants seek their own perfection unconsciously, while man does it consciously. Return

[52.2] Juzviyāt and kulliyāt. Return 1 Return 2

[52.3] Fi‘lī and infi‘ālī—i.e., knowledge gained by inference and reasoning, and that conveyed by immediate consciousness and sensation. Return

[53.1] Wijdānī and dhauqī. Return

[53.2] Here the last quatrain in Flash XXVIII. is repeated. Return

[53.3] Taqayyud, limitation. Return

[53.4] The following passage in brackets is omitted in this manuscript. Return

[53.5] Dhāt. Return

[53.6] Ṣifāt. Return

[53.7] Fi‘il and ta‘thīr. Return

[53.8] Athār. Return

[53.9] Dunyā wa dīn, earth and the celestial spheres, the ‘theatres’ or monstrances of the Divine perfections, rather than the world and the Moslem Church (the ordinary meaning). Return

[53.10] See note 4, p. 42. Return

[53.11] This passage in square brackets is found in one British Museum manuscript. It certainly makes the sense clearer. Return

[54.1] Ifāẓat, production by emanation. See De Sacy’s article on ‘Jorjānī’s Definitions’ (Notices et Extraits des Manuscrits,’ x., p. 66). Return

[54.2] ‘Ilmī. Return

[54.3] Faiẓ i Aqdas (see ‘Notices et Extraits,’ x., p. 66), the first emanation, or ‘aql i kull. Return

[54.4] I.e., the ‘archetypal ideas’ of the intelligible world, ‘ālam i ‘ilmī. Return

[54.5] Faiẓ i Muqaddas, the second emanation, or nafs i kull (Anima mundi). Return

[54.6] I.e., ‘ālam i ‘ainī, the sensible world, the copy of the intelligible world. Return

[54.7] The sensible world issues from the intelligible world, and will continue ‘as long as God wills.’ Return

[55.1] Tadhyīl in one manuscript ; another has ‘Flash.’ Return

[55.2] The ‘Masnavī’ finishes in the same strain. See the parable of the Moslem who, by childlike faith, prevailed over his learned fellow-travellers (p. 304). Return

[55.3] I.e., the oyster-shell (see ‘Gulshan i Rāz,’ l. 572). Here in one manuscript there follow two quatrains which are mere variations of the same theme. Return

[56.1] Read Khākat ba kafan. V. L., Chākat—i.e., in token of mourning. Return

[59.1] This passage is given in Pococke’s ‘Specimen Historiæ Arabum’ (Oxoniæ, 1650), p. 284, and this translation of it by Ockley is copied from Hughes’s ‘Notes on Muhammadanism.’ Return

[59.2] ‘Faith cometh by hearing’ (Rom. x. 17). Return

[59.3] This is directed against the Christian Trinity, which all Moslems suppose to be the equivalent of Tritheism. Return

[60.1] This is directed against the Anthropomorphists, the Kerāmians, and the Moshabbihites. See Sale, ‘Preliminary Discourse to Koran,’ Section viii. Return

[60.2] Just like Philo, Ghazzālī struggles with the anthropomorphic language of the Koran, in order to remove God from contact with matter, which his reading of Greek philosophy had taught him was evil. Return

[60.3] ‘Surah,’ l. 15. Return

[60.4] Directed against those who held the doctrine of Incarnation, the Ḥalūlians. Return

[61.1] The beatific vision of Dante’s Paradise. The idea came in the last resort from the Platonists, from whom Ghazzālī also probably got it. Return

[61.2] ‘Surah,’ vii. 52, ‘Are not creation and command of Him ?’ Return

[61.3] All created existence is one, and proceeds from the One. Return

[61.4] This language shows how easily the conception of Monotheism passed into Monism—i.e., the religious view into the philosophic. Return

[62.1] See Hirschfeld ‘On the Qorān,’ p. 14. The Logos. Return

[62.2] This is the opinion that the Koran was uncreated condemned by Al Mamūn in the second century A.H. See Hirschfeld on the ‘I‘jāz (miracle) of the Qorān,’ p. 8. Return

[62.3] Here we have Plato’s ideas or archetypes in the intelligible world, after the pattern of which sensible objects are formed. Return

[62.4] Privation, the Greek ‘not-being.’ Note also ‘substance’ and ‘accident.’ Return

[63.1] Muḥammad’s miracles were the Āyāt, signs (texts of the Koran). See Hirschfeld ‘On the Qorān,’ pp. 1, 8. Return

[63.2] Ghazzālī speaks as an orthodox Moslem, but Greek influences are manifest in this passage, and his statements on the thorny subject of grace and works recall those of the great Christian Platonist Augustine. Return

[64.1] See ‘Masnavī,’ p. 226. Return

[64.2] The Book of Wisdom, probably the work of a Hellenizing Jew, prepared the way for Philo, but the cautious writer speaks not of Greek ‘Logos,’ but of Hebrew ‘Wisdom,’ as the first effluent, the mirror and express image of the Deity (Wisd. vii. 26). Return

[65.1] ‘New Researches in the Qorān,’ 1902, p. 15. Some Ṣūfī theologians identified Muḥammad with ‘Universal Reason,’ or Logos. See Palmer’s ‘Oriental Mysticism,’ p. 43, and ‘Masnavī,’ p. 179. Return

[65.2] Yonge’s translation of Philo, i. 359 and ii. 205 (quoted in Appendix to ‘Masnavī’). Tholuck, when he encounters this idea in ‘Masnavī,’ p. 77, and ‘Gulshan i Rāz,’ l. 622, finds it shocking ; but few like to face the historical antecedents or parallells of cherished tenets. Return

[65.3] See Mansel’s ‘Gnostic Heresies,’ p. 147. Return

[66.1] Just so the Nominalists and their modern followers deny to reason a voice, not only on questions of pure ontology, but on all points settled by traditional dogma (Harnack, vi. 163) ; but thus to discard reason altogether is to make every superstition impregnable. Return

[66.2] The scholastic term was ‘Actus purus,’ pure actuality or energizing. Return

[66.3] The later history of the ‘World-soul’ is given in Renan’s ‘Averroes.’ Dante censured it, and the Lateran Council of 1518 anathematized it. Pope, following Spinoza, revived it. Return

[67.1] ‘Not-being’ is an equivocal term—nothing in relation to God, but a very pernicious something in relation to man. Return

[67.2] Ennead,’ V., 1 and 6, quoted in Whittaker’s ‘The Neoplatonists,’ p. 37, note 1. Return

[67.3] Plotinus followed Plato, who had said man’s object should be to attain likeness to God as far as possible (Homoiōsis tō theō). Return

[67.4] This threefold division of the virtues agrees with the Ṣūfī division of the Law, the Path, and the Truth. Return

[67.5] Contemplation, Theōria was Theou orāsis, the ‘beholding God,’ according to the Schoolmen’s derivation of the word. Plotinus says the One is seen ‘in presence which is better than science’ (kata parousian epistēmēs kreittona). Return

[68.1] See Bigg’s ‘Confessions of St. Augustine,’ p. 321 and note. All these Plotinian ideas were worked into Christian theology by Clement and Origen, himself a pupil of Ammonius Saccas, under whom Plotinus had studied. See Bigg’s ‘Christian Platonists of Alexandria.’ Return

[68.2] See Ghazzālī’s account in Appendix III. Also ‘Ḥayy Ibn Yokdhan’ or ‘Philosophus autodidactus,’ published by Pococke in 1671, and now translated by Dr. Brönnle under the title ‘The Awakening of the Soul’ (Murray, 1905). See his Introduction, pp. 17-19. A passage of this is quoted by the Quaker Barclay in his ‘Apology,’ edition of 1678, p. 126. Plotinus’s own account may be read in Thomas Taylor’s translation (Bell and Son’s reprint, 1895, pp. 301-324). Return

[69.1] ‘Masnavī,’ p. 262. Return

[70.1] The Arabic text and a Latin translation of this passage are given by Tholuck in his ‘Ssufismus,’ pp. 3 and 105. Return

[70.2] Dhikr is the term used to denote the orisons of the Dervishes. Return

← Previous Contents

About this edition

Hidden Lantern: classical Sufi texts, kept alive in practice. Privacy