• Wittgenstein
    442
    The Bold text is Jami's explanation


    " The Real Being is One alone, at once who is truly Existent and the Absolute, but He possesses different degrees. In the first degree He is unmanifested and unconditioned ,and exempt from all limitation or relation, In this aspect he cannot be described by epithets or attributes, and is too holy to be designated by spoken or written words , neither does tradition furnish an expression for His Majesty, nor has reason the power to demonstrate the depth of His perfection. The greatest philosophers are baffled by the impossibility of attaining to knowledge of Him . His first characteristic is the lack of all characteristics, and the last result of the attempt to know Him is stupefaction

    The second degree is the self-display of very being in an epiphany containing in itself all the active, necessary and divine manifestations, as well as all the passive, contingent and mundane manifestations. This degree is named the * First Emanation " because it is the first of all the manifestations of the Very Being , and above it there is no other degree than that of the ' Unmanifested '

    The third degree is named the 'Unity of the Whole Aggregate", which contains in itself all the active and efficient manifestations .It is also named the degree of "Divinity"

    The fourth degree is the manifestation of detail , of the degree named Divinity , it is the degree of the names and the theatres wherein they are manifested .These two last named degrees refer to the outward aspect of Being wherein necessity is a universal condition

    The fifth degree is the ' Unity of the Whole Aggregate,' which includes all the passive manifestations whose characteristic is the potentiality of receiving impressions, i.e passivity, It is the degree of mundane existence and contingency.

    The sixth degree is the manifestation in detail of the preceding degree , it is the degree of the sensible world .These two last degrees refer to the exterior of the intelligible world wherein contingency is one of the invariable qualities

    It consists of the revelation of the Divine Mind to himself under the forms of the substances of the contingent.  Consequently, in reality there is but One Sole Being, who is interfused in all these degrees and hierarchies which are only the details of the Unity " Singleness" The Very Being in these degrees is identical with them, just as these degrees when they were in the Very Being , were identical therewith

    [God was, and there was not anything with Him] "


    This should give you some perspective

    Ibn Arabi's panentheism gives a very interesting response to the theological problems concerning God, free will, theodicy , nature of hell , cause of disagreement in religious creed

    As this universe is the manifestation of the attributes of God, it is all good beyond the framework of morality, in a transcendental sense. In every single moment (which escapes our comprehension) the universe is brought to the realm of psuedo existence from non-existence, but it has never tasted absolute existence which belongs to God only. God's mercy and love keeps the universe in a state of pseudo existence.

    That's why evil has no existence in the realm of God's existence, it only attains meaning in relation to ourselves and the world. A similitude can clarify my position. If you murder someone in a dream, you have not done any evil in your wakeful state , ie the world where existence is considerably strong. Furthermore, it doesn't make sense to apply our moral understanding on God as we exist on a different plane.

    As for free will, free will and determinism are two sides of the same coin. Some interpreters of Ibn Arabi make space for the freedom of intention (will) in an individual, but others leave no room for it. Ibn Arabi doesn't have a problem with denying our free will to make room for determinism, but in a very paradoxical manner. The sudden desire/intention that appears in our mind, even if in the absence of an apparent chain of cause effect, it's caused by God to appear before we can even apprehend it. However, the will of God is inextricably tied to the nature of every created being. Every person has a kernal which is the fountain of future actions, this is known to God in its totality, so God makes it manifest. Your free will is determined in precedence but it's YOUR free will that's being predetermined.

    How could God judge people and send them to paradise/hell if free will is determinism ? For Ibn Arabi, hell isn't a bad place for those who are destined to reside in it. Contentment is achieved by inner harmony with the world out there. The inner nature of disbelievers will come to be comfortable with hell and the inner nature of believers will find comfort in paradise. Hell is obviously terrible for believers so it still retains it's scary imagery in the holy books.

    As for the cause of disagreement between believers and disbelievers alike in creed/religion. God cannot be contained in a single creed. The cause of disagreement doesn't negate the existence of God, it only alludes to the incomprehensible nature of God. A true mystic affirms every single creed in its ontological intent. On the day of Resurrection, God will appear to every person in the way he was thought of. This will leave everyone bewildered. So never run away from bewilderment in your path to God
  • Hillary
    1.9k
    The second degree is the self-display of very being in an epiphany containing in itself all the active, necessary and divine manifestations, as well as all the passive, contingent and mundane manifestations. This degree is named the * First Emanation " because it is the first of all the manifestations of the Very Being , and above it there is no other degree than that of the ' Unmanifested 'Wittgenstein

    The first emanation of the eternal gods in eternal heaven appear in the First Grand Epihany in the dream or conscious mind, through which the message is sent of the reasons of the collective divine creation along with an epiphany on the basic structure of the fundamental nature of the divine matter used. Consider this as a sign of gratitude that the gods could use your dream or mind to receive the divine message. The epiphany of the nature of the basic material of the universe is a scientific landmark which in the whole history of science hasn't been experienced before. Einstein longed for it, like every true physicist should: "The contemplation of this world, beckons, like a liberation". And, fully according to the guidelines of the idol image of Einstein, the epihany experienced can be explained to a six year old. Eternal gratitude to the gods, who made me see the wonder of the structure of the fundamentals of the physical world. Wow, what a trip!
  • javi2541997
    1.8k
    God's mercy and love keeps the universe in a state of pseudo existence.

    According to this proposition... The war, inflation, COVID pandemic, unemployment, and other serious issues are upon to God's mercy... Or what?


    the universe is brought to the realm of psuedo existence from non-existence, but it has never tasted absolute existence which belongs to God only

    Excuse sir, but what the f*ck is going on with your thoughts? :down:
  • Wittgenstein
    442

    I haven't experienced anything like that but l have come close to experiencing annihilation in the remembrance of God. I am only quoting the statements of Jami, who surely experienced the theophany of unity in multiplicity, but he was a monotheist. That's why panentheism is necessary to reconcile the multiplicity of the universe and its diversity with the oneness of God.
  • Hillary
    1.9k
    I haven't experienced anything like that but l have come close to experiencing annihilation in the remembrance of God.Wittgenstein

    Must have been a scary feeling. Being absorbed by the whole? Or was the feeling a great one?
  • Wittgenstein
    442


    According to this proposition... The war, inflation, COVID pandemic, unemployment, and other serious issues are upon to God's mercy... Or what?

    Yes, it's all beautiful from the perspective of God. I have lived with anxiety and depression. My suffering is it's own cure. I am grateful to God, l won't exist without him. I am not brave enough to claim my love for him as that would invite more misfortune towards me but l wish l was capable of loving God

    Excuse sir, but what the f*ck is going on with your thoughts?

    I think you need to expand your mind. You should consider the following question. Do ideas exist ? They surely don't exist in the same way we do. It's not weird to assign different categories/degrees to existence itself.

    In the same way, the universe exists but in relation to God it doesn't have the same degree/type of existence. Just as your ideas exist but not in the same way you exist
  • javi2541997
    1.8k


    They surely don't exist in the same way we do. It's not weird to assign different categories/degrees to existence itself.
    and then, you also pointed out:
    the universe exists but in relation to God [...]
    Two basic steps:
    A) the universe itself doesn't need to be compared with that imaginary subterfuge called God because the universe exists and will exist doesn't matter if we live in earth or not.
    B) you use contradictory arguments to pursue God's omnipotence, but do not worry, I do understand you can only achieve it through faith, not knowledge. What all you are writing is related to your own beliefs.

    l wish l was capable of loving God

    Be careful! Love is a serious mental disease - Plato.
  • Wittgenstein
    442


    Must have been a scary feeling. Being absorbed by the whole? Or was the feeling a great one?

    It's a great experience, better than anything the world can offer. The remembrance/thought of God overtakes your mind. You forget yourself, the surrounding and everything apart from God in that moment.

    However, it's only the first stage. The out of body experience is the next stage. It's more of a lucid dream where you detach yourself from the body and get to interact with spirits. Those who know, they know. Other people can entertain doubt
  • Wittgenstein
    442


    Two basic steps:
    A) the universe itself doesn't need to be compared with that imaginary subterfuge called God because the universe exists and will exist doesn't matter if we live in earth or not.
    B) you use contradictory arguments to pursue God's omnipotence, but do not worry, I do understand you can only achieve it through faith, not knowledge. What all you are writing is related to your own beliefs.

    I like how you are so confident to assert naive-realism which is in fashion these days. I don't think it's easy to proof the existence of the universe or even yourself if you want to go down that path. You can take the Wittgensteinian route and deny the need to ground oneself with a metaphysical foundation but it will also let me take a different paradigm in which the universe doesn't exist compared to God.

    Be careful! Love is a serious mental disease - Plato.

    Damn Plato. He should have wasted less time on philosophy and spent more time on love before condemning it and if love is a mental illness, it's a good one. In Arabic, a lover is called majnoon which literally denotes madness ( of a crazy lover )
  • Hillary
    1.9k
    Damn PlatoWittgenstein

    That's the spirit!
  • javi2541997
    1.8k


    I don't think it's easy to proof the existence of the universe or even yourself if you want to go down that path.

    Neither God's existence.

    He should have wasted less time on philosophy and spent more time on love before condemning it and if love is a mental illness,

    Damn believers. You waste so much time hating philosophy and knowledge
  • Wittgenstein
    442


    Neither God's existence

    And ?

    Once you know it's not possible to proof the existence of anyone ( yourself, the universe and God ) . You stop with the childish disputes of theism vs atheism. That's why l didn't attempt to proof the existence of God before describing panentheism. God's existence is a given and the content proceeds onwards without addressing atheists who are strangers to me.

    Damn believers. You waste so much time hating philosophy and knowledge

    I didn't like the remark of Plato on love but it's interesting to see how you miss the fact that, panentheism is rooted in neo-platonism and Plotinus was one of the first philosophers to describe it in detail. Ibn Arabi only beautified it, he made it more comprehensible and coherent as a whole

    But l am the believer in opposition to philosophers , it seems to you. Have you ever thought that, the musicians, artists, poets also have something to teach you about life. They are not here to entertain you. Learn from them
  • javi2541997
    1.8k
    Have you ever thought that, the musicians, artists, poets also have something to teach you about life. They are not here to entertain you. Learn from themWittgenstein

    Artists, poets, writers, and philophers have always been the brave citizens who expressed their emotions against a cosmological dictatorship you pretend to defend: God.
    I highlight your own words: learn from all of those who develop critical thinking
  • javi2541997
    1.8k
    Once you know it's not possible to proof the existence of anyone ( yourself, the universe and God ) . You stop with the childish disputes of theism vs atheism.Wittgenstein

    It is not even worthy at all. There are more realistic aspects to focus in. The existence of myself or God is limited to a simplistic debate
  • Wittgenstein
    442


    Artists, poets, writers, and philophers have always been the brave citizens who expressed their emotions against a cosmological dictatorship you pretend to defend: God.
    I highlight your own words: learn from all of those who develop critical thinking

    You are conveniently ignoring the great number of believers amongst the artists, poets, writers and philosophers, who didn't protest against God but joined harmoniously with the universe to sing of his glory. Even Nietzsche recognized religion as the greatest form of art. Artistic thinking goes beyond "critical thinking" , which is a euphemism for a mind under the influence of scientism induced paralysis. You are no different from the ordinary plethora of people who have lost the sense of reverence for God in this era. But ofcourse, you are the critical thinker and l am the sheep

    I don't see any dictator running the world. There's a merciful God responsible for the existence of this world and l can't even begin to fathom his perfection. You see the world with what's in you. Once you remove the dirt , the rancor around your heart, you will hear the entire universe sing the praise of God
  • T Clark
    9.5k


    Are you familiar with Taoism? Jami's explanation sounds a lot like the Tao Te Ching. The main difference I see is that the Tao is impersonal while God seems to be personified.
  • Tom Storm
    4.6k
    You see the world with what's in you.Wittgenstein

    Indeed. How are your claims any different to those made by Catholics; Mormons; Scientologists; Hindus? Or anyone who makes pronouncements about the nature of reality.
  • Hillary
    1.9k
    Artists, poets, writers, and philophers have always been the brave citizens who expressed their emotions against a cosmological dictatorship you pretend to defend: God.
    I highlight your own words: learn from all of those who develop critical thinking
    javi2541997

    Then one could be critical too about non-believers, who seek solace in science. I'm a physicist myself, and even a poet, writer, and artist. If there were no gods that had created the basic ingredients of the universe, to let it evolve into a temporal, but eternally repeating reflection of heaven and the eternal gods in it, all human activities would be devoid of reason and beauty. It would all be scientifically explainable, exactly as the sciences pretend to be able to. But they can't and even science itself, the investigation of the matter created by the gods, gets a load of wonder.
  • Wittgenstein
    442


    Indeed. How are your claims any different to those made by Catholics; Mormons; Scientologists; Hindus? Or anyone who makes pronouncements about the nature of reality.

    After reading the works of great philosophers ,eastern and western . I have come to the conclusion that independent reason without other worldly guidance isn't capable of reaching metaphysical, moral, aesthetic truths. Rationalism with a hint of empiricism bridged by Kant is only useful in mathematics and science (stem). This is not to say that l am a positivist, as they reject metaphysics. You can still call me an anti-philosopher as I am in agreement with Ghazali. However, it's useful to translate mystical experience back to philosophy, to make it more accessible.

    You should read into the relatively new emerging sub branch of philosophy, the epistemology of disagreement. This is one of the most honest branch of philosophy and l hope we can see more anti-philosophers in the future, like Wittgenstein, Rorty even if they happen to disagree with each other
  • Wayfarer
    16.3k
    After reading the works of great philosophers ,eastern and western . I have come to the conclusion that independent reason without other worldly guidance isn't capable of reaching metaphysical, moral, aesthetic truths.Wittgenstein

    The passage in the OP is a classical statement of 'the perennial philosophy'.

    The "perennial philosophy" is ...defined as a doctrine which holds [1] that as far as worthwhile knowledge is concerned not all men are equal, but that there is a hierarchy of persons, some of whom, through what they are, can know much more than others; [2] that there is a hierarchy also of the levels of reality, some of which are more "real," because more exalted than others; and [3] that the wise men of old have found a "wisdom" which is true, although it has no "empirical" basis in observations which can be made by everyone and everybody; and that in fact there is a rare and unordinary faculty in some of us by which we can attain direct contact with actual reality--through the Prajñāpāramitā of the Buddhists, the logos of Parmenides, the sophia of Aristotle and others, Spinoza's amor dei intellectualis, Hegel's Vernunft, and so on; and [4] that true teaching is based on an authority which legitimizes itself by the exemplary life and charismatic quality of its exponents. — Edward Conze, Buddhist Philosophy and its European Parallels

    However, it's also true that this insight is essentially incompatible with modernity, which is grounded in the assumption that there is no 'vertical dimension' corresponding to the realm of quality, which the OP refers to, and which is the subject of the OP also. That is why most of the modern exponents of the perennial philosophy are hostile to the idea of modernity. (See Mark Sedgewick, Against the Modern World for a critical history and analysis.)

    For Ibn Arabi, hell isn't a bad place for those who are destined to reside in it.Wittgenstein

    Man: 'It sure is hot down here.'
    Second man: 'Yeah, but at least it's a dry heat'.
  • Tom Storm
    4.6k
    I have come to the conclusion that independent reason without other worldly guidance isn't capable of reaching metaphysical, moral, aesthetic truths.Wittgenstein

    I would have thought that these kinds of transcendental 'truths' are the by product of other worldly beliefs, so this goes without saying, right?
  • Wittgenstein
    442


    I would have thought that these kinds of transcendent 'truths' are the by product of other worldly beliefs, so this goes without saying, right?

    No, you cannot fill a cup that's not empty. The verification of mystical knowledge has got nothing to do with philosophy as its beyond its reach.

    Obviously, you will get people who only want to affirm what they have already conceived of the world
  • Tom Storm
    4.6k
    The verification of mystical knowledge has got nothing to do with philosophy as its beyond its reach.Wittgenstein

    I would have thought that mystical knowledge is beyond human reach. Am I to take it you are a mystic in the Sufi tradition?
  • Wittgenstein
    442


    However, it's also true that this insight is essentially incompatible with modernity, which is grounded in the assumption that there is no 'vertical dimension' corresponding to the realm of quality, which the OP refers to, and which is the subject of the OP also. That is why most of the modern exponents of the perennial philosophy are hostile to the idea of modernity. (See Mark Sedgewick, Against the Modern World for a critical history and analysis.)

    The "perennial philosophy" is ...defined as a doctrine which holds [1] that as far as worthwhile knowledge is concerned not all men are equal, but that there is a hierarchy of persons, some of whom, through what they are, can know much more than others; [2] that there is a hierarchy also of the levels of reality, some of which are more "real," because more exalted than others; and [3] that the wise men of old have found a "wisdom" which is true, although it has no "empirical" basis in observations which can be made by everyone and everybody; and that in fact there is a rare and unordinary faculty in some of us by which we can attain direct contact with actual reality--through the Prajñāpāramitā of the Buddhists, the logos of Parmenides, the sophia of Aristotle and others, Spinoza's amor dei intellectualis, Hegel's Vernunft, and so on; and [4] that true teaching is based on an authority which legitimizes itself by the exemplary life and charismatic quality of its exponents.
    — Edward Conze, Buddhist Philosophy and its European Parallels

    I have read the paragraph you quoted and l disagree with some of the points, the first and third point in particular

    Mystical experience is available for everyone and the qualitative difference we find isn't due to the less capable nature of some people to find wisdom, it's due to their lack of commitment in finding the truth. Some people unfortunately have the blind of racism, nationalism, scientism, sectarianism, base desires etc over their eyes which prevents them from progressing in the spiritual path.

    I agree with the second point, the fourth point is a bit ambiguous. A great exemplary life for me is in selflessly serving mankind without expecting any reward in return and keeping the heart attached to God. There should also be no conflict between the material needs of the body (+society) and the spiritual needs of the individuals
  • Wayfarer
    16.3k
    Mystical experience is available for everyone and the qualitative difference we find isn't due to the less capable nature of some people to find wisdom, it's due to their lack of commitment in finding the truth.Wittgenstein

    But that doesn't square with what you said immediately above:

    I have come to the conclusion that independent reason without other worldly guidance isn't capable of reaching metaphysical, moral, aesthetic truths.Wittgenstein

    Whence does 'other-worldly guidance' originate? Isnt that the meaning of 'revealed truth', that being the kind of insight which by implication is not spontaneously available to the untrained?
  • Wittgenstein
    442


    I would have thought that mystical knowledge is beyond human reach. Am I to take it you are a mystic in the Sufi tradition?

    I'm a worthless abused dog..... l am very far from being a Sufi. I am unofficially affiliated with a Sufi tradition but l haven't really put any effort in it. However, l have read their books ( of the elites amongst them ) and l am slowly preparing myself mentally to take the path of Sufism. It's not an easy path as you have to remain in voluntary poverty and the world will turn its back on you and despise you. The world is full of despise for people like me already so that should not be difficult.
  • Wayfarer
    16.3k
    From the Stanford entry on Ibn Arabi:

    From earliest times, Muslim philosophers recognized that haqq—truth, reality, rightness—was basic to the quest for wisdom and the happiness of the soul. Already al-Kindî, at the beginning of his most famous work, On First Philosophy, writes that the goal of the philosopher is to reach haqq and to practice haqq. Scholars translate the word here and in similar contexts as “truth”, but doing so suggests that the issue was logical and epistemological, when in fact it was ontological and existential; for the philosophers, the goal of the quest for wisdom was transformation of the soul, and that could not be achieved simply by logic and argumentation. Al-Kindî’s statement is in fact an early definition of tahqîq, and the term itself became common in philosophical texts, though it seldom has the same urgency that it has in Ibn ‘Arabî’s works. For him it is the guiding principle of all knowledge and activity and the highest goal to which a human soul can aspire. It means knowing the truth and reality of the cosmos, the soul, and human affairs on the basis of the Supreme Reality, al-Haqq; knowing the Supreme Reality inasmuch as it reveals itself in the haqqs of all things; and acting in keeping with these haqqs at every moment and in every situation. In short, the “realizers” (muhaqqiqûn) are those who fully actualize the spiritual, cosmic, and divine potential of the soul (Chittick 2005, chap. 5).

    Some of the implications of tahqîq can be understood when it is contrasted with its conceptual opposite, taqlîd, which means imitation or following authority. Knowledge can be divided into two sorts, which in Arabic were often called naqlî, transmitted, and ‘aqlî, intellectual; or husûlî, acquired, and hudûrî, presential. Transmitted knowledge is everything that one can learn only by imitating others, like language, culture, scripture, history, law, and science. Intellectual knowledge is what one comes to know by realizing its truth within oneself, like mathematics and metaphysics, even if these are initially learned by imitation. Mullâ Sadrâ calls intellectual knowledge “non-instrumental” (al-ghayr al-âlî), because it accrues to the soul not by the instruments of sense perception, imagination, and rational argumentation, but by the soul’s conformity with reason or intelligence (‘aql), which, in its fullest reality, is nothing but the shining light of the Real. In short, Ibn ‘Arabî, like many of the Islamic philosophers, holds that real knowledge cannot come from imitating others, but must be discovered by realization, which is the actualization of the soul’s potential. Ibn ‘Arabî differs from most philosophers in maintaining that full realization can only be achieved by following in the footsteps of the prophets.

    Again, there are definitely resonances with the ideal of 'self-realisation' as taught by Advaita Vedanta or 'realisation of the true nature' by Buddhists. The term 'realisation' is loaded or highly ramified, without a counterpart in secular discourse.
  • Wittgenstein
    442


    Whence does 'other-worldly guidance' originate? Isnt that the meaning of 'revealed truth', that being the kind of insight which by implication is not spontaneously available to the untrained?

    The revelation of the law (prophetic experience) is no longer available but the mystical experience is still available and it exists to convey esoteric meaning of the revealed text. Every person is capable of receiving mystical knowledge but it requires committment. You can have a spiritual master but he only acts as a medium and it's possible for God to increase your wisdom/knowledge without any intermediary
  • Wittgenstein
    442


    Again, there are definitely resonances with the ideal of 'self-realisation' as taught by Advaita Vedanta or 'realisation of the true nature' by Buddhists. The term 'realisation' is loaded or highly ramified, without a counterpart in secular discourse.

    The highest aspiration of every Sufi is actually gazing at the sight of God . This world is a carcass for them, the paradise is a distraction. Self realization is only the beginning. You are supposed to die before death and annihilate yourself to the point God will bring you back to "life" with a new form/body/properties. Here's a famous hadith Ibn Arabi would always quote.

    On the authority of Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him), who said that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said:

    "Allah (mighty and sublime be He) said: Whosoever shows enmity to someone devoted to Me, I shall be at war with him. My servant draws not near to Me with anything more loved by Me than the religious duties I have enjoined upon him, and My servant continues to draw near to Me with supererogatory works so that I shall love him. When I love him I am his hearing with which he hears, his seeing with which he sees, his hand with which he strikes and his foot with which he walks. Were he to ask [something] of Me, I would surely give it to him, and were he to ask Me for refuge, I would surely grant him it. I do not hesitate about anything as much as I hesitate about [seizing] the soul of My faithful servant: he hates death and I hate hurting him."

    It was related by al-Bukhari.

    And a famous quote of Rabia Basri : "O my Lord, whatever share of this world You have bestowed on me, bestow it to my enemies, and whatever share of the next world You have for me, give it to my friends. You are enough for me."
  • Wayfarer
    16.3k
    Whosoever shows enmity to someone devoted to Me, I shall be at war with himWittgenstein

    Best not to argue, then. :worry:
  • Hillary
    1.9k


    To argue means being at war...
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.