Dokuzuncu Lem'a/en

[Not everyone should read this Flash, for some people will not discern the subtle errors of the Unity of Existence, and are not in need of it.] In His Name! And there is nothing but it glorifies Him with praise.(17:44) My Dear, Loyal, Sincere, Conscientious Brother! The reason I did not write a separate letter to my brother Abdülmecid,(*)was that I considered the letters I had written to you to be sufficient. After Hulûsî,(*) Abdülmecid is a valuable brother for me and a student. Every morning and evening he is present in name in my prayers together with Hulûsî, sometimes being mentioned first. First Sabri,(*)vthen Hakkı Efendi(*) profit from the letters I write you. I do not write them separate letters either. Almighty God made you a blessed elder brother to them. Correspond with Abdülmecid in my place; he should not worry, for after Hulûsî, I think of him. YOUR FIRST QUESTION You ask a confidential question about one of your forebears signing himself, “al- Sayyid Muhammad.” My brother, it isn’t possible for me to give a scholarly answer to this or to research into it. However, I told my companions: “Hulûsi resembles neither the present-day Turks, nor the Kurds. I see other qualities in him.” They agreed with this. We said in accordance with the saying, “No talent is needed to receive God’s gifts,” the nobility observed in Hulûsi is a divine gift. Also, as you know, God’s Noble Messenger (Upon whom be blessings and peace) has two families. One consists of his descendants, and the other is the family of his prophethood’s luminous collective personality. You certainly belong to the latter, and I am of the opinion, though unsubstantiated, that in respect of his first family, your forefather’s signature was not without reason. My Dear Brother! A SUMMARY OF YOUR SECOND QUESTION Muhyiddin al-‘Arabi(*)

said: “The spirit’s createdness consists of its unfolding.” With  this  question  you  are compelling a powerless  wretch  like me to  contest an awesomely   brilliant  scholar  of  reality  and  genius  of  the  occult  sciences  like Muhyiddin al-‘Arabi. However, relying on the teachings of the Qur’an I can attempt the discussion; even if I am only a fly, I can fly higher than that eagle.

My brother! You should understand that Muhyiddin would not deceive, but he could be deceived. He was rightly-guided, but could not act as a guide in all his works. What he saw was correct, but it was not realit y. The reality of man’s spirit, about which you ask, is explained in the Twenty-Ninth Word, the discussion about the spirit. Yes, in respect of its nature, the spirit is a law proceeding from the divine command, but it is a living law clothed in external existence and possessing external existence. Muhyiddin thought of it only from the point of view of its essential nature. His way of the Unity of Existence considers the existence of things to be imaginary. He had wondrous visions and unveiled the realities, but since he had chosen an independent way, he was compelled to apply, artificially and with forced interpretations, certain Qur’anic verses to his way and observations, thus marring the clarity of the verses. In others of his treatises he expounds the straight highway of the Qur’an and of the Sunnis. He was a holy man who held a position all his own, and he was one of the well-accepted, but he exceeded the mark in his unbalanced disclosures and in many matters opposed the majority of the learned authorities. It is because of this that although he was such an elevated and wondrous spiritual pole, unequalled down the ages, it is as though his particular way was very short and restricted to Sadruddin al-Qunawi.(*) His works are only rarely benefited from by those on the straight path. Many of the authoritive scholars do not encourage study of those valuable works and some of them even prevent it. Lengthy study and a very lofty, broad view is needed to show the fundamental differences together with their sources between Muhyiddin’s way and that of the exacting scholars. Yes, the differences are so fine and profound and the sources, so elevated and extensive that Muhyiddin has not been censured and has continued to be accepted. For if in regard to thought, scholarship, and illumination the difference and sources had become apparent, it would have been very humiliating for him, and he would have been seen to be in serious error. Since the difference is so profound, we shall try to show it and the sources briefly by means of a comparison, and Muhyiddin’s errors in the matter. For example, the sun appears in a mirror. The mirror both contains the sun and is qualified by it. That is to say, in one respect the sun is present in the mirror, and in another it adorns the mirror, becoming a brilliant colour, attribute and quality of it. If the mirror had been a camera, it would have fixed the sun’s image on photographic paper. In these cases, the sun in the mirror, and its semblance on the photographic paper, and its aspect that adorns the mirror and becomes like a quality of the mirror, are other than the actual sun. They are not the sun, but the sun’s manifestation which has taken on another existence. As for the existence of the sun that is visible in the mirror, even if it is not identical with the sun that is visible outside, since it is tied to it and points to it, it is supposed to have the same existence. In consequence of this, it may be said: “There is nothing apart from the actual sun in the mirror,” meaning that the mirror contains it and intending the sun’s external existence in the mirror. But if it is said that the sun’s extended reflection, which has become like an attribute or quality of the mirror, and its image which has been transposed to the photographic paper is the sun, it is wrong; it is an error to say: “There is nothing in them other than the sun.” For there is the reflection on the mirror’s shining face and the image formed on its back, and these have their own separate existences. For sure those existences are from the sun’s manifestation, but they are not the sun. The human mind and imagination resemble this example of the mirror, as follows: The information in the mirror of man’s thought also has two faces: in one respect it is knowledge, in another, it is known. If we suppose the mind to contain what is known, then the known thing becomes something known by the mind; its existence is something different to the mind. If we suppose the mind to be qualified by the thing, it becomes an attribute or quality of the mind; then the thing becomes knowledge and has an external existence. Even if the existence of the thing known is essential (jawhari), it has an accidental external existence like the knowledge. Thus, according to these two comparisons, the universe is a mirror. The true nature of beings is also mirror-like; they are subject to divine creation through pre- eternal power. In one respect, each being is a sort of mirror to one of the names of the Pre-Eternal Sun, displaying its embroideries. The followers of Muhyiddin’s way unveiled them only in respect of being mirrors and containers, revealing the similitude of their existence in the mirror, from the point of view of denial. Supposing the reflection to be identical with the thing reflected, they did not think of other levels. They said: “There is no existent but He,” and were in error. They almost went as far as denying the fundamental rule: “The reality of beings is constant.” As for the people of reality, they have seen through the mystery of the legacy of prophethood and the definite statements of the Qur’an that the embroideries and inscriptions that come into being in the mirrors of things through divine power and will are His works. They are “all from Him;” they are not “all Him.”(*)

Things have an existence and their existence is constant to a degree. For sure it is weak compared to that of  the Necessary Existence, like an illusion or imagining, but through the Pre- Eternal All-Powerful One’s creation, will, and power, it exists.

In the comparison, the sun in the mirror has an existence through its similitude apart from its external existence. And its expanded reflection also, which gives colour to and adorns the mirror, has an accidental and separate external existence. And the sun’s image which is depicted on the photographic paper on the back of the mirror also has a separate and accidental external existence. Similarly, the inscriptions of beings, which appear through the manifestations of the sacred divine names – occurring through will, choice, and power – in the mirror of the universe and mirrors of the quintessential natures of things, have a created existence separate from the Necessary Existence. And this existence has been given a permanence through pre-eternal power. But if the connection were to be severed, all things would at once cease to be. Because for their continued existence, all things are every instant in need of their Creator’s preserving them. “The reality of things is constant,” but it is constant and permanent only through His making it so. Thus, Muhyiddin’s saying: “Spirit is not created; it is a reality proceeding from the world of the divine command and from the attribute of will,” is contrary to many clear statements of the Qur’an and Hadiths, and according to the investigation above, he was confused, deceived, and had not seen the weak existences of things. The places of manifestation of such divine names as Creator and Provider cannot be illusory or imaginary. Since the names have a reality, their places of manifestation also have an external reality. YOUR THIRD QUESTION You want instruction in the science of jafr that will be a key to it. The Answer: We are not carrying out this work and service at our own wish and through our own planning. A better will than ours governs it, over and above our wills. The science of jafr is an absorbing and pleasurable occupation, but it busies us and detains us from our true duties. It has often happened that some of the Qur’an’s mysteries have been revealed through it as though it were a key, but on addressing myself to them with real enthusiasm and enjoyment, they eluded me. I have discovered two instances of wisdom in this: The First: It may be discourteous towards the prohibition of “None knows the Unseen save God.” The Second: Teaching the Islamic community about the fundamental truths of belief and the certain proofs of the Qur’an is a sacred service far exceeding in value and merit such occult sciences as jafr. Their firm evidences and categorical proofs allow no opportunity for exploitation, but occult sciences like jafr that are not bound by any firm rules, and are open to abuse and exploitation by charlatans. In any event, a little is bestowed whenever the need arises in this service of reality arises. Among the keys of jafr, the easiest, and perhaps the purest and finest, are the various sorts of ‘coincidences.’ These proceed from the divine name of Originator (Bedi’) and have been manifested in the name of Allah in the Qur’an and adorn the works we have published. They have been pointed out to an extent in several places in the work Kerâmet-i Gavsiye (The Wonders of al-Gawth al-A‘zam). For instance, the ‘coincidences’ showing something in several aspects constitutes a sign that has the strength of a proof. Sometimes with a number of deductions, a single ‘coincidence’ may form a proof. However, this is enough for now. If there is serious need, it will be made known to you. YOUR FOURTH QUESTION That is, not your question but Imam Ömer Efendi’s, about a wretched doctor saying that Jesus (UWP) had a father.(*)

With a lunatic interpretation, the doctor tried to show that a Qur’anic verse justifies his saying this.

At one time, the unfortunate man was trying to create something with the Disjointed Letters. He was working at it feverishly. Then I understood that he had perceived from the atheists’ attitude that they were going to attempt to abolish the Islamic script. He was struggling pointlessly as though to save the script in the face of that flood. Now in this matter, and in the Second Matter, he saw the atheists’ terrible attacks against the fundamentals of Islam, and I reckon he wanted to find a way of compromising through meaningless interpretations like that. Since definite verses like, The similitude of Jesus before God is as that of Adam,(3:59) state that Jesus (Upon whom be peace) had no father, no importance should be given to what those who attempt to change such certain, veritable facts say with their idiotic, forced interpretations. For they suppose it impossible that the law of human reproduction be broken. But there is no law that has no exceptions and to which individuals have not been subject. And there is no universal rule that has not been breached by extraordinary individuals. Since the time of Adam there has been no law to which there have been no individual exceptions. Firstly, the law of reproduction was violated in regard to origins by the origins of the two hundred thousand animal species, and brought to an end. That is, the two hundred thousand progenitors of the species, quite simply like Adam’s, violated the law of reproduction. They were not born of a father and mother and were given existence outside the law. Furthermore, the greater part – innumerable individuals – of the hundred thousand species we see with our eyes every spring are created outside that law, on the surface of leaves and on putrified matter. So you can see just how unreasonable someone is who cannot accept with his reason the exception of a single individual in one thousand nine hundred years to a law that was violated and breached at its origin and has been breached every year even, and clings to forced interpretations of the definite statements of the Qur’an. The things those wretches call natural laws are the laws called ‘adat Allah or divine practices, which are a universal manifestation of the divine command and dominical will, and which Almighty God changes for certain instances of wisdom. He shows that His will and choice govern in everything and in every law. Certain extraordinary individuals breach those practices. This truth He points out with His decree, “The similitude of Jesus before God is as that of Adam.”(3:59) Ömer Efendi’s Second Question concerning the doctor: The doctor behaves extremely foolishly in this matter, so that to listen to what he says or give it importance is very demeaning. The unfortunate wants to be half way between belief and unbelief. I say the following, in reply not to his trifling words, but to Ömer Efendi’s questioning: The reason for the injunctions and prohibitions of the Shari‘a are the divine command and divine prohibition. Advantages and instances of wisdom are to give them weight, and may be the reason for the command or prohibition from the point of view of the divine name of All-Wise. For example, someone making a journey shortens the five daily prayers. There is a reason for (illet) and a purpose or instance of wisdom in (hikmet) shortening them. The reason is the journey, while the purpose is the difficulty involved. If on a journey and there is no difficulty involved, the prayers are still shortened. If not on a journey, and the person suffers a hundred difficulties in his own house, he may not shorten the prayers. For the difficulty occurring on some journeys is sufficient as the purpose for shortening the prayers, and is again sufficient for making the journey the reason. Thus, in accordance with this rule of the Shari‘a, the Shari‘a’s injunctions do not change due to purposes or instances of wisdom; they look to the true reasons. Apart from the harm and illness caused by pork, as the doctor said, according to the saying, “The person who eats pork becomes piggish in some ways;”(*) the pig is not harmless like other domestic animals. Its meat causes considerable harm rather than being beneficial. And it has been established medically that its powerful fat is also harmful, even in the lands of Europe which are powerfully cold, and is thus in fact and in meaning extremely harmful. Instances of wisdom such as these are purposes for the divine prohibition and for its being forbidden. The wisdom does not have to be present in every instance and all the time. The reason does not change with the purpose and wisdom changing. If the reason does not change, the injunction does not change. From this rule it may be seen just how far from the spirit of the Shari‘a the unfortunate man was when he spoke. No importance should be given to what he said regarding the Shari‘a. The Creator has many animals in the form of unreasoning philosophers!

An Addendum to the Answer to Your Question about Muhyiddin al-‘Arabi

Question: Muhyiddin al-‘Arabi considered the Unity of Existence to be of the highest level. Likewise, some of the great saints who took the path of love followed him. However, you say that this matter is not of the highest level and is not real; that it is rather the way, to a degree, of those who become intoxicated and immersed in the divine, and of the people of love and ecstasy. So what, briefly, is the high level of the affirmation of divine unity pointed out by the clear verses of the Qur’an, through the mystery of the legacy of prophethood? Can you explain it? The Answer: It is a hundred times beyond the ability of an utterly powerless unfortunate like myself to judge those elevated stations with his limited thought. I shall just explain one or two extremely brief points proceeding from the effulgence of the All-Wise Qur’an. Perhaps they will be useful in understanding the matter. FIRST POINT There are numerous reasons for becoming embroiled in the way of the Unity of Existence. One or two of them may be described as follows: The First Reason: Because they could not squeeze into their brains the maximum degree of the creativity of dominicality, nor entirely establish in their hearts the idea that everything, through the mystery of divine oneness, is held directly in the grasp of dominicality and that all things have existence through divine power, choice, and will, those who took that way were obliged to say that everything is either Him, or does not have existence, or is imaginary, or is His manifestation or emanation. The Second Reason: The mark of passionate love is to want never to be separated from the beloved and to flee desperately from such separation; to tremble at the thought of parting, to fear distance from the beloved as though fearing Hell, and to abominate transience; to love union with the love of one’s own spirit and life, and to yearn to be near to the beloved as though longing for Paradise. Thus, through adhering to a manifestation of divine immediacy in all things, those who took the way of the Unity of Existence disregarded separation and distance; supposing union and meeting to be permanent, they said: “There is no existent but He;” through the intoxication of love and as demanded by the ecstasy of permanence, meeting, and union, they imagined that in the Unity of Existence was a most pleasurable way of illumination whereby they could be saved from the dreadfulness of separation. That is to say, the first reason sprang from the fact that the hand of their intellects was unable to reach up to some of the truths of belief, which were extremely broad and elevated; they were unable to comprehend them, and had not developed completely in regard to belief. While the source of the second reason was the extraordinary unfolding of their hearts from the point of view of love, and their wondrous expansion and breadth. However, the supreme level of divine unity, which the Purified Ones – who werethe people of sobriety and great saints of the legacy of prophethood – saw through the explicit expositions of the Qur’an is both extremely elevated, and shows both the maximum level of dominicality and creativity and that all the divine names are real. It preserves the Qur’an’s principles and does not spoil the balance of the decrees of dominicality. For they say that together with the oneness of His essence and His being free of space, with His knowledge Almighty God encompasses and determines directly all things together with all their attributes, and through His will He chooses and specifies them, and through His power He creates them. He creates and directs the whole universe as though it were a single being. He creates the huge spring with the ease of creating a flower. Nothing obstructs anything else. There is no fragmentation in His regarding things. He is present everywhere at the same instant through the disposal of His knowledge and power. There is no division or distribution in His disposal. This mystery has been expounded and proved decisively in the Sixteenth Word and in the Second Stopping-Place of the Thirty-Second Word. Since, according to the rule, “Comparisons are incontestible,” no attention should be paid to defects in comparisons and allegories, I shall set forth a very faulty comparison so that the difference between the two ways may be understood to a degree. For example, let us imagine a huge, matchless, and wondrously adorned peacock which can fly from east to west in an instant, and opens and closes its wings, which stretch from north to south, are adorned with hundreds of thousands of fine patterns, and in every single feather of which are included brilliant arts. Now, there are two men observing it; they want to fly with the wings of the intellect and heart up to the elevated qualities of this bird, to its wondrous decorations. One looks at the peacock’s condition and form and the marvellous inscriptions of power on all its feathers; he loves it with extreme passion and ardour; he in part abandons his attentive reflective thought, and clings to love. But then he sees that every day those lovable decorations change and are transformed. Those objects of his love, which he worships, disappear and are lost. While he should have said that through true divine unity, which he could not encompass with his mind, and absolute dominicality and the oneness of the divine essence, they were the artistic decorations of an Inscriber possessing universal creativity, he said instead – in order to console himself – that the spirit of the peacock was so sublime that its maker was within it, or that the peacock had become him, and that since its spirit had become one with its being, and its being had combined with its outward appearance, its spirit’s perfection and being’s exaltedness displayed those manifestations, displaying every moment a different inscription and beauty; it was not a true creation through its will, but rather a manifestation, an emanation. As for the other man, he said that those harmonious, orderly decorations so full of art definitely required will, choice, intention, and purpose. It was impossible for there to be a manifestation without will, an emanation without choice. Yes, the peacock had a beautiful and elevated nature, but it could not be the doer; it was passive. It could not become one with the active agent. Its spirit was fine and exalted, but it could not be the creator and disposer, only receptive and a means. For observedly in each of its feathers was an art performed with infinite wisdom and an inscription and decoration made through an infinite power. And these could not occur without will and choice. The arts indicating perfect wisdom within perfect power, and perfect dominicality and mercy within perfect wisdom were not the work of some sort of manifestation. The scribe who had written that gilded notebook could not be inside it and be united with it. The notebook rather only had contact with the nib of the scribe’s pen. In which case, the wondrous decorations of the similitude of the peacock known as the universe were a gilded missive of the peacock’s Creator. Now, look at the peacock and read the missive. Say to its Scribe: “What wonders God has willed! Blessed be God! Glory be to God!” The person who supposes the missive to be the scribe, or the scribe to be inside the letter, or fancies the missive to be imagination, has surely mislaid his reason in the veils of love, and been unable to see the true form of reality. Among the varieties of passionate love, the one most giving rise to the way of the Unity of Existence, is love of this world. When it turns into true love, love of this world, which is temporary, is transformed into the Unity of Existence. A person loves a personal beloved with worldly love. Then, unable to accept in his heart his beloved’s transience and ephemerality, he consoles himself by saying that his beloved is a mirror reflecting the beauty of the True Object of Love and Worship, and attaches himself to a reality, so acquiring permanence for him through true love. In the same way, when due to the constant blows of death and separation the strange love of the person who takes the huge world and the universe in its totality as his beloved is transformed into true love, he seeks refuge in the way of the Unity of Existence in order to save that great beloved of his from death and separation. If he has extremely powerful and elevated belief, it becomes a pleasurable, luminous, acceptable level, as with those resembling Muhyi’d-Din al-‘Arabi. However, it is possible he may fall into various abysses, embrace materiality, and become submerged in causes. As for the Unity of Witnessing, it is harmless; it is an exalted way of the people of sobriety. O God, show us what is indeed the truth, and make us follow it! Glory be unto You! We have no knowledge save that which You have taught us; indeed, You are All-Knowing, All-Wise.(2:32)

---

The Eighth Flash ⇐ | The Flashes | ⇒ The Tenth Flash

---