Wahdat-i-Wujud and Wahdat-i-Shuhud - Part Three
How does a thought differ from the thinker? How
does manifestation differ from the One who made
such manifestation possible?
Neither Wahdat-i-Wujud nor Wahdat-i-Shuhud can
answer these questions. However, the former
(i.e., Wahdat-i-Wujud) approaches things from the
direction that whatever is known, experienced, or
realized cannot be said to be other than That which
has made it possible, even though such manifestations
can never exhaust nor circumscribe the Source of their
being - whether this 'being' is construed as a something
which is nothing, or a nothing which is something. And,
Wahdat-i-Shuhud approaches things from the perspective
that whatever is known, experienced, witnessed, or
realized is delimited by the nature of the fitra which
has been bequeathed to us through Divine Himma or
Aspiration.
Consequently, according to Wahdat-i-Shuhud, no matter
how much we come to know, by the Grace of God, there
will always be a distinction to be drawn between the
servant and his or her Lord - a distinction which indicates
that we are other than Dhat. On the other hand, according
to Wahdat-i-Wujud, no matter how much of a distinction
one wishes to make between Dhat and Created being,
the latter can never be completely separated from, or
other than, Divinity, and this interstitial reality is
inherent in the Shahadah.
Indeed, this is why the Shahadah does not stop with
proclaiming that 'there is no reality but Allah' and, instead,
proceeds on to maintain that 'Muhammad is the Messenger
of Allah.' There is no reality but Divinity, and, yet, nevertheless,
and paradoxically, Muhammad (peace be upon him) is the Rasul
of Allah.
As has been reported in a Hadith Qudsi - which consists
of those extra-wahiy or extra-revelatory instances in which Allah
speaks through the mouth of the Prophet - "I am Ahmad without
meem (m)." That is, when one removes the letter meem from Ahmad,
one of the names of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him),
one is left with 'Ahad' - the One - one of the beautiful names of
Allah ... and one should keep in mind that something more than a
spelling lesson is being alluded to here.
There is a Tawhid or unity in Being, and there is a Tawhid
or unity in knowing, and there is a Tawhid in the relationship
of: being and knowing, existence and realization, experience
and potential. We are Divine to the extent that there is
nothing other than Divinity, but the Divine transcends any
of the manifestations which are made possible through the
nature of Divinity. We can know the Divinity which makes
us possible only to the extent of our realized capacity to do
so, but no matter how great this realized capacity may be, it
will never exhaust or grasp the unknowable and inaccessible
depths of the Dhat which is beyond everything which has
been brought into created being.
What we can know of Reality is both substantial and illusory.
It is substantial in as much as our capacity to know has
been 'wired' by Divinity to gain access to the Real - up to
the limit of capacity. Just because the Ocean does not fit
into a glass of water, this fact does not make the water in the
glass any less real.
On the other hand, what is known is
illusory because what lies beyond its horizons is totally
beyond the realms of comprehensibility - and, there is
more beyond the horizons than is contained by, or within, them. In other
words, what is known is illusory because Reality is always
more than what our knowledge understands Reality to be - and
this is so no matter how extensive, deep, rich, and insightful
such knowledge may be.
Ahmad Sirhindi (may Allah be pleased with him) uses
the example of a stick, one end of which has been placed
in a fire. When the stick is picked up and moved in a
circle, the illusion of a circle is created.
Although the circle is an illusion, nevertheless, it is
an illusion which people can see and describe (in terms of,
for example, color, location, size, and shape). Through
this process of consensual validation, the illusion has a certain
'real' status, even though its existence is totally dependent on
the stick, the fire, the heating, and the movement for it
contingent mode of being. Moreover, although the circle
is an illusion, its fleeting character is, nonetheless, underwritten
by that which has - to some degree - a substantial reality.
One can catch a glimpse of the Chinese-puzzle-box-like nature
of Reality by reflecting on the foregoing example. If one were
to posit or assume that the circle of light had self-awareness
and some capacity for understanding, then, the circle of light
might understand, among other things, that its existence
was ephemeral - that is, 'life' or being would last only as long
as one end of the stick was sufficiently hot and only as long
as the stick was moved and only as long as other conditions
existed which lent support to the creation of the illusion (for
example, that there was oxygen, that there was a fire, that
the stick could be made to catch fire and glow, and so on).
However, when one turns to issues such as: why does the illusion
have the shape it does, or why does the illusion appear at certain
points and not others, or why is the illusion permitted to start and,
then, stop, or what happens to the consciousness of the illusion,
once the physical form of the illusion is discontinued, or does the
illusion serve any purpose, then, with such questions, one is venturing
into areas of meaning, significance, and the truth of 'things'.
How, and to what extent, does the consciousness of the illusion
penetrate to the intentions of the That which makes the illusion
possible? Surely, the answer to such questions is this: only to
the extent and in the ways which are permitted by That which
makes the illusion possible.
The logic, so to speak, is one of tautology. In other words, once
one understands the nature of what is packed into the premise
of being, then, everything which comes to be known, by the Grace
of God, is contained in the character of one's starting premise which,
in the case of human beings, is known as 'fitra'. All of life is a
matter of seeking to unpack that which is given from the beginning.
Whatever is not packed into the starting premise of one's being
can never be known.
In a Hadith Qudsi, Divinity is reported to have
said: "I was a hidden treasure and loved to be known, so, I
brought forth Creation." We know whatever can be known -
at least by humankind - of this hidden treasure by the light of
Allah - that is, we know God by God and only to the extent which
God wishes.
No matter how much we may be permitted to know
there is always a Beyond which lies hidden 'outside' - and, this
'outside' is not spatial but ontological and epistemic - the horizons
of our experience, knowledge, and understanding. For Divinity
to have said that "I loved to be known" does not becessarily
entail exhaustive, definitive, complete knowledge but, rather,
encompasses only as much knowledge as God loved to be
the case with respect to the Hidden Treasure, and this capacity
for knowing the Hidden Treasure was factored into the Creation
when it was brought forth - "None of us there is but has a known
station." (Qur'an 37:164).
Every dimension of being - other than Dhat (Divine Essence) - constitutes an 'effect' relative to the realm of being through which that dimension of manifested being is given expression. That is, the former (the effect) has a borrowed, contingent, relative, illusory quality of being relative to the latter (that which makes the 'effect' possible).
Even the Divine Sifat (Attributes) and 'Asma (Names) presuppose the existence of Dhat. As such, the qualities and character of Sifat and 'Asma do not manifest themselves independently of Dhat - rather, they are the Effects of the unknown and unknowable Dhat of Divinity.
Sifat and 'Asma are manifested in accordance with the nature of the Divine purpose or himma through which the actions of the Names and Attributes are made possible. Names and Attributes are the servants of Dhat, and the patterns which are woven by the work of these Servants reflect the Divine purpose or himma according to the nature - taken both individually and collectively - of these Names and Attributes.
According to our essential spiritual capacity and according to the nature of what Divinity permits in relation to this capacity, we know something of the nature of the Names and Attributes through the manifested effects of these Names and Attributes. Such knowledge does not provide us with any insight into the nature of Dhat or the Divine Essence other than the fact that such Names and Attributes are made possible by Dhat.
Experience is 'real' to the extent that some realm of being makes
such experience possible and to the extent that God has given
human kind the capacity to establish consensual validation with
respect to the properties and qualities of such experience.
Experience is illusory to the extent that it is the effect of
something which is transcendent to it and which only makes
things appear as they do under certain circumstances
which are all established through the action of That which
is Transcendent to the lesser, illusory realm of being.
God says: "We shall show them Our signs upon the horizons
and in themselves, until it is clear to them that God is the Real."
(Qur'an, 41:53) Nothing is said here about what lies beyond
those horizons nor about what lies beyond the God-given
capacity or fitra within us for realizing the signs of Divinity which
are manifested there - yet, whatever is made clear to us, there is
no doubt (and God is the authority for what is said here) that in
an interstitial - or in between - sense, what is being witnessed is
nothing other than the Real.
In the Qur'an one finds the following:
Verily, God does not forgive the ascribing of divinity to aught besides Him, although He forgives any lesser sin unto whomever He wills: for he who ascribes divinity to aught besides God has indeed contrived an awesome sin. (Qur'an 4:48)
Some may suppose that what is being said in the foregoing overview of the doctrines of Wahdat-i-Wujud and Wahdat-i-Shuhud borders on, if not crosses the boundary, which divides acceptable faith and unacceptable shirk - that is, the ascribing of partners to God or the ascribing of Divinity to anything other than Allah - which is mentioned in the above ayat of the Qur'an. However, none of the foregoing discussion ascribes Creation as a partner to God - in fact, quite the opposite since Creation cannot be other than the servant of Divinity.
Furthermore, Divinity - in the sense of the One Who makes all manifestation possible, and in the sense of the One Who is totally transcendant, and in the sense of the One Who is the master, possessor, and generator of all Names and Attributes, and in the sense of the One Who holds human kind and jinn accountable on the Day of Judgment - is not being ascribed to Creation. Rather, attention is being directed toward something of a conundrum for those who wish to dismiss all talk such as: 'in essence, human kind is Divine, but we are not Divinity in Essence" - namely, if nothing exists but God (as both the first pillar of Islam, as well as the first article of iman or faith stipulate), then, what is the ontological status of Muhammad (peace be upon him) and the creation which arose from the light of the spirit of the fitra of the being of the one who would become the seal of Prophethood and, yet, existed when 'Adam (peace be upon him) was between water and clay'?
Where does Divinity leave off and Creation begin if there is no reality but Divinity? What is the precise character of the relationship between Divinity and Creation?
One can mention such things as non-existent potentials, zill (shadow or adumbration), possible existents, emanations, and all of the other categories of logical sorting which philosophers, theologians, academics, and mystic commentators use to try to make sense of the foregoing questions. However, the bottom line is this: there is no way to talk about Creation independently of the Reality which subsidizes such being, and this remains so irrespective of whether one refers to this latter, created mode of being as contingent, dependent, derivative, non-existent, possible, or potential.
To the foregoing extent, then, there is something of the Divine which is present ... mysterious though this presence may be ... in human beings and in the rest of Creation. Moreover, this can be said without requiring one to claim there is an identity between the two (i.e., Divinity and Creation) and without requiring one to claim Creation is something other than a mode of being which is intimately related, in an interstitial (or in between) manner, to the presence of Divinity.
| Part One | Part Two | Return to Menu |
|
