Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Alida Ogren-Gunderson
28 April 2009
Senior Seminar
“Thou art not He, yea, thou art He, and Him thou seest
1
In all things’ quintessence, both as boundless and qualified."
In the course of history, there are some people whose influence cannot be
philosophers like Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates, artists like Da Vinci and
with whom most Americans are woefully unfamiliar is Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn
and other sciences. It is debatable whether this is any part of Islam that
hasn’t been influenced by this one man’s brilliance. His writings were vast
and diverse, covering every possible topic and bringing his own unique
perspective to both common and never before asked questions. Born in 1165
C.E., Ibn al-‘Arabī traveled far and wide through the Muslim world. His
journey began in southern Spain and included travel through what is now
modern Morocco, Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Turkey before finally
In 1229 C.E., just months after Jerusalem was surrendered to the Christians,
Ibn al-‘Arabī had a vision of the Prophet. He considered this a very good
omen during this turbulent time. In his vision, the Prophet held in his hand a
book and he said to Ibn al-‘Arabī, “This is the book of the Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam.
al-‘Arabī set about to create the book just as the Messenger of God had given
it to him, “without adding anything nor taking away anything.”3 The book
particular wisdom that can be learned from that the life and teachings of that
relationship between ṣūra and ma‘nā, or form and meaning, and how this
al-‘Arabī uses the opposing ideas of form (ṣūra) and meaning (ma‘nā ) to
illustrate the multiplicity that is inherent in the Divine Unity, which can be
meaning.
Ṣūra and ma‘nā are terms that would be familiar to most Sufi mystics,
both today and during the time of Ibn al-‘Arabī. Ṣūra translates most often as
2 Addas, 277.
3 Addas, 277.
4 Dagli, 21-22 n. 19.
“But,” as William Chittick, a well respected scholar of Ibn al-‘Arabī,
comments, “the term “form” normally calls to mind a second reality which
the form manifests. X is the form of y. This second reality is often called the
of Islamic metaphysics.”6 The two are set in such opposition that Chittick
asserts that “meanings and sensory forms are mutually contradictory ”.7 This
between form and meaning. Form and meaning are contrasted with such
moment.
together comprise the objects of the world and hence the objects of our
knowledge.”8 As Ibn al-‘Arabī states, “it is not within the scope of the
creature, when God has shown him the states of his immutable identity upon
which the form of existence has descended, that he should, in this state,
attain to the knowledge the Real has of the immutable identities in their state
form.”9 A human being can only know something that exists within a specific
form, all attributes of the Essence are unknowable for a human being. As
Dagli makes clear, “In the world of forms, these meaning could only appear in
form.”10 Later in the text, he points out that “from one point of view form and
meaning, ṣūra and ma‘nā, are separable only mentally.”11 From this
perspective, then, within the sphere of human experience form and meaning
are mutually dependent. This can be seen in Dagli’s observation that “when
a form manifests, God means something by that form, and when God means
Despite the inseparability of ṣūra and ma‘nā, the two are understood as
intrinsically opposing concepts. The first and most obvious contrast between
form and meaning are as external and internal respectively. Form is clearly
the words of Dagli, “it is quite correct to think of the meaning as the spirit of
the form. It is that formless something that is the inward reality of the
outward form.”14 At a later point, Dagli goes on to state that “so too is the
spirit inward or hidden in relation to the multiple states which are outward or
outward form is made up of the realities of the world and its forms, and his
inward form is modeled on the Form of God most high. For this reason He
has said of him, “I will be his sight…and his hearing.” He did not say, “I will
10 Dagli, 22 n. 19.
11 Dagli, 70 n. 9.
12 Dagli, 22 n. 19.
13 Chittick, SPK, 20.
14 Dagli, 22 n. 19 (emphasis added).
be his eye and his ear,” thus differentiating between the two forms.”15 In this
and the bodily parts of a human being, associating the faculties with the spirit
or meaning within the form and the bodily parts with the form itself
exclusively. The Real is seen as present in the meaning rather than the form,
depth below. Ibn al-Arabī continues to distinguish between bodily parts and
faculties later when discussing how humans can accomplish prayer. He says
that “If He [God] allows you to ask with your tongue, He will have you hear
with your ears, and if He allows you to do so as meaning, then He will have
you hear with your hearing .”16 Ears, in this context, refer to form while
hearing refers to spiritual hearing, which is related to ma‘nā rather than ṣūra.
The ears hear what is external, while the spiritual hearing is able to hear the
visibility and internal invisibility by stating that “the form would be the
outward, witnessed aspect of a thing and the meaning its inward, absent
does not perceive spirits governing their manifest figures and forms.”18
Thus, it is impossible for a human being to literally see God or, by extension,
the invisible meanings that inhabit the clearly visible physical forms. Dagli
explains this further by saying that “physical vision as such cannot perceive
the spirit that governs a particular form. No matter how exalted the level of
sees those forms, no matter the ontological level of those forms.”19 Whether
of inanimate objects, it is still impossible to actually see the ma‘nā within the
ṣūra. Ibn al-‘Arabī approaches this matter from another angle with an
thing, it bears it. Thus, what permeates is veiled by what is permeated. The
passive participle is manifest, while the active participle is hidden and veiled.
It is nourishment for it, like water that penetrates wool, causing it to grow and
the fact that the meaning pervades the form and exists within every aspect
of it, the meaning itself is not visible. Only the form which hosts the meaning
can be seen, just as it is the wool rather than the droplets of water which is
visible.
Dagli calls the meaning “the hidden in the apparent”21, which hints at the
next distinction made between ṣūra and ma‘nā . The ṣūra is often seen as a
deceptive veil that hides the spiritual reality that is the ma‘nā . As William
Chittick observed, “The Shaykh and other Sufis would consider most of what
passes for knowledge in modern times as veils over real knowledge… Instead
of seeing inward meanings (ma‘ānī), they fix their gaze on outward forms
associates ṣuwar “with “veils” (hujub), that is, the things inasmuch as they
prevent us from seeing God, though they alert us to the fact that God is
hidden behind them.”23 The implication here is that the forms obfuscate the
Ibn al-‘Arabī supports this implication when he calls for people to practice
interpretation, which “means to pass from the form that is seen to arrive at
something else.”24 This indicates that Ibn al-‘Arabī himself promoted the idea
that forms were something which needed to be seen beyond rather than
that they manifest, i.e. the Essence of God.”25 Thus, the forms themselves
are not “real” but rather manifest Reality through their ma‘nā.
This distinction alludes to the hierarchy between ṣūra and ma‘nā mentioned
earlier. The relationship isn’t between Real and not-real, as it might seem.
Dagli clarifies for readers that “form and meaning are both actualities; both
form. The meaning is more closely related to the “Real” or the “Essence of
God” than is the form itself, as was represented in the quotation in the
previous paragraph. In the words of Dagli, “as the deepest selfhood of all
things, God is the spirit that governs and manages form, the spirit coming
‘first’ and the form ‘last’.”27 In a less severe interpretation, Chittick avers that
and the cosmos is the inner meaning (ma‘nā), the spirit and life behind the
form.”28 Ibn al-‘Arabī supports this assertion with his statement that “His
It is through their relationship with one another that ṣūra and ma‘nā are most
often understood. By examining how ṣūra and ma‘nā are used together, one
can achieve a certain level of appreciation of each concept. They are distinct
facets of the world and their dissimilarity is brought alive by contrasting one
oppositional relationship does not exhaust the possible ways that ṣūra and
ma‘nā can be understood. In order to truly fathom the nature of each, they
that “meanings are “disengaged” (mujarrad), which is to say that they have
al-‘Arabī describes that “[a thing’s] immutable essence in its state of non-
when ma‘nā is not housed within a particular form, it is one with the Essence
of God. Meaning, then, is identical with the Essence and only becomes
residing in a locus…”33 Dagli makes it clear that “the soul is able to discern
indicates that meaning is the most direct correspondent of the Essence that a
Once ma‘nā has been placed within a human form, Chittick explains that “all
[perfect men] represent full actualization of the name Allah, which is the
Allah, that Name which encapsulates all other Names and Qualities of God.
with the Real. This is further evidenced by the use of ma‘nā to refer to
spiritual perception. As Dagli points out, “the word ma‘nā can also be used to
One’s ‘meaning’ hearing is the dimension of the Heart that forms the
takes this to the next spiritual level when he points out that “Speaking of
Himself, He says that He is identical with the faculties of his slave, in His
Words, “I will be his hearing,” which one of the faculties of the slave, “his
sight”, which is one of the faculties of the slave…”37 That is to say, God is
related to the Reality, which was already hinted at in its relationship with
34 Dagli, 68 n. 9.
35 Chittick, SPK, 28.
36 Dagli, 22 n 19 (emphasis added).
37 Ibn al-‘Arabī, 241.
investigation to get beyond the corporeal and insignificant definition to which
the true nature of the form becomes more apparent. Ibn al-‘Arabī makes it
clear that the world itself can be understood as the Divine Ṣūra. Forms can
then be seen as manifestations of and imbued with the Real. Once one
of the Real by studying the forms of the world, which are actually forms of
the Real. This underlying nature of ṣūra is all too easy to overlook when
scrutiny of the usage of ṣūra in Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, each of these different facets
The first way that ṣūra is used without reference to ma‘nā is as the Divine
Form of the world. Ibn al-‘Arabī unequivocally states that “the world is His
accord with this new definition, the world takes on a new significance that
the world are now seen as the Form of God. As Dagli observes, “the qualities
of the world are none other than the Qualities of God, which is to say that all
forms unfold His Form or Image.”39 Ibn al-‘Arabī goes on the further explain
the world’s relationship with God, which is actually as the Names and
Qualities of God. “He [God] governs it [the world] through none other than
form of the world, I am referring to the Most Beautiful Names and the Exalted
Qualities by which the Real is named and described.”40 Each of the Names
and Qualities is manifest in and through the forms of the world, which makes
each of those forms a manifestation of God. Chittick notes that “the cosmos
considered as a single whole is the locus of manifestation for all the divine
names, or what comes down to the same thing, for the name Allah, which is
the name that brings together all the other names. Hence, says Ibn al-‘Arabī,
God created the cosmos in His own image, or, to use the better translation of
Once one realizes that the world is the Divine Form, then it necessarily
follows that forms are the Real. Chittick explicates that “the outward forms
statement by saying that “the use of the word ‘materia’ or ‘stuff’ can be
misleading because the nature of any level or mode of reality is none other
blocks or pliable material.”43 The forms of the world are literally made up of
the Real; that is, the Real is the substance which makes the existence of
forms possible. Ibn al-‘Arabī makes this clear when he avers that “the Real
can never leave the forms of the world.”44 Despite the fact that “forms do not
abide”45, as Ibn al-‘Arabī states, all of the forms of the world are a part of the
Real and exist solely through their dependency on the Real. Ibn al-‘Arabī
The forms are not just manifestations of the Real, but are in fact self-
disclosures of God. Ibn al-‘Arabī asserts that “the self-disclosure of the Real
the idea that something more real stands beyond the realm of
Most Sufis take the position that the outward from (ṣūra) is a deceptive
veil, even though it reveals the Divine Reality in some manner. Ibn
the Divine Reality Itself. … What appears to us is the One Being, but
of God: “He [who has a heart] knows the fluctuation of the Real in forms
difficulty of interpreting the forms by comparing the forms of the world with
the forms of mankind. “Just as the manifest form of man praises its spirit
and its governing soul with its tongue, so too did God make the forms of the
glorification, since we do not wholly grasp the forms of the world. They are
all tongues of the Real, and so speak the praises of the Real.”51 Again, in this
knowledge of God because “they are all tongues of the Real”, but he also
acknowledges the difficulty of this pursuit as “we do not wholly grasp the
forms of the world”. He makes this point in another context by saying that
“the definition of the Real remains unknown, for His definition could only be
possible to know the “definition of the Real” shows the incredible revelatory
rest. However, that is not the whole truth about form and meaning, as made
with the Reality of God and ṣūra is equally a manifestation of the same
Reality. Thus, the two are simultaneously a duality in purport and a unity in
essence. “The one “identity”, namely existence, is one, but from the point of
view of multiplicity the relationships of power and dependence are real and
not imagined.”53 But this seems contradictory, even impossible. How can
they be the same and yet still different? In order to answer that question, it
multiple and singular in identity and is identical to the Self in both multiplicity
contention over the difference of forms, for there are no doubt two forms. All
of these forms are like Zayd’s bodily parts: it is known that Zayd is a single,
individual reality, and that his head is not the form of his foot, his hand, his
eye, or his eyebrow. He is many and one: many in form, one in identity.”54
possess a single reality that unites us, we know absolutely that there is a
separating factor that distinguishes each of us from the other. If this were
To understand humankind, both the multiplicity and the unity are equally
recognize that in both multiplicity and unity humankind is identical with the
Real. In this way, humans can learn about themselves and about the Self
that
without ourselves being that quality, although this is not the case for
that we attribute to ourselves, and to this point the divine sayings have
Ibn al-‘Arabī emphasizes many times that knowledge of the Self can only be
gained through knowledge of the self. Later in the text, he states that “
Whosoever amongst you imagines that he sees Him knows not, and
whosoever amongst you sees himself is the one who knows.”57 Once again,
with the Self. He insists that “from himself he knows himself, and his self is
than the Selfhood of the Real; indeed, it is identical with that Selfhood.”58
suggested by the dichotomy between ṣūra and ma‘na. Ibn al-‘Arabī makes
If you contemplate His Words, “I will be his foot with which he steppeth,
so forth for the other faculties, and whose locus is the bodily parts, you
will make no separations, and will say that the thing is entirely the Real
the Real in accordance with another, and the identity is one. The
identity of the form that discloses itself is the identity of the form that
self-disclosure.59
With the statement “He is the self-disclosure and the locus of self-disclosure”,
Ibn al-Arabī is reminding readers that God and humankind are identical in
Real and creation, but this is impossible to do with accuracy. From one
perspective, there is a “creation” which is separate from the Real, but from
another perspective, there is nothing which is separate from the Real. And
regardless of this distinction, Ibn al-‘Arabī says, the Real and creation is
Ibn al-‘Arabī also established his own particular cosmology that further
brings to light the inherent duality between the manifest and hidden realities
created for a specific purpose. His elucidation was that “ in order for you
come to know that the Real has described Himself as being Manifest and
for us to grasp what is hidden through what is invisible in us, and to grasp
what is manifest through what is visible in us.”60 Through learning from the
visible and invisible aspects of the world, a more perfect knowledge of God
can be attained. Ibn al-‘Arabī goes on to explain that “the Real has a special
hidden from the understanding of one who holds that the world is His Image
and His Selfhood.”61 Ibn al-‘Arabī makes this point slightly more clear when
he says that “[the forms of the world] are the manifest aspect of the Real,
since He is the Manifest, and that He is their hidden aspect, since He is the
recognizing the intrinsic duality of the world, of those aspects which are
Yet, with the world as with humankind, this duality is also a unity that it
identical with the Unity of the Real. As Dagli comments, “To truly abide in
reflected in the mirror of the one divine Essence. The one who truly
undergoes both unveilings [fanā and baqā] experiences the world in its
him he equally experiences the unity that is inward to all things.”63 Ibn
wish, you may say that it is creation, and if you so wish you may say that it is
the Real, and if you so wish you may say that it is the Real-creation, and if
you so wish you may say that in no respect is it the Real and in no respect is
However, he adduces that “All things, from their first to their last, come from
becomes manifest out of Him, And to Him the whole affair shall be
to the Real’s Selfhood they are His existence, and with respect to the
diversity of the forms they are the identities of contingent things. Just
as the name “shadow” does not disappear due to the diversity of forms,
so too is it the case that the name “the world” or “what is other than
God” does not disappear due to the diversity of forms. With respect to
the unity of its being a shadow it is the Real, for He is Unique, the One,
The point that though the world is undeniably multiple it is still the One in
essence, just as “shadow” is one despite its multiplicity of forms, is one that
Dagli asserts that “after the knowledge that God is the divinity of the world,
one comes to realize that all things are none other than self-disclosures of
God Himself.”67 The world, like the forms within it, is a self-disclosure of God
assertion which Ibn al-‘Arabī makes numerous times in different ways and
contexts. As Dagli points out, “It is from our point of view that we speak of
God and the world, but from the point of view of the Supreme Self there is
only Self.”69 In Ibn al-‘Arabī’s words, “the Real Himself is the very indication
of Himself and of His divinity, and that the world is naught but His self-
nature, and this is a one of the highest possible goods a human can achieve.
Ibn al-‘Arabi says that “If it is unveiled to one that nature is identical with the
Breath of the All-Merciful, then he has been given much good [2:269]…He will
also then witness things in their principles and forms, and will be complete. If
he witnesses the Breath then with this completeness there will be perfection.
He will see nothing without seeing God as being identical with what he sees.
He will see the seer as being identical with the seen. This much suffices.”71
Once again, the point is that what seems to be a duality, in this example the
seer and the seen, is actually a unity and this unity is identical with God.
The question must be raised at this point, identical with what? What is
God’s nature, that both humankind and the world are called identical to it?
Ibn al-‘Arabī answers this question with a response that should be familiar at
well as unity. As Ibn al-‘Arabī says, “the Unity of God, with respect to the
divine Names which require us, is the Unity of multiplicity.”72 In the language
of Ibn al-‘Arabī, God is similar and incomparable simultaneously and the two
qualities, such the Majestic and the Beautiful, the Hidden and the Manifest,
the First and the Last. These are none other than Himself.”74 Much later in
the text, Ibn al-‘Arabī seems to continue this thought with the statement that
“The Object of these attributions does not undergo distinction, for there is
naught but His Identity in all the attributions. It is a single Identity that
attributions. However, Ibn al-‘Arabī goes to great pains to clarify that “the
Identity does not undergo separation and in its essence is not divided.”76
original oneness the same way that [the number] two is included in [the
number] one.”77 The number two exists within the concept of the number one
and is actually impossible without the number one. In this same way, the
duality of God exists within the unity and is impossible without that unity.
while the reality of its own disclosure makes real the selves to which Its
disclosure gives rise. To say that these are entailments of the Essence
is to say that the Self, by its very nature—that is to say, in being Itself—
discloses Itself such that from a certain perspective many derivative and
the Self being Itself that the Self never undergoes any division and
introduces multiplicity into the divine Unity is to say that in being Itself
Once the theme of Unity and Multiplicity has been brought to the fore,
suddenly Ibn al-‘Arabī’s intentions with his use of ṣūra and ma‘nā become
evident. A close reading of the text shows that Ibn al-‘Arabī was actually
between duality and unity. “The man of realization sees multiplicity in the
one, just as he knows that what the divine Names indicate, is a single
exemplify this concept, Ibn al-‘Arabī provided his readers with an example in
the relationship between ma‘nā and ṣūra. As was discussed earlier, meaning
and form have been frequently understood in contrast to one another. Yet
when discussed individually, the two are both described as identical with the
Real in such a way as to be also be identical with one another. However, Ibn
al-‘Arabī never explicitly described the two as identical with one another, as
this would minimize their intrinsic duality. It was only by carefully reading
78 Dagli, xxiii.
79 Ibn al-‘Arabī, 134.
Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam that the reader can discover the relationship of unity between
the two—just as it is only through careful attention to the Real that one can
he sees the Real flowing in the forms of nature and those of the elements.
For him there remains no form which he does not see as being identical with
the Real. This is perfect knowledge, which the descended Laws relate to us
from God.”81 With the particular examples of ṣūra and ma‘na in Fuṣūṣ al-
ḥikam, Ibn al-‘Arabī provides his readers with the tools to understand this
complex divine relationships with humankind, the world, and Godself. Thus,
it becomes clear that God is the ṣūra and the ma‘nā, the eye and the sight,
and each of these are identical with the other while still maintaining an
individual identity that creates an intrinsic duality to the unity. In the words
Bibliography
Addas, Claude. Quest for the Red Sulphur: the life of Ibn ‘Arabi. Translated
by Peter Kingsley. Cambridge: The Islamic Texts Society, 1993.
Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. Three Muslim Sages: Avicenna, Suhrawardi, Ibn ‘Arabī.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1964.