The commentators side by side

﴿ويظهر به سره إليه فإن رؤية الشيء نفسه بنفسه ما هي مثل رؤيته نفسه في أمر آخر يكون له كالمرآة، فإنه يظهر له في نفسه في صورة يعطيها المحل المنظور فيه مما لم يكن يظهر له من غير وجود هذا المحل ولا تجليه له.﴾

قلت: يعني يظهر ما كان سرا في قوة قدرته تعالى التي تظهر أحكامها بظهور المقدورات ولا شك أن ظهور ما بالقوة إلى الفعل أكمل من بقائه في القوة وكمال الجناب المقدس في قوته ما لا يتناهى من الأكملیات فيقتضي الحال ظهورها فهي تظهر في الأعيان فيراها تعالى رؤية منزهة لكن من حضرة الحسیات وقد أودع تعالى جميع معاني الأسماء الكونية في آدم مرتبطة بالأسماء الإلهية وكلا الأمرين كان سانحا له في سر علمه الأقدس فأظهره في مرآة آدم، عليه السلام، وتجلي لتلك المرآة فأبدي فيها معاني المتجلي عليها، جل جلاله فقد ظهر سره إليه، وباقي الكلام ظاهر. قوله

I say: this means that what was a secret (sirr) within the potency of His power - exalted is He - becomes manifest, that power whose properties (aḥkām) become manifest through the manifestation of the objects of power. There is no doubt that the manifestation of what is [only] in potency, bringing it forth into act, is more perfect than its remaining in potency; and the perfection of the Sacred Presence contains, within its potency, endless degrees of most-perfect things, so the situation necessitates their manifestation. They thus become manifest in the entities (aʿyān), and He - exalted is He - sees them with a transcendent vision (ruʾya munazzaha), yet [occurring] from the presence of sensible things. And He - exalted is He - deposited all the meanings of the cosmic names in Adam, bound up with the divine names; and both matters were present to Him in the secret of His most holy knowledge, so He made this manifest in the mirror of Adam, upon him be peace, and disclosed Himself (tajallā) to that mirror, thereby displaying within it the meanings of Him who discloses Himself upon it - exalted is His majesty. Thus His secret became manifest to Him, and the remainder of the discourse is clear. His saying

﴿لما شاء الحق سبحانه﴾

المشيئة : اقتضاء الذات لما يقتضيه العلم فهي لازمة لجميع الأسماء ، لأن كل اسم إلهى هو الذات مع صفته فمقتضى الذات لازم لكل اسم ولهذا قال

The Will (mashīʾa) is the requirement of the Essence for what knowledge requires, so it is inseparable from all the Names, because every divine Name is the Essence together with its attribute; thus what the Essence requires is inseparable from every Name. This is why he said,

﴿لمّا شاء الحقّ سبحانه﴾

أضاف المشيّة إلى الاسم « الحقّ » لكون هذه المشيّة متعلَّقة بالإيجاد ، حتى تتحقّق الأسماء في مظهريته موجودة في أعيانها ، وتظهر في مظاهرها ، وتظهر آثارها محقّقة مشهودة في محالّ مناظرها ومجالي محالَّها ومظاهرها لأنّ الاسم " الحق " يعطي الحقّيّة بالتحقيق والوجود ، والأسماء الإلهية كانت في قبضة قهر الأحدية الجمعية الإلهية الذاتية أحدية لا ظهور لها لعدم مظاهرها في أعيانها .وهي العوالم « و كان الله ولا شيء معه غيره » وكانت كثرة الأسماء " كنت كنزا مخفيّا " أشار إلى عينه من حيث تعيّنه بكناية حرف التاء وهو تعيّنه بذات اللاهوت كنزا جامعا لجواهر حقائق الأسماء والمسمّيات.إذ الكنز ذهب وفضّة وجواهر مجتمعة في الغيب .والكنز مخفيّ عن الأغيار وإن كان ظاهر التحقّق والتعيّن في عينه « فأردت أن أعرف ».أي يعرفني كلّ تعيّن تعيّن من تعيّناتي في مظاهري ومرائيّ ومجاليّ التي ليست ذات الألوهية بل نسبتها ، فهذه المشيّئة تجلّ من الله من حيث حقائق التعيّنات الأسمائية المستهلكة للأعيان. فشاء الحقّ من حيث الأسماء أن يعطيها التحقّق في أعيانها بالوجود والإيجاد ، والتحقّق في حاقّ حقائقها للشهود والإشهاد على رؤوس الأشهاد ولأنّ تحقّق هذه المشيّة مسبوق بتحقّق الذوات في نفسها ، وتحقّق المشيّة المطلقة مطلق للذات وعينها .ولهذا أشار بقوله : " لمّا شاء " فإنّ هذه العبارة دالَّة على المسبوقية في الرتبة والحقيقة والعين ، لا في الزمان والوجود الظاهر ، فافهم .قال الشيخ رضي الله عنه

He attributed the will (mashīʾa) to the name "the Real" (al-Ḥaqq), because this will is connected with bringing-into-existence (al-ījād), so that the Names might become actualized in their loci of manifestation (maẓhariyya), existent in their entities (aʿyān), and appear in their manifestations (maẓāhir), and their effects appear actualized, witnessed in the loci of their vistas and the manifestation-places of their loci and their manifestations—for the name "the Real" bestows realness (ḥaqqiyya) through actualization (taḥqīq) and existence (wujūd). The divine Names were in the grip of the overwhelming power (qahr) of the all-comprehensive, essential divine Oneness (al-aḥadiyya al-jamʿiyya al-ilāhiyya al-dhātiyya), one, having no manifestation, due to the absence of their manifestations in their entities—and these are the worlds—"God was, and there was nothing with Him besides Him." The multiplicity of the Names [is indicated by] "I was a hidden treasure": he alluded to His entity in respect of its entification (taʿayyun) by the metonymy of the letter tāʾ [in 'kuntu'], namely its entification by the Essence of the Godhead (dhāt al-lāhūt), as a treasure comprehending the jewels of the realities of the Names and the named. For the treasure is gold, silver, and jewels gathered together in the Unseen (al-ghayb); and the treasure is hidden from others (al-aghyār) even though it is manifestly actualized and entified in its own entity. "So I desired to be known"—that is, that every entification among My entifications might know Me in My manifestations, my mirrors, and my vistas, which are not the very Essence of divinity but its relation (nisba). This will is a self-disclosure (tajallī) from God in respect of the realities of the nominal entifications that absorb the entities. So the Real willed, in respect of the Names, to grant them actualization in their entities through existence and bringing-into-being, and actualization in the very core of their realities for witnessing and being made witnessed before all witnesses. And because the actualization of this will is preceded by the actualization of the essences (dhawāt) in themselves, the actualization of the absolute will is itself absolute for the Essence and its entity. This is why he said, "when He willed": this expression denotes precedence in rank, reality, and entity, not in time or outward existence. So understand. The Shaykh, may God be pleased with him, said:

﴿لما شاء الحق سبحانه من حيث أسمائه الحسنى التي لا يبلغها الإحصاء﴾

Quotes words that differ from our text (wavy underline).

شروع في المقصود. ولما كان وجود العالم مستندا إلى الأسماء وكان الإنسان مقصودا أصليا من الإيجاد، أولا في العلم وآخرا في العين ، نبه على أن الحق تعالى من حيث أسمائه الحسنى أوجد العالم. وبين العلة الغائية من إيجاد العالم الإنساني، وهي رؤيته تعالى ذاته بذاته في مرآة عين جامعة إنسانية من مرايا الأعيان . كما قال: "كنت كنزا مخفيا فأحببت أن أعرف فخلقت الخلق فتحببت إليهم بالنعم، فعرفوني". فهذا القول كتمهيد أصل يترتب عليه ظهورالحكم الكلية من الأسماء الإلهية في مظاهرها. واستعمل

This is the beginning of what is intended [by the author]. Since the existence of the world is dependent upon the Names, and since the human being (al-insān) is the primary intended purpose of bringing-into-existence—first in knowledge and last in concrete existence (al-ʿayn)—he draws attention to the fact that the Real, exalted is He, brought the world into existence by virtue of His Most Beautiful Names. And he explains the final cause of the bringing-into-existence of the human world, which is His, exalted is He, seeing His own Essence by means of His Essence in a comprehensive human mirror-entity among the mirrors of the entities (aʿyān). As He said: 'I was a Hidden Treasure and I loved to be known, so I created creation and made Myself known to them through favors, and they came to know Me.' This saying serves as a preliminary foundation upon which is built the manifestation of the universal properties (aḥkām) of the divine Names in their loci of manifestation (maẓāhir). And he employed [the word]

﴿لما شاء الحقّ﴾

ضرورة أنّ المتوجّه لتحقّق الأشياء ليس إلَّا الذات باعتباره ثمّ إنّ حضرة الأسماء لما كانت موطن النسب المستتبعة لكمالها المسمّى ب «الحسن» الذي هو من الصفات اللازمة لها. قال

— inasmuch as that which is directed toward the realization of things is none other than the Essence, considered in that respect. Then, since the Presence of the Names was the abode of the relations (nisab) entailing their perfection, named "beauty" (al-ḥusn), which is among the attributes necessarily belonging to it, he said:

﴿لما شاء الحق سبحانه﴾

بمشيئة أزلية هي الاختيار الثابت له سبحانه وليس أختباره سبحانه على النحو المتصور من اختبار الخلق الذي هو تردد واقع بين أمرین كل منهما ممكن الوقوع عنده فيترجح أحدهما لمزيد فائدة ومصلحة. لأن هذا مستنكر في حقه سبحانه اذ لیس لدیه تردد و لا امكان حكمین مختلفین بل لا یمكن غیر ما هو المعلوم المراد في نفسه . فأن قلت : فكیف یصح قولهم إن شاء أوجد العالم وإن شاء لم أوجد قلت : صدق الشرطية لایقتضی صادق المقدم أو امكانه، فقوله : ان لم یشاء غیر صادق بل غير ممكن. فإن قلت: قد قال بعضهم في قوله تعالى: {ألم تر.إلي ربك كيف مدّ الظلّ}. أي ظل التكوين على المكونات {ولو شأء لجعله ساكنا} 45 سورة الفرقان. ولم يمده فإن الحق لو لم يشاء إيجاد العالم لم يظهر ، وكان له أن لا يشاء فلا يظهر. قلت : هذا إما لنفي الإيجاب المتوهم للعقول الضعيفة، وإما باعتبار ذاته الأحدية غني عن العالمين . فإذا نظر العقل إلى غناه وعدم اقتضائه لذاته أحد المتقابلات حكم بأن له أن لا يشاء وجود العالم فلم يظهر العالم . وأما إذا نظر إلى علمه الشامل حكم بعدم مشیئته بل بعدم امكانه (من حیث آسمانه) كله (الحسنی) ای المتناسبة فی بلوغها إلى مرتبة الكمال وترتب آثارها عليه

By an eternal will (mashī'a azaliyya) that is the fixed choice (ikhtiyār) belonging to Him, glory be to Him — and His willing, glory be to Him, is not according to what is conceived of the willing of created beings, which is a wavering occurring between two matters, each of which is possible to occur for it, so that one of them is given preponderance for the sake of some additional benefit and interest. For this is to be denied of Him, glory be to Him, since there is no wavering with Him, nor the possibility of two differing judgments; rather, nothing is possible except what is known and intended in itself. If you say: how then is it sound for them to say 'if He wills, He brings the world into existence, and if He does not will, He does not bring it into existence'? I say: the truth of a conditional proposition does not require the truth of its antecedent or its possibility. So His saying 'if He does not will' is not true; rather it is not even possible. If you say: some have said, concerning His words, Exalted is He: {Have you not seen how your Lord extends the shadow} — i.e., the shadow of engendering (takwīn) over the engendered things — {and if He had willed, He would have made it still} (Sūrat al-Furqān 25:45), and would not have extended it — [implying that] if the Real had not willed the existence of the world, it would not have become manifest, and it was within His power not to will it, so that it would not become manifest. I say: this is either [said] to negate the necessitation (al-ījāb) imagined by weak intellects, or it is with respect to His Essence, the One (al-aḥadiyya), which is independent of the worlds. So when the intellect looks to His independence and to the fact that His Essence does not require either of the two correlative terms, it judges that it is within His power not to will the existence of the world, so that the world would not become manifest. But when it looks to His all-encompassing knowledge, it judges that His not willing is excluded — indeed, that it is not even possible — [this being] from the aspect of His Names, all of them (the Most Beautiful), i.e., those that are fitting in attaining the degree of perfection, with the ordering of their effects upon it

﴿لما شاء الحق﴾

أي لما اقتضى الحق بالحب الذاتي. هذا شروع في بيان حقيقة الكلمة الآدمية مع لوازمها من الحتمية والخلافة والفصية وغيرها إلى قوله : "ثم نرجع إلى الحكمة" لتوقف معرفة الحكمة على معرفتها حتى نعلم منه حكمة إيجاد العالم لما ههنا عبارة عن الإمداد المعنوي من الأزل إلى الأبد بمقارنة المشية الأزلية . ولم يقل لما أراد جريا للكلام على عادة الناس فإن عادتهم في حصول مراداتهم التعليق بالمشيئة لا بالإرادة . الحق هو اسم للذات الثابت بنفسه المثبت لغيره ولم يقل الله مع أنه أنسب للمادة ليعلم أن السلطنة في إيجاد الكون الجامع لهذا الاسم وسائر الأسماء الحسنی توابعه لذلك، ذلك فردا. حيث قال : لما شاء الحق وجمعا بقوله من حيث أسماؤه الحسنى فإنه من الأسماء الحسنی فقد ذكر تكرارا إجمالا وتفصيلا تعظيما لشأنه (من حيث أسمائه الحسنى) أي من حيث أنه جامع لأسمائه الحسنى

That is, when the Real required, by essential love [al-ḥubb al-dhātī]. This is the beginning of the exposition of the reality of the Adamic Word together with its concomitants — necessity, vicegerency, the fuṣūṣ (bezel-wisdoms), and so on — up to his saying: "Then we return to the wisdom," since knowledge of the wisdom depends upon knowing this, so that we may know from it the wisdom of the world's coming into existence. For what is meant here is an expression for the meaning-effusion (imdād maʿnawī) from pre-eternity to post-eternity, conjoined with the eternal volition (al-mashīʾa al-azaliyya). He did not say "when He wanted" (arāda), following the customary usage of people, for it is their custom, in the attainment of their objects, to link the matter to volition (mashīʾa) rather than to will (irāda). "The Real" (al-Ḥaqq) is a name for the Essence, subsisting by itself and establishing [the existence of] other than itself. He did not say "Allah," though this would be more fitting to the subject matter, so that it might be known that the sovereignty in bringing into existence the all-comprehensive engendered being (al-kawn al-jāmiʿ) belongs to this name, and that all the Most Beautiful Names are subordinate to it — hence he mentioned it singly, in his saying "when the Real willed," and collectively, in his saying "from the standpoint of His Most Beautiful Names," for al-Ḥaqq is itself among the Most Beautiful Names. Thus he mentioned it repeatedly, both summarily and in detail, in exaltation of its rank. (from the standpoint of His Most Beautiful Names) — that is, inasmuch as He is comprehensive of His Most Beautiful Names.

﴿لماشاء الحق سبحانه وتعالي من حيث اسمائه الحسني التي لا يبلغها الاحصاء ان يري اعيانها وان شئت قلت ان يري عينه في كون جامع يحصر الامر﴾

Quotes words that differ from our text (wavy underline).

دیدی یعنی وقتا که حق تعالی اسماء حسناسی حیثیتیله که انلرک شخصیاتی کثرتنه احصاء یتشمز امری حاصراولان کون جامده که انسان کاملدر اسمانک اعیانن واکر دیلرسک دیرسن کندی عینین کورمک دیلدی زیرا اسمانک اعیانی حقک عینیدر تعینات ونسبک کثرتی اعتباریله یعنی احدیتک مظاهری اولان اسماء حسناده حقک تعینی و برصفت ابله ظهوری اعتبار ایله حق تعالی دیلدی یکه هر براسمک حقیقتنده متعین اولان انک وجودی اول اسمک صفتیله ظاهر اولوب کندی عینن کون جامع اولان انسان کاملده مشاهده ایلیه زیر کمال جلا واستجلا اند. واکله حاصل اواور وشیخ رضی الله عنهک

he said. That is: the Real (exalted is He) willed, in respect of His Most Beautiful Names, whose individual instances cannot be reached by enumeration because of their multitude, to see the entities of the names in the kawn jāmiʿ (all-comprehensive being) that encompasses the matter, which is the insān kāmil (perfect human). Or, if you wish, you may say: [He willed] to see His own ʿayn (entity). For the entities of the names are the entity of the Real, with respect to the multiplicity of taʿayyunāt (determinations) and relations. That is, with respect to the Real's taʿayyun (determination) and manifestation with an attribute in the Most Beautiful Names, which are the maẓāhir (loci of manifestation) of aḥadiyya (unity). The Real (exalted is He) willed that His wujūd (being), which is determined in the ḥaqīqa (reality) of each name, become manifest with that name's attribute, and that He witness His own entity in the perfect human, who is the all-comprehensive being. For the perfection of jalāʾ and istijlāʾ (manifestation and self-beholding) is attained in him most completely. And the Shaykh's (may God be pleased with him)

﴿من حيث أسماؤه الحسنى التي لا يبلغها الإحصاء﴾

أي لما شاء مشيئة ذاتية أزلية نافذة في جميع الأسماء بحسب تطلب الكل أي الذات مع جميع الأسماء

that is, when He willed with an essential, eternal will, operative in all the Names according to what the totality demands—i.e., the Essence together with all the Names—

﴿من حيث أسمائه الحسني التي لا يبلغها الإحصاء أن يرى أعيانها وإن شئت قلت : أن يرى عينه في كون جامع يحصر الأمر كلَّه لكونه متّصفا بالوجود﴾

Quotes words that differ from our text (wavy underline).

فصرّح أنّ هذه المشيّة من قبل الأسماء وحقائقها من كونها فيه هو .وفي قوله : " لا يبلغها الإحصاء " يشير إلى أنّ شخصيات الأسماء لا تحصى فإنّها لا تتناهى لكون الأسماء تعيّنات إلهية في حقائق الممكنات التي لا تتناهى على ما يأتيك إن شاء الله تعالى وإن كانت أمّهات الأسماء محصاة من حيث تعيّناتها الكلَّية.وهي مائة إلَّا واحدا هو عين الكلّ ، أو ألف وواحد فأضاف المشيّة إلى الاسم « الحق » من حيث أسمائه الحسنى التي لا يبلغها الإحصاء لأنّ هذه الإضافة إلى الاسم « الحق » أحقّ إذ هو حق كلّ اسم ، وبه حقيقة ذلك الاسم وتحقّقه .والاسم هو الحق المتعيّن في أيّة مرتبة إلهية كان بالوجود .ثم الاسم يستدعي تسمية ومسمّى ومسمّيا .والمسمّى اسم مفعول هو الحق ، والمسمّي اسم فاعل هو القابل المعيّن للوجود الواحد المطلق عن قيد التعيّن من حيث ما فيه صلاحية قبول التعيّن لا من حيث اللاتعين والإطلاق مطلقا .والتسمية هي التعيين لفعل القابل وتأثيره في الوجود المطلق والفيض الخالص الحقّ بالتعيين والتقييد ، فالاسم علامة على المسمّى بخصوص حقيقته التي بها يمتاز عن غيرها من الحقائق .ولكل اسم اعتباران :اعتبار من حيث الذات المسمّاة ،واعتبار من حيث ما به يمتاز كل اسم عن الآخر وهو حجابية الاسمية .فإن اعتبرنا المسمّى ، فهو الحق المتعيّن في مرتبة ما من المراتب التعيّنية ، وإن اعتبرنا الاسمية ، فعلامة خاصّة ودلالة معيّنة معيّنة للمدلول المطلق بخصوص مرتبتها ، فنفس تعيّن الوجود الحقّ بالإلهية في كل قابل قابل هو الاسم .ولمّا كانت تعيّنات الوجود الحقّ وتنوّعات تجلَّيه وظهوره في قابليات الممكنات غير المتناهية غير متناهية .لذلك قال رضي الله عنه: « لا يبلغها الإحصاء » لأنّ الذي يبلغها الإحصاء متناه ، والتعيّنات الوجودية بالنفس الرحماني لا تتناهى ، فلا تحصى فلا يبلغها الإحصاء .وأمّا أسماء الإحصاء ، فهي كلَّيات حقائق الوجوب والفعل والتأثير ، فهي مائة إلَّا واحدا .وبيان سرّ ذلك أنّ الأسماء في حقائقها تنقسم إلى أسماء ذاتية ، وإلى أسماء صفاتية ، وإلى أسماء فعلية.فإذا ضربنا الثلاثة الفردية في نفسها للتفصيل والبسط ، خرجت تسعة ، وهي آخر عقود الآحاد في مرتبة الأعداد .والتسعة في مرتبة العشرات تسعون ، وهي مرتبة المجازاة الثانية ، فإنّ الواحدة بعشر أمثالها .كما قال تعالى :"من جاءَ بِالْحَسَنَةِ فَلَه ُعَشْرُ أَمْثالِها " لكون المجازاة لها المرتبة الثانية من عمل الإحصاء.إذ المجازاة إنّما تقع من الأسماء الإلهية المحصاة في أعيان أعمال العباد ، والعشرة نظير الواحد في المجازاة .ونسبة الواحد إلى العشرة كنسبة العشرة إلى المائة ونسبة المائة إلى الألف كذلك نسبة الواحد إلى العشرة .فالواحد في الحقيقة هو العشرة والمائة والألف في مراتب العشرات والمئات والألوف ، ولهذا وقع في الواقع في الأعداد الهندسيّة إشارة من باب الإشارات .فلمّا كانت أسماء الإحصاء هي المجازية للعبيد المتخلَّقين والمتحقّقين بها ، والعشرة هي الكاملة في المجازاة ، ظهرت التسعة في مرتبة العشرة تسعين ، وأضيفت إلى الأصل وهي التسعة الحاصلة من ضرب الثلاثة المرتبيّة في نفسها كما مرّ فكانت تسعة وتسعين ، فافهم .ولأنّ هذه الأسماء من وجه عين المسمّى بها ، ومن وجه غيرها ، كان المسمّى وهو الحقّ الظاهر في مراتب وجوده ، والمتعيّن بالتجلَّي في عين القابل المتجلَّى له وتعديده وتعيينه وتقييده وتكييفه وتحديده.كان المسمّى بهذه الأسماء التي هو مدلولها تمام المائة من حيث كونها غيرها ، وغير محصى بالتعيين لكونها عينها .فلهذا قال : « إنّ لله تعالى مائة اسم إلَّا واحدا » ، فهذا الواحد هو عين التسعة والتسعين ، وعين الألف والواحد على ما روي في مرتبة الإحصاء أنّها ألف وواحد ، ظهر في آخر كلَّيات مراتب العدد ، كما خفي في أوّلها وأوسطها .وهو أيضا كذلك عين الأسماء التي لا يبلغها الإحصاء فإنّها التعينات الوجودية النورية ، وتنوّعات التجلَّيات النفسية الجودية ، والكمالات الإلهية لا تنفد ، ولا يبلغها الإحصاء ، ولا يحصرها تعديد النعماء والآلاء ، فافهم .واعلم : أنّ الحقّ من حيث هذه التجلَّيات والتعينات الذاتية أزلا وأبدا يريد أن يرى أعيانها في كون جامع يحصر الأمر ، فإنّه كان ظاهرا قبل ظهورها لأنفسها له تعالى ، ورؤيتها إيّاها أيضا في مظاهر غير جامعة ولا حاصرة لحقائق السرّ والجهر ودقائق البطن والظهر .وتجلَّيه تعالى في المظاهر النورية الجمالية يخالف تجلَّيه في المجالي الظلالية الجلالية .وظهوره في القوالب السفلية ، وجميع هذه المظاهر غير جامع لرؤيته نفسه ولا حاصر للأمر .ولهذا قال رضي الله عنه : " لمّا شاء الحق " على صيغة تقتضي المسبوقية بعدم هذه المشيّة المقتضية لظهوره له في الكون الجامع ، بعد ظهوره في الأكوان غير الجامعة وإن كانت مشيّته في رؤيته.ورؤيته لأسمائه وصفاته ونسب ذاته سابقة التعلَّق على الظهور الأسمائي في العالم قبل الكون الجامع.ولكن من حيث ظهور الإنسان من حيث الصورة العنصرية لمظهريّتها .فإنّ تعلَّق المشية آخر بموجب الترتيب الحكمي الوجودي .فإنّ الإنسان أوّل بالحقيقة ، والآية في البداية ، آخر في الغاية والنهاية ، ظاهر بالصورة ، باطن بالسرّ والصورة جامع بين الأوّلية والآخرية ، والباطنية والظاهرية .وجمعيّته لكونه برزخا جامعا بين بحري الوجوب والإمكان والحقّية والخلقية .وأمّا حصره الأمر فلكونه موجودا بالرتبة الكلَّية الجامعة بين المراتب ، ولكون الأمر محصورا في نفسه بين الوجود والمرتبة .فلمّا كانت مرتبته كلية جامعة بين مرتبتي الحقّية والخلقية ، والربانية والعبدانية ، تمّ بعين الوجود الحق في مظهريته بحسبها كليا جمعيا أحديا ، والمرتبة منحصرة بين الحق الواجب والخلق الممكن ، معمورة بهما ، فالحق أبدا حق ، والخلق أبدا خلق .والوجود في مرتبة الحقية حق ، وفي مرتبة الخلقية خلق ، وفي النشأة الجامعة حق خلق جامع بينهما مطلقا عن الجمع بينهما أيضا ، فالدائرة الوجودية كما سبق محيطة بقوسين ، ومنقسمة بقسمين ، ومنصّفة بشطرين على قطرين :فالشطر الأعلى للحقيّة والوجوب ، فإنّ الفوقية والعلوّ حق الحق.والشطر الأدنى للكون والخلق .والبرزخ يظهر بالنعتين ، ويصدق عليه إطلاق الحكمين ، وله الجمع بين البحرين ، وليس له نعت ذاتي سوى الجمعية والإطلاق فله أن يظهر مظهرية الأسماء والمسمّيات والذات على الوجه الأوفى .وفي حقّه يصحّ أن يقال :يرى أعيانها أو يرى الحقّ نفسه في كون جامع .فإنّ رؤية الحقّ نفسه في كون غير جامع لما هو عليه ليست كرؤيته نفسه في مرآة كاملة جامعة لظهور آثاره وأحكامه تماما .كما قال

He states explicitly that this will proceeds from the Names and their realities, insofar as they are within Him, He Himself. In his saying "enumeration does not reach them" he indicates that the individual instances of the Names cannot be enumerated, for they are without limit, since the Names are divine entifications within the realities of the possible things (mumkināt), which are without limit—as will come to you, God willing—even though the mother-Names are enumerable in respect of their universal entifications, being ninety-nine (the missing one being the very entity of the whole), or a thousand and one. He thus attributed the will to the name "the Real" in respect of His Most Beautiful Names which enumeration cannot reach, because attributing it to the name "the Real" is more fitting, since He is the reality (ḥaqq) of every name, and through Him is that name's reality and actualization. The name is the Real entified, through existence, in whatever divine level it may be. The name then requires a naming (tasmiya), a named (musammā), and a namer (musammī). The named is a passive form, meaning the Real; the namer is an active form, meaning the recipient (qābil) that particularizes the one absolute existence—free from the restriction of entification—insofar as it possesses fitness to accept entification, not insofar as it is unentified and absolute without qualification. The naming is the specification effected by the act of the recipient and its effect upon absolute existence and the pure real effusion (fayḍ), through specification and restriction. So the name is a sign of the named, indicating the particular reality by which it is distinguished from other realities. Every name has two considerations: one in respect of the named Essence, and one in respect of that by which each name is distinguished from another, namely the veiling-quality of name-hood (ḥijābiyyat al-ismiyya). If we consider the named, it is the Real entified at some level among the levels of entification; if we consider the name-hood, it is a specific sign and determinate indication of the absolute signified, particular to its level. So the very entification of real existence through divinity in every single recipient is the name. And since the entifications of real existence and the varieties of its self-disclosure and manifestation within the limitless receptivities of the possible things are themselves without limit, he, may God be pleased with him, said "enumeration does not reach them," because what enumeration reaches is finite, while the existential entifications through the Breath of the All-Merciful (al-nafas al-raḥmānī) are without limit—hence uncountable, beyond the reach of enumeration. As for the enumerated names, they are the universals of the realities of necessity, action, and effect; these number ninety-nine. The secret of this is that the Names, in their realities, divide into essential names, attributive names, and active names. If we multiply the odd three by itself, for detailed unfolding, the result is nine, the last of the unit-decades in the order of numbers. Nine at the rank of tens is ninety, the second rank of recompense (mujāzāt), for a single deed is recompensed tenfold, as the Exalted said: "Whoever comes with a good deed shall have ten times its like," recompense having the second rank in the operation of enumeration—for recompense occurs only through the enumerated divine Names within the entities of the servants' deeds, and ten corresponds to one in recompense. The ratio of one to ten is as the ratio of ten to a hundred, and of a hundred to a thousand, likewise as one to ten. So the one is, in reality, the ten, the hundred, and the thousand at the levels of tens, hundreds, and thousands; hence there occurs, in actual geometric numbers, an indication among indications. Since the enumerated names are those that recompense the servants who take on their character-traits and are actualized by them, and ten is the complete number in recompense, the nine appeared at the rank of ten as ninety, and was added to the original nine (resulting from multiplying the ranked three by itself, as mentioned), giving ninety-nine. So understand. And because these names are, from one respect, identical with the one named by them, and from another respect, other than it, the named—namely the Real, manifest at the levels of His existence, entified through self-disclosure in the very entity of the recipient to whom He discloses Himself, and subject to its enumeration, specification, restriction, qualification, and delimitation—is, insofar as they are other than Him, the completion of the hundred, and, insofar as they are identical with Him, not enumerable through entification. This is why it was said: "God, the Exalted, has a hundred names minus one"—this missing one being identical with the ninety-nine, and identical with the thousand-and-one, according to what is transmitted regarding the rank of enumeration (that it is a thousand and one), manifest at the very end of the universal levels of number, just as it was hidden at their beginning and middle. It is likewise identical with the names that enumeration does not reach, for these are the luminous existential entifications, the varieties of the generous self-disclosures of the [divine] Breath (al-tajalliyyāt al-nafasiyya al-jūdiyya), and the divine perfections that do not run out, that enumeration cannot reach, nor can the counting of blessings and favors encompass. So understand. And know that the Real, in respect of these essential self-disclosures and entifications, eternally and everlastingly wills to see their entities in an all-comprehensive engendered being that encompasses the whole affair—for He was manifest before their manifestation to themselves for Him, the Exalted, and before their seeing themselves also in manifestations that were neither comprehensive nor encompassing of the realities of the hidden and the open, nor of the subtleties of the nonmanifest and the manifest. His self-disclosure, the Exalted, in the luminous, beauteous manifestations differs from His self-disclosure in the shadowy, majestic vistas, and from His manifestation in the lower molds; and all these manifestations are not comprehensive of His seeing Himself, nor do they encompass the affair. This is why he, may God be pleased with him, said "when the Real willed," in a form entailing precedence by the non-occurrence of this will which necessitates His manifestation to Himself in the all-comprehensive engendered being, after His manifestation in the non-comprehensive engendered beings—even though His will regarding His seeing, and His seeing of His Names, attributes, and the relations (nisab) of His Essence, is prior in attachment to the nominal manifestation in the world, [occurring] before the all-comprehensive engendered being. But insofar as the manifestation of the human being (al-insān), in respect of the elemental form, pertains to his being a locus of manifestation, the attachment of the will thereto is posterior, according to the required order of wisdom and existence. For the human being is first in reality—the sign at the outset—yet last in aim and end; manifest in form, nonmanifest in secret; and the form is comprehensive of firstness and lastness, of nonmanifestness and manifestness. His comprehensiveness (jamʿiyya) is due to his being an all-comprehensive isthmus (barzakh jāmiʿ) between the two seas of necessity and possibility, of realness and creatureliness. As for his encompassing the affair, it is because he exists through the universal rank that comprehends [all] ranks, and because the affair is itself encompassed, in itself, between existence and rank. Since his rank is universal, comprehensive of the two ranks of realness and creatureliness, lordliness and servanthood, he was completed, through the very existence of the Real, in his being-a-locus-of-manifestation accordingly—universal, comprehensive, one. The rank is confined between the necessary Real and the possible creation, filled by both; so the Real is ever the Real, and creation is ever creation. Existence at the level of realness is Real; at the level of creatureliness, creation; and in the all-comprehensive configuration (al-nashʾa al-jāmiʿa), it is Real-creation, comprehending both, yet absolute, free even of the [restriction of] comprehending both. So the circle of existence, as before, is bounded by two arcs, divided into two parts, and bisected into two halves along two diameters: the upper half belonging to realness and necessity, for aboveness and height are the very reality of the Real (ḥaqq al-ḥaqq); and the lower half belonging to engendered being and creation. The isthmus manifests with both descriptions, and both rulings truly apply to it; it unites the two seas, and has no essential description save comprehensiveness and absoluteness—hence it is fit to manifest the locus-of-manifestation-hood of the Names, the named, and the Essence in the most complete manner. Regarding it, it is valid to say: "He sees their entities" or "the Real sees Himself in an all-comprehensive engendered being." For the Real's seeing Himself, as He is, in a non-comprehensive engendered being is not like His seeing Himself in a complete mirror comprehensively manifesting His effects and properties in full. As he said:

﴿من حيث أسمائه الحسنى التي لا يبلغها الإحصاء﴾

Quotes words that differ from our text (wavy underline).

فإنّها من حيث كلَّيات مراتبها وأجناسها القابلة للإحصاء لا يمكن أن يتوجّه نحو الغاية المطلوبة ها هنا . فإنّها إنّما تتحقّق بعد تنزّلها في المواد الهيولانيّة وتشخّصها بالصور والأعراض الكائنة الجسمانيّة التي لا نهاية لكلّ منها فالأسماء إذن من هذه الحيثيّة لا بدّ وأن تكون غير قابلة للإحصاء عدّا ، كما أنّ الذات في كنه بطونها غير قابلة له حدّا ، فهي صورة مثليّتها في مرآة التقابل . وإظهار الأوّل يناسب منصب النبوّة ويفصح عنه كلامها ، كما أنّ الثاني يوافق طور الولاية ويؤدّيه كتابها . تلويح من العقود : الحاء والقاف في لفظ الحق «الحقّ» حرفان : أحدهم له الوحدة الجمعيّة بها يناسب الذات ويدلّ عليها ، والآخر له الكثرة الكماليّة والسعة الأسمائيّة ولذلك ترى الحضرة الختميّة اختار ذلك العقد عند التعبير عن إحصاء الأسماء في المرتبتين الأوليين مشيرا إلى المرتبة الثالثة بما ينبئ عن الجهة الاتحاديّة العينيّة التي للأسماء في هذه المرتبة ، على ما هو مدلول الحرف الآخر باعتبار مسمّاه . وأمّا باقي اسمه فهو صورة دور التسعة وهيئة جمعيّتها الوحدانيّة ، وهي مؤدى الحرف الأوّل اسما. وأمّا مؤداه مسمّى فهو أنهى مراتب الزوج الذي هو طرف الظهور، الذي هو مقتضى الأسماء، وإنّما أشير إلى هذه المراتب لأنّ الأسماء منها ما هو في: المرتبة الأولى الذاتيّة ومنها ما هو في المرتبة الثانية الصفاتيّة ومنها ما هو في المرتبة الثالثة الفعليّة . وهذه هي التي لها الجهة الاتحاديّة وعدم الإحصاء، وهي مؤدى الحرف الدالّ على الذات منهما، فلا تغفل عن دقائق الإشارات والتلويحات. ثمّ إنّ غاية هذه المشيّة ومنتهى إرادة الحقّ فيها من حيث تلك الأسماء

For with respect to the universals of their degrees (marātib) and their genera, which are susceptible of enumeration, they cannot be directed toward the goal sought here. For they are only realized after their descent (tanazzul) into hylic materials and their particularization through forms and corporeal accidents, each of which is without limit. The names, then, from this respect, must necessarily be unenumerable in number, just as the Essence, in the depth of its nonmanifestation (buṭūn), is unlimitable in definition — the [multiplicity of names] being the form of its likeness in the mirror of correlation (taqābul). The manifestation of the first [unlimited number] befits the rank of prophecy and is expressed by its speech, just as the second [unlimited definition] accords with the station of sainthood (walāya) and is conveyed by its book. An indication from the letter-combinations: the ḥāʾ and the qāf in the word al-Ḥaqq are two letters — one possesses collective unity, by which it suits and indicates the Essence, and the other possesses perfective multiplicity and the vastness proper to the names. Hence you see that the Seal-Presence chose that combination when expressing the enumeration of the names in the first two degrees, pointing to the third degree by what indicates the unitive, entitative aspect (al-jiha al-ittiḥādiyya al-ʿayniyya) belonging to the names in this degree, according to what the other letter signifies in respect of its named referent. As for the remainder of His name, it is the form of the cycle of the nine and the configuration of their unitary collectivity, which the first letter conveys as a name. As for what it conveys as a named referent, it is the furthest degree of the even [number] (al-zawj), which is the extremity of manifestation demanded by the names. These degrees are mentioned only because, among the names, some belong to the first, essential degree, some to the second, attributive degree, and some to the third, active degree. This [third] is the one possessing the unitive aspect and non-enumerability, conveyed by the letter indicating the Essence among the two. So do not be heedless of the subtleties of these indications and intimations. Then, the goal of this Will and the furthest extent of the Real's volition therein, in respect of those names,

﴿التي لا يبلغها الإحصاء﴾

أي، العدد. فإن الأسماء الجزئية غير متناهية، وإن كانت كلياتها متناهية. وقد سبق معنى (الاسم) و (اسم الاسم) في الفصل الثاني من المقدمات. وإنما جاء بالحق الذي هو اسم الذات ليتبين أن هذه المشية والإرادة للذات بحكم المحبة الذاتية التي منها وإليها، لكن ليس للذات من حيث هي هي مع قطع النظر عن الأسماء والصفات، وليست لها، أيضا، من حيث غنائها عن العالمين، بل من حيث سمائها الحسنى التي بذواتها وحقائقها تطلب المظاهر والمجالي، لتظهر أنوارها المكنونة وتنكشف أسرارها المخزونة فيها التي باعتبارها . قال تعالى: "كنت كنز مخفيا". - الحديث. قوله

that is, in number. For the particular Names are unlimited, even though their universals (kulliyyāt) are limited. The meaning of 'Name' and 'the name of the Name' has already preceded in the second chapter of the Introductions. He brought forward 'the Real' (al-Ḥaqq), which is a name of the Essence, in order to clarify that this will and volition belong to the Essence by virtue of the essential love which proceeds from it and returns to it—yet not to the Essence insofar as it is itself, with disregard of the Names and Attributes, nor is it [the will] due to Its independence from the worlds; rather it is by virtue of His Most Beautiful Names which, through their very selves and realities, seek loci of manifestation and mirrors, so that their hidden lights may become manifest and their stored secrets be unveiled—the secrets which are within them by consideration [of the Names]. He, exalted is He, said: 'I was a Hidden Treasure'—the ḥadīth [continues]. His statement

﴿التي لا يبلغها الإحصاء﴾

وألعد من حيث جریانها وإن كانت كلیاتها منحصرة فی تسعة و تسعین آلف و واحد ؛ وإنما قید بالحيثية، لأن ذات الحق سبحانه باعتبار إطلاقها له مرتبة الغنى عن العالمين ليس نسبته اقتضاء شيء من العالم. ومشيئته إليها أولى من نسبة عدمها، وباعتبار تقيدها ببعض الأسماء لا يقتضي المظهر الجامع بل ما يكون مظهرا له فقط . فاقتضاؤها المظهر الجامع لا يكون إلا من حيث جميع أسمائها الحسنى . فلهذا قيد المشيئة بهذه الحيثية

— and count, in terms of their occurrence, even though their universals are confined to ninety-nine thousand and one. And it was qualified by 'the aspect' (al-ḥaythiyya) because the Essence of the Real, glory be to Him, considered in its absoluteness, has the station of independence from the worlds; its relation to requiring anything of the world, and His willing toward it, is no more fitting than the relation of its non-occurrence. And considered in its being delimited by some of the Names, it does not require the comprehensive locus of manifestation (al-maẓhar al-jāmiʿ) but only what would be a locus of manifestation for it alone. So its requiring the comprehensive locus of manifestation can only be from the aspect of all of its Names, the Most Beautiful. This is why he qualified the willing with this aspect

﴿التي لا يبلغها الإحصاء﴾

أي لا يمكن العد إلا لله لأنها غير متناهية

That is, counting them is not possible except for God, since they are without end (non-finite).

﴿أن يرى أعيانها﴾

بظهورها وظهورها اقتضاؤها لوجود العالم مع ما فيه حتى الإنسان ولهذا قال

through their manifestation; and their manifestation is what their becoming manifest requires for the existence of the world along with what it contains, even man. This is why he said,

﴿أن يرى أعيانها وإن شئت قلت أن يرى عينه في كون جامع يحصر الأمر كله﴾

Quotes words that differ from our text (wavy underline).

بيان متعلق المشية. والمراد بقوله: (أعيانها) يجوز أن يكون الأعيان الثابتة التي هي صور حقائق الأسماء الإلهية في الحضرة العلمية. ويجوز أن يكون نفس تلك الأسماء التي هي أرباب الأعيان والماهيات الكونية. ويجوز أن يكون تلك الأعيان، الأعيان الخارجية. لذلك قال

is an explanation of the object of the will (mashīʾa). What is meant by his statement 'their entities' may be the fixed entities (al-aʿyān al-thābita), which are the forms of the realities of the divine Names in the Presence of Knowledge. Or it may be those very Names themselves, which are the lords of the entities and the engendered quiddities. Or it may be those entities in the sense of the external entities. Hence he said

﴿أن يرى أعيانها وإن شئت قلت : أن يرى عينه﴾

فلئن قيل : « متعلَّق المشيّة على ما سبق من البيان إنّما هو التحقّق نفسه ، لا الرؤية » ؟ قلنا : إنّ رؤية العين في الكون إنّما هي في أنهى مراتب التحقّق وأقاصى دركاته الكونيّة ، فلا تتحقّق إلَّا بالمشيّة ، على أنّ الرؤية نفسها من المتحقّقات أيضا ، وإن كانت تابعة لمتحقّق آخر فيه . ثمّ إنّ في تنويع العبارة هاهنا وتسوية أدائهما للمقصود بيانا لما يتبادر إلى الأفهام من لزوم التغاير والتقابل بين الرائي والمرئي ، أنّه بمجرّد الاعتبار فقط ، ولا تغاير بالذات ها هنا. وإشارة إلى الجهة الاتحاديّة المنبّه عليها في أسماء الإحصاء من الكلام النبوي ، بقوله: « تسعة وتسعين اسما ، مائة إلَّا واحدة » . إذ بها ينوط اسميّة الاسم ، وتنبيها إلى صافيّ منحل الحيّ الختميّ وخالص توحيدهم ، حيث أنّ محوضة الوحدة الإطلاقيّة لديهم ليس ليست مما يشوب به شيء من ضروب الإضافات وصنوف التقابلات ، حتّى تقابلة الكثرة وتعاندها . وهاهنا لطيفة قد احتوى عليها بديع مسلكه هذا ، من باب الإشارات الخفيّة العالية عن المدارك المعتورة بين أرباب الرسوم ، وهي أنّ المشيّة التي هي مبدأ أمر الظهور والإظهار بعد رؤية الحقّ من حيث أسمائه الحسنى أعيانها تصلح أن تستند إلى المخاطب ضرورة أنّ الرؤية المذكورة مستتبعة للاتحاد . ومستلزمة لطيّ بساط التقابل والتكثّر على ما عرفت وحينئذ تصير مصدرا للقول الفصل ، والكلام الكامل ، وبه تتعلَّق الرؤية المذكورة إلى عين الحقّ ، ويرتفع تقابل حكم الرائي والمرئي ، إلَّا اعتبار محضا - على ما ستطلع عليه . وكثيرا ما يجد الفطن عندما تأنّس فهمه بإدراك الإشارات الخفيّة ، وفتح عليه أبواب اللطائف المرموزة في الكلام المنزل الختمي ، اعتبار هذا المسلك ، كقوله تعالى : " ثُمَّ سَوَّاه ُ وَنَفَخَ فِيه ِ من رُوحِه ِ وَجَعَلَ لَكُمُ السَّمْعَ وَالأَبْصارَ وَالأَفْئِدَةَ ". شرح بعض الاصطلاحات واعلم أنّ الحروف العاليات إذا نزلت في سطور مراتب الوجود إلى حيث يتميّز سواد تلك الحروف عن بياضها يسمّى بـ " العين " لاستحصالها بـ " كن " . هذا إذا اعتبرت خصوصيّة كلّ منها منفردة ، أمّا إذا اعتبرت مجموعة بأحديّة جمعيّتها الكماليّة ، يسمّى ب « العالم » وصورة تماميّته حيث يكون الحرف مستقلا بنفسه في الظهور . فإنّ المراتب منها ما ليس لتلك الحروف فيها سوى نسب معنويّة كليّة راجعة إلى حقيقة واحدة ، تسمّى بذلك الاعتبار «اسما» كما أنّه يسمّى ب «الحضرة الواحديّة» ، ومنها ما انفصلت عنه واستقلَّت بالاعتبار وإن تبعته بالوجود ، ويسمّى ب «الأعيان الثابتة» ، كما أنّه يسمّى ب «الحضرة العلميّة» ، ومنها ما استقلت تلك الحروف فيه بالوجود مستتبعة إيّاه ، وحينئذ يسمّى ب « العين » مطلقا ، كما أنّه يسمّى ب "العالم" . وفيه تلويح يكشف عن مراتب العوالم بترتيبه ، والكون الجامع لها بعينه ، وغير ذلك . ثمّ إنّ العين تتدرج في ذلك الاستقلال بحسب تلك المراتب إلى أن تنتهي إلى كثائف وضعيّة هيولانيّة ، يمكن أن تتعاكس أشعّة شمس الحقيقة من تلك الكثائف المسمّاة ب « الكون » إلى المشاعر الحسّية المعبّر عن أتمّ أنواعها ب « الرؤية » مسترجعة في ذلك من الكثائف الحاجبة إلى اللطائف الكاشفة ، متدرّجة إلى أن تنتهي إلى الحقيقة القلبيّة ، التي تسع الوحدة الحقيقيّة بإطلاقها ، وتتمّ على عرش شعورها الدائرة بقوسيها . ولذلك جعل الرؤية غاية للمشيّة ، إذ بها يعرج السافر السائر نحو المقصد الأقصى من غور دركات الحجب الغيريّة ، إلى نجد درجات الحقائق الوجوديّة الاتحاديّة . وبنقطة النطق ينطبق قوس البطون على الظهور ، وبها يصير دائرة كاملة ، على ما حقّق أمره في المقدّمة . رؤية الحقّ نفسه في كون جامع فتلك الرؤية إنّما تتصوّر

If it is said: 'The object to which the Will is attached, according to what was explained above, is realization (taḥaqquq) itself, not vision' — we say: the vision of the entity within existence occurs only at the furthest degrees of realization and the utmost depths of its existential attainments; it is not realized except through the Will, given that vision itself is among the realized things, even though it follows upon another realized thing within it. Then, in the variation of expression here, and the equal adequacy of both expressions to the intended meaning, there is a clarification of what readily occurs to minds — namely the necessity of otherness and correlation between the seer and the seen — namely that this is merely a matter of consideration (iʿtibār) alone, there being no otherness in essence here. And there is an indication of the unitive aspect alerted to in the prophetic ḥadīth on the enumerated names, in his saying: 'ninety-nine names, a hundred less one.' For upon this the namehood of the name depends, and it is an indication of the pure, unmixed nature of the Seal-lineage and their unadulterated declaration of unity, inasmuch as the pure unconditioned unity they possess is not admixed with any kind of relations or correlations, not even the correlation and opposition of multiplicity. And here is a subtle point contained in the marvel of this approach — from the category of hidden indications too elevated for the perceptions common among the masters of formal learning — namely: the Will, which is the principle of manifestation and making-manifest after the Real's vision, in terms of His most beautiful names, of their entities, is fit to be attributed to the addressee, since the aforementioned vision entails union (ittiḥād) and necessitates the folding-up of the carpet of correlation and multiplicity, as you have come to know. It thus becomes a source for the decisive word and complete speech, and through it the aforementioned vision attaches to the very entity of the Real, and the correlation between the status of seer and seen is lifted, save as a purely notional consideration — as you shall come to learn. The perceptive person often finds, once his understanding has grown familiar with grasping the hidden indications, and the doors of the subtleties encoded in the revealed Seal-speech have been opened to him, confirmation of this approach — as in His saying, Most High: 'Then He fashioned him and breathed into him of His spirit, and made for you hearing, sight, and hearts.' Explanation of some technical terms: Know that the exalted letters, when they descend into the lines of the degrees of existence to the point where the blackness of those letters becomes distinguished from their whiteness, are called 'the entity' ('ayn), owing to their being brought forth by [the command] 'Be.' This is when the specificity of each is considered separately; but when they are considered together in the unity of their perfective collectivity, it is called 'the world' (al-ʿālam), and the form of its completeness is where the letter is independent in itself in manifestation. For among the degrees are some in which those letters have nothing but universal notional relations referring back to a single reality; by that consideration it is called 'a name,' just as it is called 'the Presence of Oneness' (al-ḥaḍra al-wāḥidiyya). And among them are those that have separated from it and become independent in consideration, though following it in existence — called 'the fixed entities' (al-aʿyān al-thābita), just as it is called 'the Presence of Knowledge.' And among them are those in which those letters become independent in existence, entailing it — this is then called 'the entity' absolutely, just as it is called 'the world.' In this there is an indication disclosing the degrees of the worlds according to their order, and the all-comprehensive existent (al-kawn al-jāmiʿ) that gathers them together in itself, and other matters besides. Then the entity progresses in that independence, according to those degrees, until it culminates in dense hylic positional states, from which the rays of the sun of Reality can be reflected — from those densities called 'existence' — to the sensory faculties, the most complete species of which is expressed as 'vision,' recovering thereby, from the veiling densities, the disclosing subtleties, progressively, until it culminates in the reality of the heart, which encompasses true Unity in its unconditionedness, and is completed upon the throne of its consciousness, revolving through its two arcs. For this reason vision was made the goal of the Will, since through it the traveling wayfarer ascends toward the furthest goal, from the depths of the levels of the veils of otherness, to the highland of the degrees of the unitive existential realities. And at the point of articulation, the arc of nonmanifestation coincides with that of manifestation, and thereby it becomes a complete circle, as was established in the Introduction. The Real's vision of Himself in an all-comprehensive existent: that vision can only be conceived

﴿أن يرى أعيانها﴾

المتمايزة بعضها عن بعض في التعقل وذلك باعتبار مرتبة الواحدية

distinguished one from another in conceptualization (taʿaqqul); and that is with respect to the station of Unicity (al-wāḥidiyya)

﴿أن يري أعيانها﴾

هذه صفة لله تعالى وعلة غائية لايجاد الكون الجامع لاقتضاء هذه الإيجاد أن يكون علته الغائية من جانب الموجود و من كمالاته. وأما قوله تعالى : "وما خلقت الجن والإنس إلا ليعبدون " 56 سورة الذاريات. أي ليعرفون فهو صفة للمخلوقات وعلة غائبة لإعطاء الحق وجوداتهم الخاصة بهم بحسب الأوقات . فذلك الإيجاد يقتضي أن تكون العلة الغائية من طرف المعلول وكمالاته فلا وجه لإيراد الشارح في هذا المقام . قوله تعالى : "كنت كنزا مخفيا فأحببت أن أعرف " الحديث . لأنه صريح في بيان العلة لإيجاد الجزئيات . والمقصود ههنا بيان العلة الغائية لإيجاد المادة الكلية فتختلف العلتان الغائیتان باختلاف الإيجادین

This is a description of God, Exalted, and a final cause (ʿilla ghāʾiyya) for the bringing-into-existence of the all-comprehensive engendered being, since this bringing-into-existence requires that its final cause be on the side of the existent thing and among its perfections. As for His saying, Exalted is He: "And I did not create jinn and mankind except that they might worship Me" (Q. 51:56) — that is, that they might know Me — this is a description of the created things and a final cause [obscure/hidden] for the Real's granting them their particular existences according to [their] times. That bringing-into-existence requires the final cause to be on the side of the effect and its perfections. Hence there is no ground for the commentator's objection at this point. As for His saying, Exalted is He, [related] in the ḥadīth: "I was a hidden treasure, and I loved to be known" — this is explicit in stating the cause of the bringing-into-existence of particulars. What is intended here, however, is to state the final cause for the bringing-into-existence of the universal matter (al-mādda al-kulliyya); the two final causes therefore differ according to the difference between the two bringings-into-existence.

﴿ان يري اعيانها اوان يري عينه في كون جامع يحصر الأمر﴾

دینلکه اول صادقدر* پس وجه مشروح اوزره

[whichever] is said, that is true. So, in the manner explained,

﴿وإن شئت قلت أن يرى عينه﴾

لأن أعيانها عينه باعتبار كثرة التعينات والنسب

because their entities are His entity, considered in respect of the multiplicity of entifications (taʿayyunāt) and relations (nisab)

﴿وإن شئت قلت، أن يرى عينه﴾

أي، عين الحق. فإن جميع الحقائق الأسمائية في الحضرة الأحدية عين الذات وليست غيرها، وفي الواحدية عينها من وجه وغيرها من آخر. و (الكون) في اصطلاح هذه الطائفة، عبارة عن وجود العالم، من حيث هوعالم، لا من حيث إنه حق، وإن كان مرادفا للوجود المطلق، عند أهل النظر. وهو هنا بمعنى المكون. أي، شاء أن يرى أعيان أسمائه أو عين ذاته في موجود جامع لجميع حقائق العالم، مفرداتها ومركباتها، بحسب مرتبته يحصر ذلك الموجود أمر الأسماء والصفات من مقتضياتها وأفعالها وخواصها ولوازمها كلها. و (اللام) في قوله (الأمر) للاستغراق، أي جميع الأمور الإلهية، أو عوض من الإضافة. و (الأمر) بمعنى الفعل. أو يحصر الشأن الإلهي في مرتبته فيكون بمعنى الشأن، وهو أعم من الفعل لأنه قد يكون حالا من الأحوال من غير فعل. أويحصر ما تعلق به الأمر الذي هو قوله: (كن). فحينئذ يكون مجازا من قبيل إطلاق الملزوم وإرادة اللازم. و (الكون الجامع) هو الإنسان الكامل المسمى ب (آدم). وغيره ليس له هذه القابلية والاستعداد. والسر في هذه المشيئة والحصر، أن الحق تعالى كان يشاهد ذاته وكمالاته الذاتية المسماة ب (الأسماء) ، ومظاهرها كلها في ذاته بذاته في عين أوليته وباطنيته مجموعة مندمجة بعضها في بعض. فأراد أن يشاهدها فيحضرة آخريته وظاهريته كذلك، ليطابق الأول الآخر والظاهر والباطن، ويرجع كل إلى أصله. فقوله

—that is, the Essence of the Real. For all the Names' realities, in the Unitary Presence (al-ḥaḍra al-aḥadiyya), are identical with the Essence and are not other than it; while in the Presence of the One-in-Multiplicity (al-wāḥidiyya) they are identical with it from one respect and other than it from another. 'Kawn' (engendered being), in the technical usage of this group, is an expression for the existence of the world insofar as it is a world, not insofar as it is the Real—even though it is synonymous with absolute existence according to the theorists (ahl al-naẓar). Here it bears the meaning of 'that which is engendered' (mukawwan). That is: He willed to see the entities of His Names, or the Essence of His own Self, in an existent thing comprehending all the realities of the world—its simple and composite constituents—according to its rank, such that this existent thing would encompass the whole affair of the Names and Attributes, in terms of their requirements, their acts, their properties, and all their concomitants. The definite article (lām) in his statement 'the affair' (al-amr) is for comprehensive generality, meaning all divine affairs; or it is a substitute for a genitive construction. 'Al-amr' here bears the meaning of act (fiʿl). Or he encompasses the divine matter (shaʾn) in its rank, in which case it would bear the meaning of 'state' (shaʾn), which is more general than 'act,' since it may be a condition among conditions without any act. Or he encompasses that to which the [divine] Command (al-amr) is attached, which is His word 'Be!' (kun); in that case it would be metaphorical, of the type wherein the concomitant (lāzim) is meant while the thing implying it (malzūm) is expressed. The 'comprehensive engendered being' (al-kawn al-jāmiʿ) is the Perfect Human (al-insān al-kāmil) named 'Adam.' Nothing other than him possesses this receptivity (qābiliyya) and preparedness (istiʿdād). The secret in this will and this encompassing is that the Real, exalted is He, used to witness His own Essence and His essential perfections—named 'the Names'—and all their loci of manifestation within His own Essence by means of His Essence, in the very state of His Firstness (awwaliyya) and Nonmanifestness (bāṭiniyya), gathered together and interfused one within another. So He willed to witness them likewise in the Presence of His Lastness (ākhiriyya) and Manifestness (ẓāhiriyya), so that the First might correspond to the Last, and the Manifest to the Nonmanifest, and each thing return to its origin. So his statement

﴿وإن شئت قلت أن يرى عينه﴾

المتحدة الغير المتميز فيها اسم عن اسم وذلك باعتبار مرتبة الأحدية . ويمكن أن يقال : تجويز العبارتين إنما هو بالنسبة إلى المرتبة الواحدية، فإن للأسماء فيها اعتبارین : أحدهما: اعتبار و حدة الذات و ثانیه ما : اعتبار كثرة النسب و الاعتبارات، فالعبارة الأولى بملاحظة الاعتبار الثاني والثانية بملاحظة الأول

united, wherein no Name is distinguished from [another] Name; and that is with respect to the station of Oneness (al-aḥadiyya). It is possible to say: the permissibility of both expressions pertains only to the station of Unicity, for the Names therein have two considerations — one, the consideration of the oneness of the Essence, and the other, the consideration of the multiplicity of relations (nisab) and considerations. So the first expression regards the second consideration, and the second expression regards the first

﴿وإن شئت قلت أن يرى عينه﴾

فقد أسند المشية المتعلقة بالرؤية بقوله أن يرى أعيانها إلى الفيض المقدس وإلى الفيض الأقدس. بقوله : أن يرى عينه وأشار إلى اتحادهما بقوله: وإن شئ

He has thus attributed the volition connected with vision — in his saying "that He might see their entities" — to the Holy Effusion (al-fayḍ al-muqaddas), and, in his saying "that He might see His own entity," to the Most Holy Effusion (al-fayḍ al-aqdas); and he indicated their unity by his saying "and if you wish."

﴿أن يرى عينه في كون جامع يحصر الأمر لكونه متّصفا بالوجود﴾

فإنّه كان يرى عينه في عينه رؤية ذاتية عينية غيبية ، ويرى حقائق أسمائه وصفاته مستهلكة في ذاته رؤية أحدية ، وشهوده عينه وأعيان أسمائه في الكون الجامع شهود جمعيّ بين الجمع والتفصيل .ويجوز أن يقول :أن يرى أعيانها ، أو يرى عينه فرادى وجمعا .ويجوز أن يقول : الكلمة مبنيّة للمفعول في الوجهين ، فانظر ما ذا ترى .قال رضي الله عنه

For He used to see His own entity in His own entity with an essential, entitative, nonmanifest seeing (ruʾya dhātiyya ʿayniyya ghaybiyya), and He would see the realities of His Names and attributes absorbed within His Essence with a seeing of oneness (ruʾya aḥadiyya). But His witnessing of His own entity and the entities of His Names in the all-comprehensive engendered being is a comprehensive witnessing (shuhūd jamʿī) uniting unity and differentiation. It is also permissible to say "to see their entities," or "to see His own entity," both severally and collectively; and it is permissible to say the word is constructed in the passive voice in both respects—so consider what you see. He, may God be pleased with him, said:

﴿في كون جامع يحصر الأمر كله﴾

Quotes words that differ from our text (wavy underline).

وهو الإنسان الكامل والعالم معه . قوله

namely, the perfect human (al-insān al-kāmil) together with the world. His statement,

﴿في كون جامع يحصر الأمر﴾

وذلك لأنّ الكون إذا اتّصف بالوجود وظهر به ، تحصّل منه هويّة جامعة بين الأوّل والآخر والظاهر والباطن كما لا يخفى وهو على ما نبّهت عليه في المقدّمة عند الفحص عن مبدأ منع الشركة يقتضي حصر الأمر . وذلك لأنّ الأمر لغة يطلق على ما يعمّ الأفعال والأقوال. وتحقيقا على أوّل ممتد إلى الآخر مرتبط به ، وهو إنّما يصدق على كل ظاهر منبئ عن الباطن كالأفعال الإدراكيّة التي للقوى من الإشارات الخفيّة والكلمات الجليّة . ويلوّح على ذلك ظهور راء « الصورة » فيه ببيّنات لام « الكلام » الكاشفة عن كنه المرام . ومن ثمّة ترى الهويّة المذكورة قد استتبعت العلم بكلّ شيء ، على ما هو مؤدّى الآية الكريمة ، وبيّن أنّ ظهور ذلك الأمر إنّما يتصوّر من الصورة الاعتداليّة القلبيّة ، التي لا يماثلها شيء. فإنّك قد عرفت فيما سلف لك أنّ الأكوان على اختلاف أنواعها وتكثّر شجونها إنّما تصلح لأن تكون مصدرا للتعاكس المذكور ، ومظهرا لعرش الشعور ، ما استحصل منها صورة اتحاديّة ومزاج اعتداليّ يمكن أن تتكوّن فيه الحقيقة القلبيّة ، التي بها أصبح مجمع بحري الإلهي والكياني حاصرا لتنوّعات تموّجاته بأنواعها وأشخاصها ، لكون الكون المذكور بانطوائه على تلك الحقيقة متّصفا بالوجود الواحد الحقيقي ، ظاهرا به ومظهرا هو إيّاه بتفاصيل تنوّعاته كلَّها بكمالها ، منصبغة بسرّه الخاصّ به . فعلى هذا قوله

This is because, when existence is qualified by being and becomes manifest through it, there results from it an identity (huwiyya) that gathers together the First and the Last, the Manifest and the Nonmanifest, as is not hidden. This, as I noted in the Introduction when investigating the principle prohibiting partnership [in divinity], requires the encompassing of the affair. For 'affair' in language is applied to what comprises both acts and utterances — and, properly speaking, to a first extending to a last and connected with it — and it is true only of every manifest thing that discloses a nonmanifest referent, like the perceptive acts of the faculties, ranging from hidden indications to clear words. This is intimated by the appearance of the rāʾ of 'ṣūra' [form] therein, together with the clear signs of the lām of 'kalām' [speech], which disclose the essence of the intent. Hence you see that the aforementioned identity has entailed knowledge of all things, in accordance with what the noble verse conveys, and it is clear that the manifestation of that affair can only be conceived from the equilibrial reality of the heart, which nothing resembles. For you have already come to know that existents, despite the diversity of their kinds and the multiplicity of their ramifications, are fit to be a source for the aforementioned reflection and a locus of manifestation for the throne of consciousness, only insofar as there is obtained from them a unitive form and an equilibrial constitution in which the reality of the heart can come to be constituted — that reality through which the confluence of the two seas, the divine and the createdly-contingent, comes to encompass the diversifications of its wave-motions in their kinds and individuals — since the aforementioned existent, by its enfolding of that reality, is qualified by the one true existence, manifest through it and made manifest by it, with all the details of its diversifications in their totality, colored by its own particular mystery. Accordingly, his saying:

﴿في كون﴾

أي ما كون (جامع) وحداني يظهر فيه اسم وشأن وصفة بصورة الجمع وصفه وحكمه بحيث يضاهي الشأن الكلي الذي هو التعيين الأول . وهذه الجمعية إنما تكون بأمرين: أحدهما : أشتماله على الأسماء كلها بحيث لا يشذ شيء منها، وثانيهما : صلاحية مظهريته بها كلها، فإن مجرد الاشتمال لا يستلزم صلاحية المظهرية وإلا لكان كل موجود مظهراً جامعاً . وإلى الأوّل أشار بقوله

i.e., an engendered being that is comprehensive (jāmiʿ), unitary, in which a Name, an affair (shaʾn), and an attribute become manifest in the form of totality, in its description and its ruling, such that it corresponds to the universal affair which is the First Entification (al-taʿayyun al-awwal). And this comprehensiveness (jamʿiyya) occurs only through two things: one, its encompassing all the Names such that none of them is left out; the other, its suitability to be a locus of manifestation for them all — for mere encompassing does not necessitate suitability for being a locus of manifestation, otherwise every existent would be a comprehensive locus of manifestation. To the first he alludes by his saying:

﴿في كون﴾

أي في موجود (جامع بحصر الأمر) المطلوب رؤيته . وهو أعيانها أو عينه قوله : لكونه علة للحصر أي الموجود الجامع متصفا بالوجود الجامع بين النشأة الروحانية والجسمانية. كما قال فيما بعد فحازت رتبة الإحاطة والجمع بهذا الوجود

That is, in an existent (comprehensive, delimiting the matter) whose vision is sought — namely, their entities or His entity. His saying: "because it is the cause of the delimitation" — that is, the all-comprehensive engendered being — is qualified by the comprehensive existence that unites the spiritual and corporeal configurations (al-nashʾatān al-rūḥāniyya wa-l-jismāniyya), as he says afterward: "so it attained the rank of encompassment and comprehensiveness through this existence."

﴿يحصر الأمر﴾

أي أمر الأسماء كأنها، وعلله بقوله: لكونه

i.e., the affair of the Names, as though [reading] 'them,' and he explained the reason for this by his saying:

﴿لكونه متصفا بالوجود﴾

علة لرؤيته تعالى عينه في الكون الجامع أي لكون ذلك الكون الجامع متصفا بالوجود وذلك لأن الوجود الإضافي عكس الوجود الحقيقي المطلق. فإن الحقيقي المطلق الواجب المقوم لكل شيء الذي هو الحق تعالى إذا ظهر في الممكن تقيد به وتخصص بالمحل فكان ممكنا من حيث التخصيص والتقيد . وكل مقيد اسم فهو اسمه النور من حيث الظهور وكان كعكس صورة الرائي في المرآة المجلوة التي يرى الناظر صورته فيها وفي بعض النسخ لكونه متصفا بالوجوه . فهو علة للحصر أي يحصر الأمر الإلهي كله لكونه متصفا بالوجوه الأسمائية فإن كل اسم وجه يرى الحق نفسه فيه بوجه ويرى عينه من جميع الوجوه في الإنسان الكامل الحاصر للأسماء كلها واللام في الأمر للاستغراق أي يحصر الأمور كلها أو بدل من المضاف إليه بمعنى أمره وهو إيجاده

is the reason (ʿilla) for His—exalted be He—seeing His own entity in the all-comprehensive engendered being, i.e., because that all-comprehensive engendered being is qualified by existence. This is because relative existence (al-wujūd al-iḍāfī) is the reverse of true absolute existence (al-wujūd al-ḥaqīqī al-muṭlaq). For the true absolute Necessary Existence, which sustains everything and is the Real—exalted be He—when it becomes manifest in the possible, becomes conditioned by it and specified by the locus, so that it becomes possible from the standpoint of this specification and conditioning. And everything conditioned is a name, so it is His name 'Light' from the standpoint of manifestation, being like the reflected image of the viewer in a polished mirror in which the beholder sees his own form. In some manuscripts: 'since it is qualified by faces (wujūh).' This then becomes the reason for the encompassing, i.e., it encompasses the entire divine affair because it is qualified by the Names' faces (wujūh); for every Name is a 'face' through which the Real sees Himself in one respect, and He sees His own entity from all respects in the perfect human who comprehends all the Names. The 'al' [definite article] in 'the affair' (al-amr) is for comprehensiveness, meaning it encompasses all affairs; or it stands in place of the noun to which it is annexed, in the sense of 'His affair,' meaning His act of bringing into existence.

﴿لكونه متصفا بالوجود ويظهر به سره إليه﴾

تعليل للحصر لا للرؤية. فإن الحق يعلم الأسماء وأعيانها ومظاهرها، ويراها ويشاهدها من غير ظهور الإنسان الكامل ووجوده في الخارج. كما قال أمير المؤمنين على، كرم الله وجهه: "بصير إذ لا منظور إليه من خلقه". إلا أن تحمل "الرؤية" على الرؤية الحاصلة في المظهر الإنساني، فإن هذه الرؤية أيضا للحق. وحينئذ يكون تعليلا لها فيكون معناه: إنه شاء أن يرى الأعيان أو عينه بآدم في آدم لكونه متصفا بالوجود الحق، إذ هو من حيث ذاته معدوم ومن حيث الوجود الحق موجود. وله قابلية ظهور جميع أسرار الوجود فيه، فصار بالاتصاف به، والقابلية المذكورة كونا حاصرا لجميع أمر الأسماء وخصوصياتها. لأن وجود الملزوم يوجب وجوداللازم، سواء كان بالواسطة أو غيرها. وقوله: " ويظهر به سره إليه" يجوز أن يعطف على قوله: " يحصر الأمر" فيرفع وإنما أخره عن قوله: "لكونه متصفا بالوجود" ليكون تتمة من التعليل، يجوز أن يعطف على "يرى" فينصب. وضمير " به " عائد إلى "الكون الجامع". وضمير " سره " و " إليه " عائد إلى " الحق ". و (إليه) صلة (يظهر)يقال: ظهر له وإليه. والمراد ب " السر "عين الحق وكمالاته الذاتية، فإنها غيب الغيوب كلها. كما قيل: "وليس وراء عبادان قرية". أي، شاء أن يشاهد عينه وكمالاته الذاتية التي كانت غيبا مطلقا في الشهادة المطلقة الإنسانية في مرآة الإنسان الكامل . ويجوز أن يقال، إنه تعليل للرؤية من غير أن يحمل أنها في المظهر الإنساني، ومعناه: أنه تعالى، وإن كان مشاهدا نفسه وكمالاته في غيب ذاته بالعلم الذاتي ولا يعزب عنه مثقال ذرة في الأرض ولا في السماء. لكن هذا النوع من الرؤية والشهود الذي يحصل بواسطة المرايا، لم يكن حاصلا بدونها، لأن خصوصيات المرايا تعطى ذلك، فشاء الحق أن يشاهدها كذلك أيضا. ويؤيد هذا المعنى قوله

is a causal explanation (taʿlīl) for the encompassing, not for the seeing. For the Real knows the Names and their entities and loci of manifestation, and sees and witnesses them without the manifestation and external existence of the Perfect Human. As the Commander of the Faithful ʿAlī, may God ennoble his countenance, said: 'Seeing, though there be none among His creatures looked upon.' Unless one takes 'seeing' as referring to the seeing that occurs in the human locus of manifestation, for this seeing too belongs to the Real; in that case it would be a causal explanation for it, and its meaning would be: He willed to see the entities, or His own Essence, by means of Adam, in Adam, by virtue of his being qualified with true existence—since he, in respect of his own essence, is nonexistent, while in respect of the true existence [bestowed upon him] he is existent—and by virtue of his having the receptivity for the manifestation of all the secrets of existence within him. Thus, through being so qualified, and through the aforementioned receptivity, he became a comprehensive engendered being (kawn) encompassing the whole affair of the Names and their particularities. For the existence of the implicate (malzūm) necessitates the existence of the concomitant (lāzim), whether by mediation or otherwise. As for his statement 'and His secret would become manifest through it, to Him'—it may be conjoined to his statement 'encompasses the affair,' in which case it would be in the nominative (marfūʿ)—and he delayed it after 'by virtue of its being qualified with existence' so that it would form the completion of the causal explanation; or it may be conjoined to 'that He might see,' in which case it would be in the accusative (manṣūb). The pronoun in 'through it' refers to 'the comprehensive engendered being.' The pronouns in 'His secret' and 'to Him' refer to 'the Real.' 'To Him' is an extension (ṣila) of 'become manifest'; one says 'it became manifest for him and to him.' What is meant by 'the secret' is the Essence of the Real and His essential perfections, for these are the innermost of all hidden things (ghayb al-ghuyūb), as it has been said: 'There is no town beyond ʿAbbādān.' That is: He willed to witness His own Essence and His essential perfections, which had been absolute unmanifestness (ghayb muṭlaq), in the Absolute Human Manifestness, in the mirror of the Perfect Human. It may also be said that it is a causal explanation for the seeing, without taking it as occurring [specifically] in the human locus of manifestation; its meaning being: that He, exalted is He, although witnessing Himself and His perfections in the unmanifestness of His Essence through essential knowledge—and not even the weight of an atom escapes Him, neither on earth nor in heaven—nevertheless, this type of seeing and witnessing which occurs by means of mirrors was not attainable without them, since the particularities of mirrors yield that [kind of vision]. So the Real willed to witness them in that manner as well. This meaning is corroborated by his statement

﴿لكونه متّصفا بالوجود﴾

علَّة للحصر ، ويمكن أن يجعل علة لرؤية الحقّ عينه في الكون المذكور ، فإنّ ذلك لا يتصوّر إلَّا فيما يتّصف بالوجود ويستقل به ، ضرورة أنّ العين لا يدرك ولا يرى إلَّا بالعين . وكذلك قوله

is the reason for the encompassing [of the affair]; it could also be made the reason for the Real's vision of His own entity in the aforementioned existent, for that can only be conceived in what is qualified by existence and independent through it, since an entity cannot be perceived or seen except by an entity. And likewise his saying:

﴿متصفاً بالوجود﴾

لأن اتصافه بالوجود إنما يكون بتجلى الوجود يرى فيه بأحدية جمع جميع شؤونه وأسمائه وإلى الثاني مما عطف عليه أعني قوله

for its being described by existence occurs only through the self-disclosure (tajallī) of existence, in which is seen the oneness of the totality (aḥadiyyat jamʿ) of all its affairs and Names. And to the second [element], which is conjoined to it, namely his saying:

﴿ويظهر به سره إليه﴾

منصوب عطفا على يرى ، أي يرى عينه في كون جامع ويظهر بذلك الكون سره ، أي وجوده الخفي إليه أو مرفوع عطفا على يحصر ، أي في كون يحصر الأمر ويظهر سر الحق تعالى به إليه وإليه صلة ظهر بمعنى له يقال ظهر له وإليه بمعنى . وقد وجدت في نسخة قرأها الشيخ العارف مؤيد الدين الشارح للكتاب هذا على الشيخ الكامل صدر الدين القنوى بخطه بالوجوه . وفي نسخة : ويظهر بالنصب والرفع معا . قوله

in the accusative, conjoined with 'to see' [yarā]—that is, He sees His own entity in an all-comprehensive engendered being, and through that engendered being His secret, i.e., His hidden existence, becomes manifest to Him. Or it is in the nominative, conjoined with 'encompasses' [yaḥṣuru]—that is, in an engendered being that encompasses the affair and through which the secret of the Real—exalted be He—becomes manifest to Him. 'To Him' (ilayhi) is connected to 'becomes manifest' (ẓahara) in the sense of 'la-hu' [for him]; one says 'ẓahara lahu' and 'ẓahara ilayhi' with the same meaning. I have found in a copy which the gnostic Shaykh Muʾayyid al-Dīn, the commentator on this book, read in the handwriting of the perfect Shaykh Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Qūnawī: 'bi'l-wujūh' [through the faces]. And in another copy: 'wa-yaẓharu' [reading it] with both the accusative and nominative together. His statement,

﴿ويظهر به سرّه إليه﴾

وفي « يظهر » أيضا يصدق جميع الوجوه المذكورة من الإعراب لكونه عطفا على « يرى » ، ثم الضمير في « إليه » و " به " سائغ العود إلى الحقّ وإلى المظهر الجامع .فإنّ ظهور السرّ الكامل الكامن إنّما يكون بالحق المتجلَّي بالتجلَّي التعريفي في قوله : « أحببت أن أعرف فخلقت الخلق وتعرّفت إليهم فعرفوني ».ولكن في الكون الجامع وبالكون الجامع ، فإنّ الحقّ تعالى شأنه من حيث كونه أحبّ إظهار سرّه الكامن ، وجلا حسنه الباطن إبداء كماله المستحسن بجميع المحامد والمحاسن ، ظهر بالكون الجامع الإنساني والكتاب الأكمل القرآني إلى الحق أو إلى المظهر ، كذلك يجوز على الوجهين ، فافهم .قال رضي الله عنه

In [the word] "become manifest" as well, all the aforementioned grammatical aspects hold, since it is conjoined to "He sees." Then the pronoun in "to Him" and "through it" may permissibly refer either to the Real or to the all-comprehensive locus of manifestation. For the manifestation of the complete, latent secret occurs only through the Real disclosing Himself with the self-disclosure of making-known (al-tajallī al-taʿrīfī), as in his saying: "I loved to be known, so I created creation and made Myself known to them, and they knew Me"—but in the all-comprehensive engendered being and through the all-comprehensive engendered being. For the Real, exalted be His affair, insofar as He loved to manifest His latent secret and unveil His nonmanifest beauty, displaying His praiseworthy perfection through all praises and beauties, became manifest through the all-comprehensive human engendered being and the most perfect Qurʾānic Book. [The reference] "to the Real" or "to the locus of manifestation" is likewise permissible on both readings. So understand. He, may God be pleased with him, said:

﴿ويظهر به سرّه إليه﴾

يمكن أن يجعل عطفا على « يحصر » وعلى « يرى » والثاني منهما يناسب ثاني التقديرين ، ويؤيّده نسخة « الوجوه » ، والأوّل أوّلهما ، أي يظهر بالكون الجامع سرّ الحقّ له وهو سرّ الكون وخصوصيّته فهو صفته الكاشفة له عن صورته ، كما أنّ الأولى كاشفة عن مادّته . هذا على أوّل الاحتمالين ، وأمّا على الثاني ، فالوجه فيه أن يحمل ما يظهر بالكون على الكلام الكامل الذي يكشف عن سرّه وكنه ما هو عليه ، جمعا بين المشعرين الشريفين في الغاية المذكورة ، وفق ما أفصح عنه التنزيل القرآني الختمي " لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِه ِ شَيْءٌ وَهُوَ السَّمِيعُ الْبَصِيرُ". " أَبْصِرْ به وَأَسْمِعْ ". سرّ الإعطاء بصورة الكتاب ثمّ إنّك قد عرفت أنّ للكتاب المبصر اختصاصا بطرف الولاية ، كما أنّ للكلام المسموع بطرف النبوّة ، فلذلك عند الإفصاح بغاية المشيّة صرح بالأوّل وأبهم في الثاني وفاء بما هو مقتضى منصبه ، ومن هاهنا تراه قد ظهر له هذا الفيض المذكور من الخاتم في مبشّرته مرئيّا بصورة الكتاب في يده ، وما ظهر مسموعا بصورة الكلام في فمه . الوحدة والكثرة وها هنا تلويح لا بدّ من التنبيه عليه : وذلك أنّه كأنّك قد نبّهت أنّ الوحدة الحقيقيّة من حيث هي هي إنّما تظهر في الكثرة بحسب غلبة أحكامها ، وبيّن أنّ نهاية أمر الكثرة وغاية سلطان التفرقة في الاثنين ما لم يحصل لهما ثالث يجمعهما بالنسبة الامتزاجيّة التي بينهما ، وما سوى الاثنتين من المراتب لا يخلو عن تلك النسبة أصل . ثمّ إنّه من تفطَّن لهذا الأصل لا يخفى عليه وجه اشتمال عباراته هاهنا على الوجهين المتقابلين ، وكذلك انطواء الآية الكريمة المفصحة عن التوحيد حقّه على المتقابلين مرّة بعد أخرى . وما من آية دالة ولا كلمة كاشفة عن التوحيد إلَّا وفيها وجه من وجوه الكثرة ، وكلَّما كان ذلك الوجه فيها أكمل وأتمّ ، كان دلالتها عليه أظهر ، فلا تغفل عن وجه ما نحن فيه من احتمال كلامه للوجهين. ثمّ أنّ ظهور السرّ وإن كان بالأخرة للحقّ ، لكن أوّل ما يظهر إنّما هو للعبد الكائن بحسب تقرّبه إليه بقرب النوافل والفرائض ، ولا يبعد أن يكون استعمال الظهور هاهنا ب « إلى » إيماء إليه . نكتة حكميّة : الكون الجامع حاصر للأمر إذ قد تبيّن أنّ من الخواصّ اللازمة البيّنة للهويّة المطلقة جمعيّة الأضداد . وتعانق الأطراف حسبما عرفت فالذي يصلح لأن يظهر به عينها لا بدّ وأن يكون له صورة من تلك الجمعيّة، أشار إلى ذلك بأن الكون الجامع حاصر للأمر الذي لا يبلغه الإحصاء، فهو الجامع بين الإحصاء وعدمه، وهذا من صور سرّه الذي يظهر به . ثمّ إذ قد احتاج أمر ظهور السرّ المذكور بالكون الجامع لما فيه من الإجمال لفظا والخفاء معنى إلى زيادة من البيان والتوضيح ، صوّره في صورة التمثيل ببيان يندفع به ما يمكن أن يورد ها هن وهو : «إنّ الحقّ في التجلَّي الأوّل شاهد لعينه وجميع أسمائه ومراتبه بنفسه ، فلا يحتاج في رؤيته ذلك إلى الغير ، وبعد تسليم ذلك ، فإنّ في القلم الأعلى والعقل الأوّل من الجمعيّة والإظهار ما يغنيه عن الكون الجامع» ؟ رؤية الشيء نفسه ليس مثل رؤيته في المرآة بقوله

can be made a conjunct either upon 'encompasses' or upon 'sees'; the second suits the second of the two suppositions, and it is supported by the variant reading 'the faces,' while the first suits the first supposition — that is, through the all-comprehensive existent, the Real's mystery is manifested to Him, and that is the mystery of the existent and its particularity, which is thus its attribute disclosing to Him its form, just as the former discloses its matter. This is according to the first of the two possibilities. As for the second, the proper view is that what is manifested through the existent should be taken to refer to the complete speech (al-kalām al-kāmil) that discloses His mystery and the essence of what He is — thereby combining the two noble faculties [hearing and sight] in the aforementioned goal, in accordance with what the Seal-Qurʾānic revelation makes plain: 'Nothing is like Him, and He is the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing' — 'How well He sees and hears!' The mystery of the bestowal in the form of the Book: You have already come to know that the visible Book has a special connection with the side of sainthood, just as the audible speech has a special connection with the side of prophecy. Therefore, when making explicit the goal of the Will, he stated the first plainly and left the second in ambiguity, in keeping with what his rank requires. From this you see that this mentioned effusion (fayḍ) appeared to the Seal [of the Saints] in his glad-tiding vision as something seen in the form of a Book in his [the Prophet's] hand, and did not appear as something heard in the form of speech from his mouth. Unity and Multiplicity: Here there is an indication that must be pointed out: namely, that — as has been noted — true Unity, as such, only manifests in multiplicity in accordance with the predominance of its properties. And it is clear that the furthest extent of the matter of multiplicity and the utmost authority of differentiation lies in duality, so long as no third arises to join the two by the relation of blending that exists between them; and none of the degrees besides these two is devoid of that relation at root. Now, one who has grasped this principle will not fail to see the aspect in which his expressions here comprise the two correlative meanings, just as the noble verse expressing the true doctrine of Unity enfolds correlatives time after time. There is no indicative verse nor disclosing word concerning Unity but that it contains an aspect of multiplicity, and the more complete and perfect that aspect is within it, the more manifest is its indication of Unity. So do not be heedless of the aspect, in what we are discussing, of his words' susceptibility to both meanings. Furthermore, although the manifestation of the mystery ultimately belongs to the Real, the first thing to which it is manifested is the servant, insofar as he draws near to Him through the nearness of supererogatory and obligatory works; and it is not unlikely that the use of 'manifestation' here with the preposition 'to' is an allusion to this. A wisdom-note: 'The all-comprehensive existent encompasses the affair' — since it has become clear that among the necessary, evident properties of the Absolute Identity is the comprehensiveness of opposites and the embrace of extremes, as you have come to know. That which is fit to be a locus of manifestation for its entity must necessarily possess a form of that comprehensiveness. He indicated this by saying that the all-comprehensive existent encompasses the affair which enumeration cannot reach — for it is that which combines enumerability and its absence, and this is one of the forms of its mystery, through which it becomes manifest. Then, since the matter of the manifestation of the aforementioned mystery through the all-comprehensive existent — owing to its verbal conciseness and conceptual obscurity — stood in need of further explanation and clarification, he cast it in the form of an illustrative comparison, with an exposition by which what might be objected here is repelled. This is the objection: 'The Real, in the first self-disclosure (al-tajallī al-awwal), witnesses His own entity and all His names and degrees by Himself, and so has no need of another for that vision. And even granting this, the Supreme Pen and the First Intellect possess, of collectivity and manifestation, what would render Him independent of the all-comprehensive existent.' The vision of a thing by itself is not like its vision in a mirror. By his saying:

﴿ويظهر به﴾

أي متن نص فصوص الحكم : فإن رؤية الشي ء نفسه بنفسه ما هي مثل رؤيته نفسه في أمر آخر يكون له كالمرأة، فإنه يظهر له نفسه في صورة يعطيها المحل المنظور فيه مما لم يكن يظهر له شرح الجامي : بالكون الجامع (سره) أي سر الحق وهو أسماؤه المستكنة فی غیب ذاته (إليه) . أي إلی الحق سبحانه . و یحتمل آن یكون قوله: یظهر به بالنصب عطفاً علی یری . ویكون قوله : لكونه موجوداً متعلقاً بقوله: يرى على أنه علة مصححة للرؤية، فإن الشيء ما لم يكن موجودا لم تصبح رؤيته ، فتعلق المشیئة الذي هو المعنى المقصود الأصلى والعلة الغائية من اتحاد العالم ظهور الحق سبحانه فی هدا المظهر الجامع وشهوده فيه شؤونه و صفاته على وجه ينصبغ كل منها بأحكام الأخر كما مر . أعلم أن رؤية الحق سبحانه أعيان الأسماء في الكون الجامع ينبغي أن يكون غير العلم بها. فإن العلم بها ثابت أزلاً وأبداً لا احتياج فيه إلى مظهر ولا سبق مشيئة، فالمراد بها : إما العلم بعد الوجود فيكون التغير في المعلوم لا في العلم ، فالعلم بالشيء قبل وجوده علم وبعد وجوده رؤية وشهود، وليس فيه مزيد فائدة. وأما الإبصار إما نظراً إلى مقام الجمع على أن يثبت البصر للحق سبحانه مغايراً لنسبة العلم سواء كانت صفة وجودية أو نسبة اعتبارية. فالشيء قبل وجوده معلوم وبعد وجوده مرئي مبصر،فإن الشيء ما لم يوجد لم يبصر. وإما نظراً إلى مقام الفرق فتكون الأشياء مرئية للحق سبحانه باعتبار ظهوره فی المظاهر فیكون مرائیاً فی المظاهر، كما آنه مرئی فیها . فان قلت : آعيان الأسماء أمور معقولة فكيف تتعقل الرؤية لها. قلت ذلك إنما هو باعتبار اتحاد المظاهر بالمظهر . فإن قلت: بعض المظاهر أيضاً غير مدركة بالبصر كالمجردات. قلت : إذا كان البصر مستنداً إلى مقام الجمع فيمكن أن لا يكون مشروطاً بأن يكون المبصر مادياً. وإذا كان مستنداً إلى مقام الفرق فيمكن أن يكون المراد به قوة العلم والحضور سواء كان بالبصر أو البصيرة . فإن قلت : أعيان بعض الأسماء وآثارها إنما تدرك بسائر القوى كالسمع واللمس والذوق والشام والقوى الباطنة ، فما وجه التخصيص بالرزية . قلت : المراد بالرؤية : إما الإحساس مطلقاً بل الإدراك بعد الوجود أو ترك ما عداها، لأنه يعرف بالمقايسة. ولما كان القائل أن يقول : إن الحق سبحانه كان يعلم الأسماء وأعيانها ويراها ويشاهدها أزلاً في مجلى التعيين الأوّل والثاني من غير وجود الكون الجامع في الخارج ، فأي حاجة إلى وجوده علل المشيشة. دفعاً لذلك بقوله

i.e., in the text of Fuṣūṣ al-Ḥikam: for the seeing of a thing by itself, through itself, is not like its seeing itself in another thing that serves for it as a mirror; for it becomes manifest to itself in a form given by the locus in which it is beheld — [a form] that would not otherwise have become manifest to it. Commentary of al-Jāmī: 'through the comprehensive engendered being' i.e., through the comprehensive locus of manifestation — 'His secret' i.e., the secret of the Real, which is His Names hidden in the unseen of His Essence — 'to Him' i.e., to the Real, glory be to Him. It is possible that his saying 'yaẓharu bihi' (and through it He becomes manifest) is in the accusative, conjoined to 'yurā' (He might see), and that his saying 'li-kawnihi mawjūdan' (because of its being existent) is connected to his saying 'yurā' as a validating cause for the seeing, for as long as a thing is not existent its being seen is not sound. So the connection of the willing — which is the primary intended meaning and the final cause (al-ʿilla al-ghāʾiyya) of the existentiation of the world — is the manifestation of the Real, glory be to Him, in this comprehensive locus of manifestation, and His witnessing therein His affairs and attributes in such a way that each of them is colored by the properties of the other, as mentioned before. Know that the seeing (ruʾya) by the Real, glory be to Him, of the entities of the Names in the comprehensive engendered being ought to be other than knowledge (al-ʿilm) of them. For knowledge of them is fixed eternally, both pre-eternally and post-eternally, with no need therein for a locus of manifestation nor for a preceding willing. So what is meant by it [seeing] is either: knowledge after existence, in which case the change is in the known object, not in the knowledge — knowledge of a thing before its existence is 'knowledge,' and after its existence is 'seeing' and 'witnessing,' with no additional benefit therein. Or: visual perception (ibṣār), either with regard to the station of totality (jamʿ), such that vision (baṣar) is affirmed of the Real, glory be to Him, as distinct from the relation of knowledge, whether it be an existential attribute or a relational (iʿtibāriyya) relation — so the thing before its existence is 'known,' and after its existence is 'seen,' 'visually perceived,' for a thing, as long as it does not exist, is not seen. Or: with regard to the station of differentiation (farq), in which case things are seen by the Real, glory be to Him, with respect to His manifestation in the loci of manifestation, so that He would be the one seen in the loci of manifestation, just as He is the one who sees in them. If you say: the entities of the Names are intelligible matters (umūr maʿqūla), so how can seeing be conceived with respect to them? I say: that is only with regard to the union (ittiḥād) of the loci of manifestation with the locus of manifestation itself. If you say: some loci of manifestation are likewise not perceived by vision, such as the immaterial entities (al-mujarradāt). I say: if vision is grounded in the station of totality, it need not be conditioned on the thing seen being material; and if it is grounded in the station of differentiation, what is meant by it may be the faculty of knowledge and presence (al-ʿilm wa'l-ḥuḍūr), whether by vision (baṣar) or by insight (baṣīra). If you say: the entities of some Names and their effects are perceived only by the other faculties, such as hearing, touch, taste, smell, and the inward faculties — what then is the reason for the specification with 'seeing'? I say: what is meant by 'seeing' is either perception (iḥsās) absolutely — rather, perception (idrāk) after existence — or the setting aside of the others [as understood], since that is known by analogy (al-muqāyasa). And since one might say: the Real, glory be to Him, already knew the Names and their entities, and saw them and witnessed them eternally in the locus of manifestation of the First and Second Entification, without the existence of the comprehensive engendered being externally — so what need is there for its existence? — he repelled that by his saying, explaining the cause of the willing:

﴿ويظهر به﴾

أي بسبب الكون الجامع (سره) أي سر الحق وهو عينه (إليه) أي إلى الحق لكونه محلا بالجزء الأخير الذي هو آدم فقوله : ويظهر إشارة إلى أنه لا بد من الجلاء لعدم الظهور بدونه وقوله : في كون جامع يحصر الأمر يدل على العلة المادية بالمطابقة و علی الصورية بالتضمن وعلى الفاعلية بالالتزام. وقوله : ويظهر يدل على العلة الغائية فالتعريف مشتمل على العلل الأربع: يعني لما اقتضت ذات الحق بالحب الذاتي أن يرى ذاته بجميع أسمائه في خارج علمه في مرآة يحصل مراد الله تعالى فيه وقد علم الله في علمه الأزلي أن هذه المرأة هي الموصوفة بالصفة المذكورة أوجده من العلم إلى العين فهي النشأة الإنسانية المسماة بكلمة آدمية فجواب لما شاء محذوف للعلم به أي لما شاء أن يرى عينه في العين أوجد الكلمة الآدمية من العلم إلى العين ليوصل مطلوبه تعالى فتم المقصود . وهو رؤية الله تعالى عينه في الموجود المكمل بالصفات المذكورة . وهي الجمع والحصر وإظهار سره إليه . فإنه إذا لم يكن على هذه الصفة لم يكن مرآة للرؤية المطلوبة ويظهر بالرفع معطوف على يحصر ولا يحسن أن يعطف على يري لمنع الضمير العائد في به إلى الكون . كما لا يخفى مع أن قوله أن يرى عينه دون أن يقول أن يبصر أو يعلم أو يظهر أو غير ذلك من الصفات التي تحصل له بوجود هذا الكامل . إيماء وتنبيه على أن تعلق الحب الذاتي أولا وبالذات إلى الرؤية وإلى غيرها بتبعية الرؤية . فإنه تعالى أشد شوقا إلى اتصافه بهذه الصفة من غيرها . فإذا عطف قوله ويظهر على قوله : يرى تفوت هذه الفائدة، و لأن الظهور من أسباب الرؤية . فما لم يكن الشيء ظاهرة لم يكن مرئيا فلا يعطف عليه في هذا المحل المطلوب سببیته . يعني ويظهر به سره إليه حتى يرى عينه لظهور سره إليه بسبب الكون الجامع. ولما يوهم كلامه سؤالا وهو أن ما ذكرتم من أن المقصود من إيجاد العالم رؤية الله تعالى نفسه. يدل على أن الرؤية علة غائية للإيجاد وليس كذلك لأن رؤية الله تعالى نفسه صفة أزلية ثابتة له قبل وجود العالم. والعلة الغائية بحسب الوجود الخارجي يجب أن يكون موجودة بعد وجود المعلول فلا يتوقف ثبوت الرؤية له على وجود العالم. بل الذات تستقل بها كسائر الصفات فلا يتعلق الغرض لأجلها إلى إيجاد العالم أراد أن يجيب عنه ويثبت دعواه على طريق الشكل الأول. بقوله

That is, by means of the all-comprehensive engendered being, (His secret) — that is, the secret of the Real, which is His own entity — (to Him) — that is, to the Real — inasmuch as it is a locus, through the final part, which is Adam. His saying "and is manifested" thus indicates that disclosure (jalāʾ) is indispensable, since manifestation does not occur without it; and his saying "in an all-comprehensive engendered being that delimits the matter" indicates the material cause by direct correspondence (muṭābaqa), the formal cause by implication (taḍammun), and the efficient cause by necessary entailment (iltizām). His saying "and is manifested" indicates the final cause. The definition thus comprises the four causes. The meaning is: when the Essence of the Real required, by essential love, to see His own Essence together with all His Names outside the scope of His knowledge, in a mirror in which the object willed by God, Exalted, might be realized — and God had known, in His eternal knowledge, that this mirror is the one qualified by the aforementioned description — He brought it forth from knowledge into entification (al-ʿayn); and this is the human configuration (al-nashʾa al-insāniyya) named the Adamic Word. The apodosis of "when He willed" is thus elided, being already known: that is, when He willed to see His own entity in [external] entity, He brought the Adamic Word forth from knowledge into entity, in order that His object, Exalted, might be attained — and thus the purpose was accomplished, namely: the vision by God, Exalted, of His own entity in the existent perfected by the aforementioned attributes, namely comprehensiveness, delimitation, and the manifestation of His secret to Him. For were it not qualified by this description, it would not be a mirror for the vision sought. "Yaẓharu" (is manifested), being in the nominative, is conjoined to "yaḥṣuru" (delimits); it would not be fitting to conjoin it to "yurā" (that He might see), since that would preclude the pronoun in "bihi" (through it) from referring back to the engendered being, as is not hidden [from the discerning reader]. Moreover, his saying "that He might see His own entity," rather than "that He might perceive" or "know" or "be manifest," or any other of the attributes that would accrue to Him through the existence of this perfect being, is a subtle indication that the essential love attaches, first and by essence, to vision, and to anything else only by way of vision's concomitance; for He, Exalted, has a more intense yearning to be qualified by this attribute than by any other. Were "and is manifested" conjoined to "that He might see," this benefit would be lost; and also because manifestation is among the causes of vision, for as long as a thing is not manifest it is not seen, and so it should not be conjoined to it at this point where its function as a cause is intended. The meaning is: "and through it is manifested His secret to Him," so that He might see His own entity by virtue of the manifestation of His secret to Him through the all-comprehensive engendered being. Now, since his discourse might suggest an objection — namely, that what has been said, that the purpose of the world's coming into existence is the vision by God, Exalted, of His own Self, indicates that vision is a final cause of the bringing-into-existence, yet this cannot be so, since the vision by God, Exalted, of His own Self is an eternal attribute established for Him prior to the world's existence, whereas the final cause, in respect of external existence, must be something that comes to exist after the existence of the effect, so that the establishment of vision for Him would not depend on the world's existence, but rather the Essence would be self-sufficient with regard to it as with the other attributes, and thus no purpose would attach, on its account, to the bringing-into-existence of the world — [the author] intended to answer this and establish his claim by way of the First Figure [of the syllogism], in his saying:

﴿فإن رؤية الشيء نفسه بنفسه ما هي مثل رؤية نفسه في أمر آخر يكون له كالمرآة﴾

تعليل للمشيئة المذكورة يتضمن الجواب عن اعتراض مقدر . وهو أن الله تعالى أزلى الذات والصفات ، وهو بصير في الأزل بذاته وغيره : كما قال أمير المؤمنين على رضى الله عنه : بصير إذ لا منظور إليه من خلقه ، فلا يحتاج في رؤية عينه إلى مظهر كوجود العالم يرى عينه فيه ، فأجاب أن بين الرؤيتين فرقا بينا وليست الرؤية الأولى مثل الثانية وبين الفرق بقوله

is an explanation of the aforementioned Will, containing the answer to an implicit objection. That objection is: God, exalted be He, is eternal in Essence and Attributes, and He is All-Seeing in eternity of His own Essence and of other than Himself—as the Commander of the Faithful, ʿAlī, may God be pleased with him, said: 'All-Seeing when there was nothing seen among His creation'—so He would not need, in order to see His own entity, a manifestation-locus (maẓhar) such as the existence of the world, in which He would see His own entity. The answer is that there is a clear difference between the two kinds of seeing, and the first seeing is not like the second. He explained the difference by his statement,

﴿فإنّ رؤية الشيء نفسه في نفسه ليست مثل رؤيته نفسه في أمر آخر يكون له كالمرآة فإنّه يظهر له نفسه﴾

Quotes words that differ from our text (wavy underline).

يعني في المرآة

that is, in the mirror.

﴿فإن رؤية الشئ نفسه بنفسه، ما هي مثل رؤيته نفسه في أمرآخر يكون له كالمرآة، فإنه تظهر له نفسه في صورة يعطيها المحل المنظور فيه مما لم يكن يظهر له من غير وجود هذا المحل ولا تجليه له هذا﴾

Quotes words that differ from our text (wavy underline).

تعليل للمشية وإيماء إلى سؤالمقدر، وهو أن الله بصير قبل أن يوجد العالم الإنساني، فكيف شاء ذلك؟ فأجاببأنه ليس رؤية الشئ نفسه بنفسه في نفسه، كرؤية نفسه في شئ آخر يكون لهذلك الشئ مثل المرآة. وذلك لأن المرآة لها خصوصية في ظهور عين ذلكالشئ، وتلك الخصوصية لا يحصل بدون تلك المرآة، ولا بدون تجلى ذلك الشئ لها، كاهتزاز النفس والتذاذها عند مشاهدة الإنسان صورته الجميلة في المرآة الذي هو غير حاصل له عند تصوره لها. وكظهور الصورة المستطيلة في المرآة المستديرة مستديرة، والصورة المستديرة في المرآة المستطيلة مستطيلة، وكظهورالصورة الواحدة في المرايا المتعددة متعددة، وأمثال ذلك. لا يقال، حينئذ يلزم أن يكون الحق مستكملا بغيره، لأن هذا الشئ الذي هو له كالمرآة من جملة لوازم ذاته ومظاهرها التي ليست غيره مطلقا، بل من وجه عينه ومن آخر غيره، كما مر في الفصل الثالث من أن الأعيان الثابتة أيضا عين الحق ومظاهره العلمية. فلا يكون مستكملا بالغير وإلى هذا المعنى أشاربقوله

This is a causal explanation for the will (mashīʾa), and it points to an implicit question, namely: God is All-Seeing even before He brought the human world into existence, so how could He have willed that? He answered that the seeing of a thing by itself within itself is not like its seeing itself in something else that serves for it as a mirror. This is because the mirror possesses a particular property in the manifestation of the very identity of that thing, and that property is not obtained without that mirror, nor without the self-disclosure (tajallī) of that thing to it—just as the soul (nafs) trembles and takes delight upon witnessing a person's beautiful form in a mirror, which delight does not occur to it when it merely conceives of that form [mentally]; and just as an elongated form appears elongated in an elongated mirror while a round form appears round in a round mirror; and just as one and the same form appears multiplied in multiple mirrors, and the like. One might object: this would then necessitate that the Real is perfected through something other than Himself. [The response is:] this thing that serves for Him as a mirror is among the concomitants of His Essence and its loci of manifestation, which are not absolutely other than Him—rather, from one respect it is identical with Him and from another respect other than Him, as already passed in the third chapter, namely that the fixed entities too are identical with the Real and are His loci of knowledge-manifestation (maẓāhir ʿilmiyya). Thus He is not perfected by something other [than Himself]. To this meaning he alludes by his statement

﴿فإنّ رؤية الشيء نفسه بنفسه ما هي مثل رؤيته نفسه في أمر آخر يكون له كالمرآة﴾

وتلخيص ذلك أنّ الرؤية التي هي غاية المشيّة والأمر الإيجادي إنّما هي الرؤية الخاصّة التي عند تعاكس صورة الرائي من القابل المقابل النازل منزلة المرآة له

The summary of this is that the vision which is the goal of the Will and of the act of bringing-into-existence is specifically that special vision which occurs when the form of the seer is reflected back from the receptive counterpart that occupies the station of a mirror for it,

﴿فإن رؤية الشيء نفسه بنفسه﴾

من غير توسط ظهوره في المظهر

itself, through itself] without the mediation of its becoming manifest in a locus of manifestation

﴿فإن رؤية الشيء نفسه بنفسه ما هي﴾

أي في الحكم (مثل رؤية نفسه) وإنما قلنا في الحكم إذ هما متحدان في حقيقة الرؤيا فلا معنى لنفي المثلية مطلقة بل في الحكم

that is, in respect of logical status (fī l-ḥukm), (the like of its seeing itself) — we said "in respect of status," since the two are united in the reality of vision, so there is no sense in negating similarity absolutely, but only in respect of logical status.

﴿فان رؤية الشيء نفسه﴾

لنفسه ماهی مثل رؤیته نفسه فی امر آخر یکون له کالمرأة) قولی یری رؤیتدن مضارع معلوم اولد یغنی مؤبد در (لکونه متصفا بالوجود) بوقول کون جامعده اولان رؤیتک مشیتنه تعلیلدر* یعنی وقتاکه امری حاصر اولان کون جامع وحق اسماء حسناسنک اعیانینی ویاخود کندی عینینی کورمک دیلدی زیرا کون جامع وجودکلی وجمعی والهی وخلقی وتفصیلی ایله متصفدر ووجودکلی وجمعی ایله متصف اولان شیئده اعیانک ظهوری وتجلیسی دخی (کینونة کل شی فی شی انما تکون بحسب المحل) حسبیله کلی وجمعیدر و وجود دخی وجود اولدیغی حیثیتله ظاهر وباطنه ووجوب امکانه وحقله خلقه شاملدر* پس کون جامع مراتب الهیه وکونیة وجودیه یی جامعه اولان رتبه کلیه جامعه ایله موجود اولغله آنک مظهر یتنده حقک ظهوری ووجودی دخی انک مظهر بنی حسبیله تعین کلی وجهی واحدی ایله متعیندر کون جامعدن غیری أکوان غیر جامعهنک کون جامعسز وجودی وجود کلی دکلدر* شیخ وجودی کبیدر ودخی لکونه متصفا بالوجود قولی بحصر الامر قولی ایچون علت اولمق جائزدر فحینئذ بحصر الأمر قولندن مراد کون جامعک امر ظهور ورؤیته مظهریتی اعتبار اولنسه یعنی اعیانک کون جامعده ظهوری ورؤیتی امرنی کون جامع مظهریتی حاصر در دیو اعتبار اولنسه» یعنی یحصر امر ظهور الاعیان فیه لکونه متصفا بالوجود واما فحینئذ کون جامعک مظهر یتی امر وجودی حاصر اولد یغی اعتبار اولنسه بحصر الامر قولنه علت اولمق جازد کلدر زیرا معنی بویله اولورکه کون جامع امروجودی حاصر در وجود ایله منصف اولد یغندن اوتری* پس یاشی کندی نفسیله تعلیل لازم کلور وبالکونه متصفا بالوجود قولی زائد اولمق لازم کلور زیرا امر وجودی حاصر اولان شی وجود ایله متصفدرفافهم وامردن مراد امر ظهور اعیان اسمادر وامر رویت اعیاندر فعل وشان دکلدر وکن تعلق ایتدیکی شیئت امری دکلدر وبروجه دخی بودرکه اسماء حسنانک اعیانی مشاهده اولمز الا مظاهر وجودیه ده* وکون جامع صورتندن اول واقعه اولان مظاهر اکوان غیر جامعه در صورت اسمائیة الهیة جمعیه یه وصورت اسمائیة تفصیلیه یه مظاهر اولمغه مستعد دکلدر* وصورت عنصریه انسانیه کلیه به مختصه اولان اسماء الهیه انلرده ظاهره دکلدر . واسماء الهیه ظاهره ده مظاهر ایله ظاهره و متحققه اولور پس نشأت عنصریه انسانیه صورتی که جمیع مراتب وجودی جامعة وجمیع مراتب وجودی حاصره در* آخر مراتب وجود وختم دائره وجود اولغله ووجوددن علت غائیة کون جامعک وجودی اولوب سائر اکوان غیر جامعه آنک اوزره متفرعه اولوب انک کلیه وجمعیتنک اجزاسی واوازمی کی اولمغله کون جامع ووجود ایله متصف اولدی وساراکوان غیر جامعه وجود تامله متصفه اولمدی الاکون جامعک وجودی ایله زیرا امر ختمیه مرتبه انسانده واقعدر* پس انسان کامل وجودایله متصفدر وامری جامع وحاصر در* پس اسماء حسنی اعیاننک رؤیتی آنک مظهرنده واقع اولور) ویظهر به سره الیه (یظهر قولی اظهاردن نصب ایله ان یری اعیانها قولنه معطوفدر ویری قولنده اولان اعرابک وجوهی بونده دخی جائزدر به وسره والیه قولنده اولان ضمائر اعتبار یله وانلردن زائده وجوه اخر دخی مفهومه در* اماسیاق کلام ومقتضای مقام اوزره یظهر قولی اظهاردن فاعل ایجون مبنیدر وبه ضمیری کون جامعه راجعدر وسره والیه ضمیری حقه راجعدر یعنی حق تعالی دیلدیکه کون جامعده اعیان اسمائی کوره وکون جامع مظهری ایله کندی سرنی کندویه اظهار ایلیه والیه قولی صله اولمق جائزدر یقال له والیه ویظهر ثلاثیدن فاعل ایجون مبنی اولدقده وکون جامع ایله حقک سری حقه ظاهر اولمسین دیلدی دیمک اولور• سری اعیان اسمادرکه حقک غیب الغیو بنده مستوره در واعیان اسما دخی اسماء الهیه ونسب ذاتیه تامة المضاهات وعامة المحاکات اولان مرایا درکه علی وجه التفصیل اسماء الهیه مرایای اعیانده ظاهره اولور* پس مرایای اعیانی جامع اولان کون جامع مرأتنده حق کندی ذات وصفاتی ونسب واضافاتی جمعیتنک احدیتن علی وجه التفصیل مشاهده ایدر) فان رؤیة الشیء نفسه بنفسه ماهی

“for itself is not like its seeing itself in something else that serves it as a mirror”: these words confirm that yarā is the active imperfect from ruʾya (seeing). “Because it is characterized by being”: these words give the reason for [His] willing the seeing in the kawn jāmiʿ (all-comprehensive being). That is: [this is] when the Real willed to see, in the all-comprehensive being that encompasses the matter, the entities of His Most Beautiful Names, or His own ʿayn (entity). For the all-comprehensive being is characterized by universal, all-comprehensive, divine, created and detailed wujūd (being). And in a thing characterized by universal and all-comprehensive being, the ẓuhūr (manifestation) and tajallī (self-disclosure) of the aʿyān (entities) are also universal and all-comprehensive, in accordance with [the saying] “the being of anything in anything is only according to the locus.” And being too, inasmuch as it is being, includes the outward and the inward, necessity and possibility, the Real and creation. So the all-comprehensive being exists with the universal, all-comprehensive rank that gathers the divine and engendered levels of being. Therefore the Real's manifestation and being in its being-a-maẓhar (locus of manifestation) are also, according to its being-a-locus, determined with a universal, all-comprehensive and unitary taʿayyun (determination). The being of the non-comprehensive beings other than the all-comprehensive being, without the all-comprehensive being, is not universal being; it is like the being of a lifeless form (shabaḥ). It is also permissible that the words “because it is characterized by being” be the reason for the words “encompasses the matter.” That holds if “encompasses the matter” is taken to mean the all-comprehensive being's being a locus for the matter of manifestation and seeing. That is, [it holds] if it is considered that the all-comprehensive being's being-a-locus encompasses the matter of the manifestation and seeing of the entities in the all-comprehensive being, i.e. “it encompasses the matter of the manifestation of the entities in it because it is characterized by being.” But if the all-comprehensive being's being-a-locus is considered to encompass the matter of being, it is not permissible [for these words] to be the reason for “encompasses the matter.” For the meaning would then be: the all-comprehensive being encompasses the matter of being because it is characterized by being. It would then follow that a thing is explained by itself, and that the words “because it is characterized by being” are redundant, for a thing that encompasses the matter of being is characterized by being. So understand. What is meant by amr (matter) is the matter of the manifestation of the entities of the names and the matter of the seeing of the entities. It is not [amr in the sense of] act and affair, nor the amr (command) of the thing to which “Be” attaches. And there is a further aspect: the entities of the Most Beautiful Names are not witnessed except in the existential loci of manifestation. The loci of manifestation that occur prior to the form of the all-comprehensive being are non-comprehensive beings. They are not prepared to be loci of manifestation for the all-comprehensive divine form of the names, nor for the detailed form of the names. And the divine names that are particular to the universal human elemental form are not manifest in them. And the divine names become manifest and realized in the outward through the loci of manifestation. Hence the form of the human elemental nashʾa (configuration) gathers all the levels of being and encompasses all the levels of being. It is the last of the marātib (levels) of being and the seal of the circle of being. The final cause of being is the being of the all-comprehensive being, and the rest of the non-comprehensive beings branch off from it and are like parts and concomitants of its universality and all-comprehensiveness. For these reasons the all-comprehensive being became characterized by being. And the other non-comprehensive beings did not become characterized by complete being except through the being of the all-comprehensive being, for the matter of sealing takes place in the human level. So the insān kāmil (perfect human) is characterized by being, and he gathers and encompasses the matter. Therefore the seeing of the entities of the Most Beautiful Names takes place in his locus of manifestation. “And to manifest through it His secret to Himself”: the word yuẓhira, from iẓhār (making manifest), in the subjunctive, is coordinated with the words “to see its entities.” The ways of vocalization possible in the word yarā are permissible here too. With regard to the pronouns in the words bihi, sirrahu and ilayhi, other ways beyond those can also be understood. But according to the context of the discourse and what the situation requires, yuẓhira is from iẓhār and built for the subject [i.e. active]. The pronoun in bihi refers to the all-comprehensive being, and the pronoun in sirrahu and ilayhi refers to the Real. That is, the Real (exalted is He) willed to see the entities of the names in the all-comprehensive being, and, through the locus of manifestation of the all-comprehensive being, to manifest His own secret to Himself. It is permissible that ilayhi be a connective [preposition]: one says lahu and ilayhi. And when yaẓhara is from the triliteral [verb], built for the subject, it means: He willed that the secret of the Real become manifest to the Real through the all-comprehensive being. His secret is the entities of the names, which are hidden in the Real's Unseen of the Unseens (ghayb al-ghuyūb). And the entities of the names are mirrors of complete correspondence and general reflection to the divine names and the essential relations, so that the divine names become manifest in detailed fashion in the mirrors of the entities. So, in the mirror of the all-comprehensive being, which gathers the mirrors of the entities, the Real witnesses in detailed fashion the aḥadiyya (unity) of the jamʿiyya (all-comprehensiveness) of His own Essence and attributes and relations and ascriptions. “For the seeing of a thing itself by itself is not

﴿ما هي﴾

أي تلك الرؤية

i.e., that seeing

﴿مثل رؤية نفسه في أمر آخر يكون﴾

Quotes words that differ from our text (wavy underline).

هذا الأمر. أي كذلك الشيء (كالمرآة) لانطباع صورته فيه (فإنه) ، أي ذلك الشیء حین یظهر فی المظهر (تظهر له نفسه فی صورة یعطیها المحل المنظور فیه) بحسب قابليته لتجليه

as this thing — i.e., thus the thing — [serves] 'as a mirror' for it, because of the impression of its form therein; 'for it,' i.e., that thing, when it becomes manifest in the locus of manifestation, 'becomes manifest to itself in a form given by the locus in which it is beheld,' according to its receptivity (qābiliyya) for its self-disclosure (tajallī)

﴿مثل رؤيته نفسه في امر آخر يكون له كالمرآة﴾

بوقول لماشاء الحق الی آخره قولنه علندر واعتراض مقدردن جوابی متضمند رکانه اعتراض اولنورکه اعیان اسمانک رؤیته مشیت الهیه نه کیفیت ایله تعلق ایدر وحال بوکه الله تعالی ذات وصفاتی ایله ازلیدر کندی ذاتنه وغیره بصیردر عالم انسانینک ایجادندن اول* پس مظهرده کندی عینی رؤیتنه محتاج دکلدرکه کندی عینی انده مشاهده ایلیه* پس شیخ رضی الله عنه رؤیتین بیننده فرقه اشارت ایدوب اعتراض مقـــدره جواب ایدر ومشیت حقه تعلیل ایدر یعنی دیمک اولور زیرا برشیئک کندی نفسنه کندی نفسیله رؤیتی اول شیئه مرأت کبی اولان امر آخرده کندی نفسنه رؤیتی کبی دکلدر* زیراکون جا معده اسمانک اعیانن مشاهده ایتمکه مشیت الهیه تعلق ایتمز دن اول واکوان غیر جامعهده اولان ظهوردن مقدم حق تعالی کمال ذاتیسنده وغناء احد یسنده اولوب کندی ذاتنی کندی ذاتیده رؤیت ذاتیه ایله مشاهده ایدردی اول رؤیت انک ذاتی اوزره زائده اولمیوب انده متمیزه اولمد یغی حالده واسما وصفاتن ذات ایچون نسب ذاتیه وشئون غیبیه مشاهده ایدردی* وبورؤیتده کندی ذاتنی کندی ذاتنده مشاهده ایدر ذات واحده ده ذات واحدهنک مشاهده سندن غیری بوقدر* پس حق تعالی ذاتنده مستهلکه اولان اسماسنک کمالی حیثیتیله اسماء حسنی اعیاننی کون جا معده ظاهرة الاحکام والآثار مشاهده ایتمک دیلدی یعنی هر اسمک عینی مظهرند، برصفت ایله ظاهر وبرتجلی ایله مجلی اولوب* اول اسمک ذائده مستهلکه اولان حقیقتنده اولان کمالن* اول تجلی ایله اظهار ایلیه* یعنی کندیسی اول صفت ایله واول کمال ایله ظهور ایدوب انک وجودی اولان کون جا معده اینه کندی وجودن مشاهده ابلیه* پس حق بونده دخی کندی نفسنیکه اعیان اسمادر کندی نفسنده که کون جامعدر مشاهده ایدر* رؤیت اولیده کندی نفسنی کندی نفسنده مشاهده ابتدیکی کبی* ولکن اول رؤیت بورویت کی دکلدر* زیرا بورؤیتده کندی نفسنک عینی اولان اعیان اسمانک هر بریسنده برصفت ایله ظهور ایدوب برتجلی ایله تجلی ایدر* وبرکمالی اظهار ایدوب ظهورکلی و تفصیلی ایله دخی اسماء الهیه جمعیتی احد یتنک مظهری اولان کون جامعده ظاهر اولوب* کمال جلا واستجلانک حصولندن غیری وجمعیت اسماء الهیة ذاتیه صور تن حق انده مشاهده ایتد یکندن غیری* کون جامع مر آتنده ظاهره اولان اعیان اسمادن هر براسمک عیننده برصفت ایله تجلی ایدوب ظهور ایتد کده کون جامعک جمعیتی صورتی اول اسمک عینی آیینه سنده ظهور ایدوب کون جامعده اولان اسماء الهیه نک جمعیتی صورتنی وجمیع اسمانک کمالات احکامنی هر براسمک عینی آیینه سنده علی وجه التفصیل مشاهده ایدر که اعیان اسمادن هربریسنده اول جمعیت اسمائیه نک صورتی ظهورنده مزاحمه اولمیه صورت واحده نک مرایای متعدده ده ظهوری وبری برینه عدم تزاحمی کبی* واما رویت اولی اولان رؤیت ذاتیه ده که اسماء الهیه اعیانی انده مستهلکه در وذات واحدهنک رو یتندن غیری انده رؤیت یوقدر* اسماء الهیه نک اعیانی وکمالاتی انده مشاهده اولمز* پس حق تعالی کندی نفسنی کندی نفسنده کورمک اکا آیینه کی اولان کون جامعده کورمک کی دکلدر

These words are the reason for his words "When the Real willed…" to the end [of the passage], and they contain the answer to an implied objection. It is as if the objection were raised: in what manner does the divine mashīʾa (will) attach to the seeing of the aʿyān (entities) of the names, when God Most High is pre-eternal in His dhāt (essence) and ṣifāt (attributes), and sees both His own essence and what is other than Him before the bringing-into-existence of the human ʿālam (world)? So He does not need to see His own ʿayn (entity) in a maẓhar (locus of manifestation) in order to witness His own entity there. The Shaykh (raḍiya llāhu ʿanhu) therefore points to the difference between the two seeings, answers the implied objection, and gives the reason for the Real's will. That is, it amounts to saying: for a thing's seeing of itself by itself is not like its seeing of itself in another thing that is like a mirror to it. For before the divine will attached to witnessing the entities of the names in the kawn jāmiʿ (all-comprehensive being), and prior to the ẓuhūr (manifestation) in the akwān ghayr jāmiʿa (non-comprehensive beings), the Real Most High was in His essential perfection and His aḥadī (unitary) independence. He witnessed His own essence in His own essence with an essential seeing. That seeing was not additional to His essence and was not distinct in it. He witnessed His names and attributes as essential relations (nisab dhātiyya) and unseen affairs (shuʾūn ghaybiyya) belonging to the essence. In this seeing He witnesses His own essence in His own essence; in the one essence there is nothing but the one essence's witnessing. Then the Real Most High, in respect of the perfection of His names, which are effaced (mustahlaka) in His essence, willed to witness the entities of the most beautiful names in the kawn jāmiʿ with their rulings and traces manifest. That is, [He willed] that the entity of each name be manifest in its locus with an attribute and be disclosed with a tajallī (self-disclosure), and that by that self-disclosure it make manifest the perfection lying in that name's ḥaqīqa (reality), which is effaced in the essence. That is, [He willed] that He Himself become manifest with that attribute and that perfection and witness His own wujūd (being) in the kawn jāmiʿ, which is its being, […]. So here too the Real witnesses His self, which is the entities of the names, in His self, which is the kawn jāmiʿ, just as in the first seeing He witnessed His self in His self. But that seeing is not like this seeing. In this seeing He becomes manifest with an attribute in each of the entities of the names, which are identical with His own self, discloses Himself with a self-disclosure, and makes a perfection manifest. With a universal and detailed manifestation He also becomes manifest in the kawn jāmiʿ, which is the locus of the aḥadiyya (unity) of the gathering of the divine names. Besides the attainment of the perfection of jalāʾ (polishing, manifesting) and istijlāʾ (self-viewing), and besides the Real's witnessing in it the form of the gathering of the essential divine names, [there is more]. When He discloses Himself and becomes manifest with an attribute in the entity of each name among the entities of the names that are manifest in the mirror of the kawn jāmiʿ, the form of the gathering of the kawn jāmiʿ becomes manifest in the mirror of that name's entity. So He witnesses, in detail, the form of the gathering of the divine names that are in the kawn jāmiʿ, and the perfections of the rulings of all the names, in the mirror of each name's entity. There is no crowding in the manifestation of the form of that gathering of names in each of the entities of the names, just as one form is manifest in many mirrors without their crowding one another. As for the first seeing, which is the essential seeing: the entities of the divine names are effaced in it, and there is no seeing in it other than the seeing of the one essence, so the entities and perfections of the divine names are not witnessed in it. Therefore the Real Most High's seeing of His self in His self is not like seeing [it] in the kawn jāmiʿ, which is like a mirror to Him.

﴿في أمر آخر﴾

أي، بحسب الصورة لا بالحقيقة. وقوله

that is, in respect of form, not in respect of reality. And his statement

﴿في أمر آخر يكون له كالمرآة﴾

وإنما لم يقل ما هي عين رؤية نفسه إيذانا بعينيتهما بحسب الأحدية لجواز سلب مثلية الشيء عن نفسه. يقال الشيء ليس مثل نفسه وإنما لم يقل في المرأة . لأن عدم المماثلة في المرأة الحسية لم يشتبه على أحد من الناس وإنما الاشتباه في مثلها. فلذلك قال المرأة ليعم الدليل (فإنه) الضمير للشأن

He did not say "it is not the very vision of itself," in order to indicate their identity (ʿayniyya) in respect of unity (aḥadiyya), since it is permissible to negate the similarity of a thing to itself — one says: "the thing is not like itself." Nor did he say "in the mirror," because the absence of resemblance in the sensory mirror is obscure to no one; rather, the obscurity lies in what resembles it. He therefore said "a matter" (amr), so that the proof might be general. (For it) — the pronoun refers to the matter [in question].

﴿يكون له كالمرآة﴾

ولم يقل: في المرآة. لأن المرآة غير الناظر فيها من حيث تعيناتهما المانعان عن أن يكون كل واحد منهما عين الآخر. وليس هنا كذلك، لأن التعين الذاتي أصل جميع التعينات التي في المظاهر فلا ينافيه وقوله

He did not say 'in the mirror,' because the mirror is other than the one looking into it, in respect of their two determinations (taʿayyunayn), which prevent each of them from being identical with the other. But the matter here is not so, because the essential determination (al-taʿayyun al-dhātī) is the origin of all the determinations present in the loci of manifestation, and therefore it is not incompatible with it [i.e., with identity]. And his statement

﴿فإنه يظهر له نفسه في صورة يعطيها المحل المنظور فيه مما لم يكن يظهر له من غير وجود هذا المحل ولا تجليه له﴾

وهي تعليل لنفى المماثلة بين الرؤيتين والضمير للشأن والجملة خبره أو للحق أي أن الحق يظهر له عينه في صورة المرآة وهي المحل المنظور فيه من وجه لم يظهر له من غير وجود هذا المحل ولا تجليه لنفسه فيه ، فإن الظهور في المحل رؤية عينية منضمة إلى علمية وفي غير المحل رؤية علمية فقط . كما أن تخيل الإنسان صورة حسنة جميلة في نفسه لا يوجب له من الاهتزاز والبهجة ما توجب مشاهدة لها ورؤيته إياها . قوله

this is an explanation negating the correspondence between the two kinds of seeing. The pronoun refers to 'the affair' [in general], with the clause as its predicate; or it refers to the Real, meaning that the Real becomes manifest to Himself in the form of the mirror—which is the locus in which He is beheld—in a respect that would not have become manifest to Him without the existence of this locus and without His self-disclosure to Himself in it. For manifestation in a locus is a seeing that combines ocular (ʿayniyya) vision joined to knowledge-based (ʿilmiyya) vision, whereas manifestation without a locus is merely a knowledge-based seeing. This is comparable to how a person's imagining a beautiful, comely form within himself does not produce in him the excitement and delight that actually witnessing and seeing it would produce. His statement,

﴿فإنه يظهر﴾

Quotes words that differ from our text (wavy underline).

تعليل عدمالمماثلة. والضمير للشأن تفسره الجملةالتي بعده. و (من) في (مما) للبيان. أي، تظهر له نفسه في صورة من الصور التي لم تكن تظهر للرائي بلا وجود هذا المحل ولا بقابلة له. ولما كان الرائي ههنا هوالحق، عبر عن التقابل بالتجلي. فضمير (تجليه) للحق، وضمير (له) للمحل. وقرأ بعضهم

is a causal explanation for the absence of resemblance. The pronoun refers to 'the matter' (al-shaʾn), which the following clause explains. 'Min' in 'mimmā' (of what) is for clarification (bayān). That is: it appears to itself in a form among the forms that would not have appeared to the one seeing without the existence of this locus, nor without its receptivity for it. Since the one seeing here is the Real, he expressed the correspondence by the term 'self-disclosure' (tajallī). Thus the pronoun in 'His self-disclosure' refers to the Real, and the pronoun in 'to it' refers to the locus. Some have read it

﴿فإنّه يظهر له نفسه في صورة يعطيها المحل المنظور فيه ،مما لم يكن يظهر له من غير وجود هذا المحل ، ولا تجلية له﴾

وذلك أنّ للمرآة خصوصيّات زائدة على صورة الرائي من حيث هي هي ، مختفية عنه بدونها ، فهي سرّه الذي يظهر بها ، وذلك مما لم يمكن أن يظهر له بدون وجود محلّ هو بمنزلة المادّة لهذا الأمر ،وتجلَّيه له هو بمنزلة الصورة. فالأوّل هو العالم كلَّه ، و الثاني هو آدم نفسه ، فاندفع حينئذ ما ذكر . أمّا الأوّل فظاهر ، لعدم المغايرة هناك . وأمّا الثاني فلأنّ القلم لكونه صورة العلم الإجمالي - المكنى عنه ب «نون» يجب مطابقته للعلم التابع للمعلوم ، فالصورة التي فيه ليست ممّا لم يكن بدونه يعطيها ، فإنّ سلطنة الإعطاء مختصّة بأصل القابل وصميم هيولاه ، فلا يكون له منزلة المرآة ذات الخصوصيّات والأسرار - على ما ستطَّلع عليها . وهاهنا تلويح حكميّ وآخر رقميّ أمّا الأوّل : فهو أنّ الوحدة الحقيقيّة على ما عرفت غير مرّة آبية عن ثنويّة التقابل ، فكلَّما كانت جهات الكثرة في مظهرها أشمل ، كان ظهورها فيه أتمّ ، ووجهها فيه أجمع . وأمّا الثاني فهو أنّ صورة الجمع بين طرفي الإجمال من النون وتفصيله ، هي النقطة ، كما أنّ القلم هو الألف ، وهذا يناسب ثاني الاحتمالين . فقوله : « ولا تجلية له » تفعلة على هذا التقدير ، ويمكن أن يقرء : « تجليه » بالإضافة إلى فاعله ، والأول أوفق لسياق الكلام على ما لا يخفى . بدء إيجاد العالم وقوله

This is because the mirror has particularities additional to the form of the seer as such, which are hidden from him without it; it is thus his mystery, manifested by means of it — something that could not have appeared to him without the existence of a locus that stands in the position of matter for this matter, his self-disclosure to it standing in the position of form. The first [locus] is the world in its entirety, and the second is Adam himself; thus what was mentioned [as an objection] is thereby repelled. As for the first, the matter is evident, there being no [problematic] otherness there. As for the second, it is because the Pen, being the form of summary knowledge (al-ʿilm al-ijmālī) — alluded to as 'Nūn' — must conform to the knowledge that follows upon the known object; hence the form that is in it is not something it bestows which would not exist without it, for the authority of bestowal belongs exclusively to the root of the receptacle (al-qābil) and the very core of its hylē; so it cannot occupy the station of the mirror possessed of particularities and mysteries — as you shall come to learn. And here there is a wisdom-indication and also a letter-numerical one. As for the first: true Unity, as you have come to know more than once, refuses the duality of correlation; so the more comprehensive the aspects of multiplicity are in its locus of manifestation, the more complete its manifestation therein, and the more all-embracing its aspect therein. As for the second: the form joining the two extremities of the summary [knowledge] represented by the Nūn and its elaboration is the dot, just as the Pen is the Alif — and this suits the second of the two possibilities. Thus his words 'nor apart from its self-disclosure to it' constitute a verbal noun on this reading; it is also possible to read it as 'its self-disclosure,' construed by way of genitive annexation to its agent — though the first reading better suits the context of the discourse, as is not hidden. The beginning of the bringing-into-existence of the world. And his saying:

﴿يظهر له … نفسه في صورة بعطيها … المحل المنظور فيه مما لم يكن يظهر له … من غير وجود هذا المحل﴾

Quotes words that differ from our text (wavy underline).

كما قال وقد كان الحق أوجد العالم

as he said: "And the Real had brought the world into existence..."

﴿فانه تطهر له نفسه في صورة يعطيها المحل المنظور فيه﴾

Quotes words that differ from our text (wavy underline).

بوقول رؤیتین بیننده نفی مماثله ایجون تعلیلدر فانه قولنده اولان ضمیر شان ایچوندر* یعنی دیمک اولور زیرا امر آخرده اولان رؤیتده شان بودرکه شیئک نفسی شیئه برصور تده ظاهره اولورکه منظور فیه اولان محل اول صورتی اعطا ایدر* وضمیر حقدن عبارت اولان شیئه راجع اولمق جائزدر• یعنی حقک نفسی برصورتده اکا ظاهره اولورکه محل منظور فیه انی اعطا ایدر

These words give the reason for denying likeness between the two seeings. The pronoun in his words "fa-innahu" (for it is that) is the pronoun of the matter (ḍamīr al-shaʾn). That is, it amounts to saying: for in the seeing [that takes place] in another thing, the matter is this: the thing's self becomes manifest to the thing in a form that the locus looked into gives. It is also permissible for the pronoun to refer back to the thing, which stands for the Real. That is, the Real's self becomes manifest to Him in a form that the locus looked into gives.

﴿في صورة يعطيها المحلّ المنظور فيه ، ممّا لم يكن يظهر له من غير وجود هذا المحلّ ولا تجلَّيه له﴾

قال العبد أيّده الله : اعلم شرح الله صدرك بنوره ، وأسرّ إلى سرّك بسروره :أنّ الحقّ الواجب الوجود في كماله الذاتي وغناه الأحديّ يرى ذاته بذاته رؤية ذاتية غير زائدة على ذاته ولا متميّزة عنها ، لا في التعقّل ولا في الواقع .ويرى أسماءه وصفاته ونعوته وتجلَّياته أيضا كذلك نسبا ذاتية لها وشئونا عينيّة غيبية مستهلكة الأحكام تحت قهر الأحدية .غير ظاهرة الآثار ولا متميّزة الأعيان بعضها عن البعض في حيطة جمال الصمدية .وكينونته فيها إنّما هي ككينونة النصفية والثلثيّة والربعية والخمسية وغيرها من النسب في الواحد فإنّ الواحد هو النصف والثلث والربع والخمس كما مرّ مرارا .فهو من حيث صلاحيته لاتّصاف هذه النسب إليه يصحّ إطلاق أسمائها عليه ككون المسمّى بالأسماء المحصاة تمام المائة .والواحد في ذاته ومن حيث إنّ واحديّته غير زائدة عليه مع قطع النظر عن الاثنين والثلاثة والأربعة والخمسة لا نصف ولا ثلث ولا ربع ولا خمس .فكذلك الحقّ من حيث ذاته الأحدية لا ظهور فيه لنسبة من هذه النسب لكنّه إن شاء أن يظهرها من حيث كماله الأسمائي ، أظهرها في مظاهرها ومجاليها ، ونظر إليها في منصّاتها ومرائيها فإنّ ثبوت الكمال الذاتي للحقّ من وجهين :أحدهما : كماله من حيث الذات كما مرّ وهو عبارة عن ثبوت وجودها منها لا من غيرها ، فهي عينه في وجودها وبقائها ودوامها عن سواها ، فمهما تعلَّقت هذه النسب أو أضيفت أو شوهدت في الذات من حيث الكمال الذاتي ، فإنّها تشهد وتعلم أحدية لكون الحقائق المعقولة في كل مرتبة بحسبها .والكمال الثاني : هو كمال نفسي للحق تفصيلي من حيث الأسماء الحسنى وصورها ، فهو كمال صورة الحق ، وذلك يكون بظهور آثار النسب المرتبيّة والحقائق الأسمائية ، وتعود أحكامها في عوالمها ومظاهرها .وهذا الكمال الثاني ثابت للحق من حيث مرتبته الذاتية التي يقتضيها لذات الألوهية ، وهي نسبة كلَّية جامعة لجميع النسب الأسمائية .فشاء الحقّ من حيث أسمائه الحسنى وتجلَّياته العليا تعيّناته القصوى ، فتجلَّت تجلَّيا جمعيا ، وانبعثت انبعاثا حسبيّا إلى المظهر الكلَّي والكون الجامع الأصلي الحاصر للأمر الإلهي فامتدّت رقائق النسب إلى متعلَّقاتها واشرأبّت حقائق الوجود إلى متعلَّقاتها ، فطلبت الربوبية المربوب ، والإلهية المألوه المحبوب .فقامت بظاهرياتها مظاهر لباطنها ، وبشهادتها مجالي لغيبها ، فهي الظاهرة بمظاهر هي عينها ، والناظرة من مناظر هي عينها ، وفيها أينها ، فظهرت الحقائق الوجوبية والنسب التي اقتضته الربوبية في متعلَّقاتها ومظاهرها ومجاليها. وزهرت أنوار التجلَّيات في مراتبها ومرائيها ، فرأت أنفسها متمايزة الأعيان والآثار ، متغايرة الظلم والأنوار ، وتعيّنت أحكامها ولوازمها ممتازة ، وتبيّنت عوارضها ولواحقها إلى أحيازها منحازة .فأعيان الموجودات العلوية وأشخاص المخلوقات السفلية مظاهر النسب الوجوبية ومجالي تعيّنات أسماء الربوبية ، فيرى الحقّ فيها حقائق الأسماء وأعيان الاعتلاء مستوية على عروشها ، ومحتوية على جنودها وجيوشها ، فما منّا إلَّا له من الحق مقام معلوم ، ومن الوجود رزق مقسوم ، فانظر الفرق بين الرؤيتين والشهودين ، والتفاصيل بين الكمالين والوجودين .ثمّ اعلم : أنّ المناظر والمجالي والمظاهر والمرائي التي يرى الحقّ فيها نفسه إنّ لم تكن لها حيثيّة خصيصة واستعداد معيّن تمتاز بها عن الظاهر فيها ، كان الظاهر الحقّ فيها غير متغيّر عن عينه .وإن لم تكن كذلك ، ظهرت الصورة بحسب المحلّ كظهور الحق في مرتبة من المراتب جزئية كانت أو كلَّية إنّما يكون بحسب المحلّ .ولا يكون ذلك المظهر بحسب الحق فإنّ ظهور الحق مثلا في العالم الروحاني ليس كظهوره في العالم الطبيعي .فإنّه في الأوّل بسيط ، نوري ، فعلي ، نزيه ، شريف ، وحداني .وفي الثاني ظهوره على خلاف ذلك من التركيب ، والظلمة ، والانفعال ، والخسّة ، والكثرة ، والكدر.ومن المظاهر ما ليس له حسب معيّن وحسبيّة يوجب انصباغ الظاهر فيه بصبغه ، ولا يكسب الحقّ المتجلَّي فيه أثرا من خصوص وصفه وصفة عينه بحيث يخرجه عن طهارته الأصلية ومقتضى حقيقته الكلَّية كالمظاهر الإنسانية الكمالية الكلَّية البرزخية ليست لها حسبيّة تخرج الحقّ عن مقتضى حقيقته لما بيّنّا أنّ البرازخ ما لها حقيقة تمتاز بها عن الطرفين .وهذا هو سرّ الإمامة ولا يصل كلّ واحد من الطرفين إلَّا ما تقتضيه حقيقته ، بخلاف المظاهر البرزخية فإنّها تقبل ما يصلح للجمعية .وكلّ موجود من العوالم الأمرية الروحانية والأعيان الجسمانية الملكية مظهر ومرآة لاسم مخصوص وصفة جزئية أو كلَّية من الأسماء والصفات الإلهية والحقائق الذاتية الكلَّية .وإن كان لسائر الأسماء في ذلك مدخل بحكم التتبّع كالطالع من الفلك يقتضي لصاحبه خصوص حكم مع شركة سائر البروج .وليس شيء منها علوا وسفلا مظهرا تامّا كاملا للذات المطلقة الكاملة الجزء الجزئية في حقيقته ، وإلَّا لانقلبت الحقائق وخرجت عن ذاتياتها ، فصار المطلق مقيّدا وبالعكس ، فظهور الحق بالوجود فيها لا يكون إلَّا بقدر قابليته واستعداده .وهو سبحانه وتعالى يقتضي لذاته أن يظهر بالكلّ ويظهر به الكلّ ظهورا أحديا جميعا ، وظهوره في الكلّ بحسب الكلّ ، فلا يظهر الحق لنفسه بدون مظهر منها بما يقتضيه المظهر ، بل بالمظهر .فهذا معنى قوله : « فإنّه يظهر لنفسه في صورة يعطيها المحلّ ممّا لم يكن يظهر له من غير وجود هذا المحلّ » .كما أنّ الناظر في المرآة المتشكَّلة بشكل خاصّ من الطول والتدوير وغيرهما لا تظهر صورته بذلك إلَّا بحسب المحلّ لا بحسب الذات خارج المرآة .فافهم من هذا المثال ظهور الحق في كلّ شيء بحسبه " وَلِلَّه ِ الْمَثَلُ الأَعْلى " وهاهنا أسرار " وَالله يَهْدِي من يَشاءُ إِلى صِراطٍ مُسْتَقِيمٍ " .قال رضي الله عنه

that would not have manifested to it without the existence of this locus, nor without its self-disclosure to it] The servant [i.e., the author], may God support him, said: Know—may God expand your breast with His light, and confide to your secret with His joy—that the Real, Necessary of Existence, in His essential perfection and self-sufficient oneness, sees His Essence by His Essence with an essential seeing not additional to His Essence nor distinguished from it, neither conceptually nor in actual fact. And He likewise sees His Names, attributes, descriptions, and self-disclosures as essential relations (nisab dhātiyya) belonging to Him, and as entitative, nonmanifest affairs (shuʾūn ʿayniyya ghaybiyya) whose properties are absorbed beneath the overwhelming power of Oneness (qahr al-aḥadiyya)—their effects not manifest, nor their entities distinguished one from another, within the encompassing scope of the beauty of Absoluteness (jamāl al-ṣamadiyya). His being present within them is only like the being of halfness, thirdness, fourthness, fifthness, and other such relations within the One; for the one is the half, the third, the fourth, and the fifth, as has repeatedly been mentioned. Insofar as He is fit to be qualified by these relations, it is valid to apply their names to Him, just as the one named by the enumerated Names is the completion of the hundred. But the one, in itself, insofar as its oneness is not additional to it, considered apart from two, three, four, and five, is neither half, nor third, nor fourth, nor fifth. Likewise the Real, in respect of His essential Oneness, has within Him no manifestation of any of these relations; but if He wills to manifest them in respect of His nominal perfection, He manifests them in their manifestations and vistas, and looks upon them in their places of display and their mirrors. For the establishment of essential perfection for the Real is from two aspects: one is His perfection in respect of the Essence, as mentioned, which is an expression of the establishment of [the Names'] existence from Him and not from another, they being identical with Him in existence, subsistence, and permanence independent of anything else—so whenever these relations are attached, ascribed, or witnessed within the Essence in respect of essential perfection, they are witnessed and known as one, since the intelligible realities at every level are according to it. The second perfection is a Breath-perfection (kamāl nafasī) for the Real, differentiated, in respect of the Most Beautiful Names and their forms—the perfection of the form of the Real—occurring through the manifestation of the effects of the hierarchical relations and nominal realities, and the return of their properties within their worlds and manifestations. This second perfection is established for the Real in respect of His essential rank, required for the Essence of Godhead, being a universal relation comprehending all the nominal relations. So the Real willed, in respect of His Most Beautiful Names, His supreme self-disclosures, and His utmost entifications, and disclosed Himself with a comprehensive self-disclosure, impelled with a proportionate impulsion toward the universal locus of manifestation and the original all-comprehensive engendered being encompassing the divine affair. So the subtle threads of the relations extended toward their objects of attachment, and the realities of existence craned toward their objects of attachment; lordship sought its object, and divinity sought the beloved object of worship. Thus [these relations] arose, through their manifest aspects, as manifestations of their nonmanifest aspect, and through their visible witness, as vistas of their unseen aspect—He being the Manifest through manifestations identical with Him, and the Viewer from vantage-points identical with Him, His "whereness" being within them. Thus the necessary realities and the relations required by lordship appeared in their objects of attachment, their manifestations, and their vistas, and the lights of the self-disclosures blossomed in their levels and mirrors, so that these realities saw themselves with distinguished entities and effects, differentiated shadows and lights; their properties and concomitants became entified in distinction, and their accidents and appendages became clarified, each inclining toward its own domain. So the entities of the higher existents and the individuals of the lower creatures are manifestations of the necessary relations and vistas of the entifications of the Names of lordship; in them the Real sees the realities of the Names and the entities of exaltedness, established upon their thrones and encompassing their hosts and armies—"there is none among us but has a known station," and "from existence, an apportioned provision." So observe the difference between the two seeings and the two witnessings, and the distinctions between the two perfections and the two modes of existence. Then know: the vantage-points, vistas, manifestations, and mirrors in which the Real sees Himself—if they have no particular aspect (ḥaythiyya khaṣīṣa) and determinate preparedness (istiʿdād) distinguishing them from the One manifest within them, then the Real manifest within them remains unaltered from His own entity. But if they are otherwise, the form appears according to the locus—just as the manifestation of the Real at any level, whether particular or universal, occurs only according to the locus, and that manifestation does not occur according to the Real Himself. For example, the manifestation of the Real in the spiritual world is not like His manifestation in the natural world: in the first it is simple, luminous, active, transcendent, noble, and unitary; in the second, His manifestation is the opposite—composite, dark, receptive/passive, base, multiple, and turbid. Among manifestations there is that which has no determinate measure or proportionality (ḥasbiyya) necessitating the coloring of the Manifest One within it by its own coloring, nor does it impart to the Real self-disclosed within it any effect proper to its own description, such as would remove Him from His original purity and the requirement of His universal reality—such as the perfect, universal, isthmus-like human manifestations, which have no proportionality removing the Real from the requirement of His reality, since, as we have explained, isthmuses (barāzikh) have no reality distinguishing them from the two sides [they join]. This is the secret of spiritual leadership (al-imāma): each of the two sides receives only what its own reality requires, unlike the isthmus-manifestations, which accept whatever is fit for comprehensiveness. Every existent, from the spiritual worlds of Command and the corporeal entities of the [angelic] dominion, is a locus of manifestation and mirror for a specific name, and for a particular or universal attribute among the divine Names, attributes, and universal essential realities—though the remaining Names have an entry into this by way of subordinate following, like the ascendant of the celestial sphere, which necessitates for its possessor a particular ruling while the other zodiacal signs share in it. None of these, above or below, is a totally complete manifestation of the absolute, complete Essence in its particular reality as a part—otherwise the realities would be inverted, departing from their essential natures, so that the absolute would become restricted and vice versa. So the manifestation of the Real through existence within them occurs only according to the measure of its receptivity (qābiliyya) and preparedness (istiʿdād). He, glory be to Him and exalted, requires for His Essence that He manifest through the whole and that the whole be manifested through Him, in a single, unified manifestation of oneness; and His manifestation in the whole is according to the whole. So the Real does not manifest to Himself without a locus of manifestation, according to what that locus requires—rather, through the locus of manifestation. This is the meaning of his saying: "For it manifests to itself in a form given by the locus—[a form] that would not have manifested to it without the existence of this locus." Just as one looking into a mirror shaped in a particular form—elongated, rounded, or otherwise—his form does not appear thereby except according to the locus, not according to the essence [of the viewer] outside the mirror. So understand, from this example, the manifestation of the Real in everything according to it. "And to God belongs the highest similitude." And here there are secrets. "And God guides whom He wills to a straight path." He, may God be pleased with him, said:

﴿مما لم يكن﴾

أي من صورة لم تكن (يظهر) هذه الصورة (له) ، أي لذلك متن نص فصوص الحكم : من غير وجود هذا المحل و لا تجليه له. و قد كان الحق سبحانه أوجد العالم كله وجود شبح مسوى لا روح فيه، فكان كمرآة غير مجلوة. و من شأن الحكم الإلهي أنه ما سوى محلا إلا و يقبل روحا إلهيا عبر عنه بالنفخ فيه، و ما هو إلا حصول الاستعداد من تلك الصورة المسواة لقبول شرح الجامي : الشيء بنفسه

i.e., of a form that was not — 'manifest' — this form — 'to it,' i.e., to that thing. Text of Fuṣūṣ al-Ḥikam: without the existence of this locus, nor its self-disclosure to it. And the Real, glory be to Him, had already brought the whole world into existence as the existence of a proportioned form (shabaḥ musawwā) with no spirit in it, so it was like an unpolished mirror. And it is of the nature of the divine ordinance (al-ḥukm al-ilāhī) that it does not proportion a locus except that it receives a divine spirit — expressed as 'the breathing into it' — and this is nothing but the occurrence of preparedness (istiʿdād) in that proportioned form for receiving [...]. Commentary of al-Jāmī: 'the thing by itself'

﴿ممالم يكن يظهر له من غير وجود هذا المحل ولا تجليه له﴾

Quotes words that differ from our text (wavy underline).

مماقوانده مماقولنده من بیان ایجو ندر فی صورت قولنی بیان ایدر ولم یکن ویظهر قولنک ضمیری مایه عائد دروله ضمیری فان رؤیة الشئ قولنده حقدن عبارت اولان شیئه عائددر وتجلیه قولنک ضمیری حقه وله ضمیری محله عائددر* یعنی محل منظور فیه اعطا ابتدیکی صورتکه حفک نفسی اول صورتده اکاظاهره اولور* شول شیئک صور تند ندرکه بومحلک وجود بسز وانک بومحله یعنی حقک بومحله تجلیسز بوشیئکه صور تدراکاظاهره دکل ابدی* یعنی حق ایجون مرأت کی اولان شی حقه بر صورت اعطا ایدر که اول صورت حقه ظاهره دکل ایدی ولو محلک وجو دیسزکه اول صورتی اعطا ایدر وحقک اول محله تجلیسز ولم یکن وتظهر قولی صیغة تأنیث ایله اولوب ضمیر نفسه راجع اولمق دخی جائز در* یعنی شیئک نفسی اکابر صور تده ظاهره اولورکه اول صورتی منظور فیه اولان محل اعطا ایدر که اول صورت شیئه ندرکه انک نفسی اکا اول صورتده بومحلک وجود یسز ودخی انک بومحله تجلیسز ظاهره دکل ابدی* بوتقدیر اوزر . ه کلامده فیها تقدیر اولنور یعنی مما لم یکن تظهر له فیها* امدی وجه اول اوزره دیمک اولور که* منظور فیه اولان محل اعطاایتدیکی صور تده شیئک نفسی شیئه ظاهره اولور حسن و بها وکمال وصفا دن شول صورت ایله که بومحلک وجود بسز واول شیئک اکا تجلیسز اول شی اول صورت ایله کندی نفسنه ظاهره دکل ایدی واول صورت ایله کندی نفسنی مشاهده دکل ابدی زیرا اول صورت مرآتله قائمه در ناظرک انده ظهوری سببیله* پس ناظر کندی ذاتنده اولان صور تنک حسن وبها سن تماشا ایتمک ایجون مرآنه نظر ایتدکده مرآت اکابر صورت اعطا ایدرکه مرآتسز اول صورت ایله اول ظاهر دکل ایدی . پس صورت امریندن مستفاده اولور بریسی محلدر* و بریسی محله ناطرک تجلیسیدر* وامافانه یظهر له نفسه قولنده ضمیر شیئه راجع او لوب یظهر قولی اظهار دن فاعل ایجون مبنی اولد یغی ونفسه دخی مفعولیت اوزره منصوب اولدیغی اعتبار اولنسه پس دیمک اولور• تحقیق اول شئ کندی نفسنی کندی نفسنه منظور فیه اولان محل اعطا ایتدیکی برصورتده اظهار ایدرکه اول محلک وجود یسز واول شیئک ا کا تجلیسز اول صورت ایله کندی نفسی کندی نفسنه اظهار ایتمدی* پس علی کلا التقدیرین کرک نفسک ظهوری وکرک اظهاری اعتبار اولنسون رؤیت اولیده حقک کندی ذاتنده اولان رؤیتنده مشاهده اولنان کندی ذاتیدر وذاتنک عینی اولان کمال ذاتیسیدر کمال اسمائیسی اسماسیله ذاتده مستهلکه درولکن شول مظاهر که حق انلرده نفسنی مشاهده ایدر واکر انلرایچون حیثیت معینه واستعداد خاص اولمز ایسه که اول حیثیتله انده ظاهر اولان حقدن اوله لر انلرده ظاهر اولان حق عینندن وذاتندن متغیر اولمز خصوصیت ذاتیه ایله ظاهر اولور انسان کاملده حقک ظهوری کبی* واکر مظهرک استعداد خاصی وحیثیت معینه سی اواور سه که انکله انده ظاهر اولان حقدن ممتاز اوله* حقک آنده ظهوری محل حسبیله واقع اولور محل حقک حسبیله واقع اولمز* پس مظاهر جزئیه ده اولان ظهور مقید درصفات جزئیه ویاخود کلیه اعتباریله* وحق تعالی کندی ذاتی ایجون اقتضا ابدرکه کل ایله ظاهر اوله وکل دخی انکله ظاهراوله* پس وجه مذکور اوزره اگر مظهرک ظهور احدی وجمعی ایله استعداد خاصی وحیثیت معینه سی اولمز سه که انکله انده ظاهر اولان حقدن ممتازاوله کون جامع کبی* پس حقک انده ظهوری ظهور کلی واقع اولور* زیرا ذاتنده مستهلکه مشاهده اولنان اعیان کون جامعده احکام وکما لا تیله ظاهره اولد ینی حالده مشاهده اولنور* پس رؤیت اولی رویت ثانیه کی اولمدیغندن اوتری ظهور واظهار ایچون کون جامعده اسماء حسنانک اعیان مشاهده ایتمکه مشیت الهیه تعلق ایلدی* پس فانه تظهر له نفسه فی صورة یعطیها المحل المنظور فیه مما لم یکن یظهرله من غیر وجود هذا المحل) فولندن مراد استعداد خاصی وحیثیت معینه سی اولمیان مظهر انسانی کمالی برزخیده جمعیت ذاتیه وصورت الهیه اوزره حقک ظهور بدرکه حقیقتی مقتضاسندن انی اخراج ایتمیه* وذاتده بالقوه اولان اسما وصفات الهیه وکمالات ذاتیه واسمائیه جمعیتی صورتی ایله انده ظاهره اوله» وبوندن اول رؤیت اوج قسم اوزر . تقسیم اولندیدی* برقسمی فان رؤیة الشیء نفسه بنفسه ماهی قولندن مستفاد اولان رؤیت ذاتیدر* وبرقسمی مثل رؤیته نفسه فی امر آخر یکون له کالمرأة قولندن مستفاد اولوب کون جامعده اسماء الهیه اعیانی جمعیتنک رؤیتیدر* وبرقسمی آتیده وقد کان الحق اوجد العلم کله وجود شبح مسوی لا روح فیه فکان کمرأة غیر مجلوة (قولندن مستفاد اولوب کون جامعدن مقدم ایجاد اولنان عوالم که اکوان غیر جامعه یی جامعدرکه انسانسز شبح وجودی کبی ایجاد اولنمشیدی انک مظاهرنده اولان رؤیت اسمائیدر

In "mimmā" (of what), the "min" is for explication; it explicates his words "in a form". The pronoun of "lam yakun" (was not) and "yaẓharu" (appears) refers back to "mā" (what). The pronoun of "lahu" (to it) refers back to the thing, which stands for the Real, in his words "for the seeing of the thing". The pronoun of "tajallīhi" (its self-disclosure) refers back to the Real, and the pronoun of "lahu" [there] refers back to the locus. That is: the form that the locus looked into gives, in which form the Real's self becomes manifest to Him, is [part] of the form of that thing which, without the existence of this locus and without His (that is, the Real's) tajallī (self-disclosure) to this locus, was not manifest to Him. That is, the thing that is like a mirror for the Real gives the Real a form that was not manifest to the Real without the existence of the locus that gives that form and without the Real's self-disclosure to that locus. It is also permissible for his words "lam takun" and "taẓharu" to be in the feminine form, with the pronoun referring back to "nafs" (self). That is: the thing's self becomes manifest to it in a form that the locus looked into gives, that form being [part] of that thing's [form] in which its self was not manifest to it without the existence of this locus and without its self-disclosure to this locus. On this reading, "fīhā" (in it) is understood in the speech, i.e. "of what would not appear to it in it". Now, on the first reading it means: in the form that the locus looked into gives, the thing's self becomes manifest to the thing, [consisting] of beauty, splendour, perfection and purity. [It is manifest] with that form in which, without the existence of this locus and without that thing's self-disclosure to it, that thing was not manifest to itself, and in which it did not witness itself. For that form subsists through the mirror, by reason of the viewer's manifestation in it. So when the viewer looks into the mirror to contemplate the beauty and splendour of his form that is in his essence, the mirror gives him a form with which he was not manifest without the mirror. So the form is derived from two things: one is the locus, and the other is the viewer's self-disclosure to the locus. As for his words "fa-innahu yaẓharu lahu nafsahu": suppose the pronoun is taken to refer back to the thing, "yuẓhiru" is taken as active voice from iẓhār (making manifest), and "nafsahu" is taken as accusative, being the object. Then it means: truly that thing makes itself manifest to itself in a form that the locus looked into gives, [a form] in which it did not make itself manifest to itself without the existence of that locus and without that thing's self-disclosure to it. So on both readings, whether the manifestation of the self is considered or its making-manifest, the following holds. In the first seeing, the Real's seeing in His own essence, what is witnessed is His own dhāt (essence) and His essential perfection, which is identical with His essence. His name-perfection is effaced, together with His names, in the essence. But as for the maẓāhir (loci of manifestation) in which the Real witnesses His self: suppose they have no determined aspect (ḥaythiyya muʿayyana) and no particular istiʿdād (preparedness) by which aspect they would be [distinct] from the Real manifest in them. Then the Real manifest in them does not change from His entity and essence, and He becomes manifest with essential specificity, like the manifestation of the Real in the insān kāmil (perfect human). And suppose the locus has a particular preparedness and a determined aspect by which it is distinguished from the Real manifest in it. Then the Real's manifestation in it occurs according to the locus; the locus does not occur according to the Real. So manifestation in particular loci is restricted, in respect of particular or universal attributes. And the Real Most High requires for His essence that He be manifest through the all, and that the all also be manifest through Him. So in the manner mentioned: suppose the locus, with its unitary (aḥadī) and gathering (jamʿī) manifestation, has no particular preparedness and no determined aspect by which it would be distinguished from the Real manifest in it, like the kawn jāmiʿ (all-comprehensive being). Then the Real's manifestation in it occurs as a universal manifestation. For the aʿyān (entities) that are witnessed as effaced in His essence are witnessed in the kawn jāmiʿ in a state of being manifest with their rulings and perfections. So, because the first seeing is not like the second seeing, the divine will attached to witnessing the entities of the most beautiful names in the kawn jāmiʿ, for the sake of manifestation and making-manifest. So what is meant by his words "For its self appears to it in a form that the locus looked into gives it, of what would not appear to it without the existence of this locus" is this. [It is] the Real's manifestation in the human locus, which has no particular preparedness and no determined aspect, in its isthmus-like (barzakhī) perfection, according to the essential gathering and the divine form, [a manifestation] that does not take it out of what its ḥaqīqa (reality) requires. And [it is] that [the Real] be manifest in it with the form of the gathering of the divine names and attributes and the essential and name-perfections that are in potency in the essence. Before this, seeing had been divided into three kinds. One kind is the essential seeing, derived from his words "for the seeing of a thing of itself by itself is not [like its seeing itself in something else]". One kind is derived from his words "like its seeing itself in another thing that is like a mirror to it", and it is the seeing of the gathering of the entities of the divine names in the kawn jāmiʿ. One kind is derived from his coming words "The Real had brought the whole world into existence as the being of a shaped form without spirit in it, so it was like an unpolished mirror". It is the name-seeing in the loci of the worlds brought into existence before the kawn jāmiʿ, which comprise the non-comprehensive beings (akwān ghayr jāmiʿa) and which had been brought into existence like the being of a shaped form without the human.

﴿من غير وجود هذا المحل … ولا تجليه﴾

أي تجلي ذلك الشيء (له) أي لهذا المحلي . ولما كان الرائي ههنا هو الحق سبحانه عبر عن التقابل بالتجلي . وقرأ بعضهم : ولا تجلية بالتاء على وزن تفعلة، أي ومن غير تجلية للمحل من الجلاء. ثم إنه كذلك القائل أن يعود ويقول : كما كان الحق سبحانه يعلم نفسه بدون الكون الجامع كذلك كان تعليمها ما يلحقها عند ظهورها فيه، فأي حاجة إلى وجوده فعلة المشيئة في الحفيقة هي الرؤية المغايرة للعلم على أي وجه كانت لا غير. لا يقال : يلزم من ذلك استكماله سبحانه بغیره. لانه یقال : هذا الشيء له كالمرآة من مظاهره التي لیست غیره مطلقاً بل من وجه لا يخفى ما فى هذا الجواب ، فإن مرآئية هذا الشىء إنما هى من جهة المغایرة ، فیلزم الاستكمال به من حیث إنه غیر و يعسر لا المحذور . فالحق في الجواب أن يقال : إن للحق سبحانه كمالين : ذاتياً وإسمياً. وامتناع استكماله بالغير إنما هو في الكمال ألذاتي لا الأسمائي. فإن ظهور أيام لأسماء تمتنع بدون ان مظاهر الكونیة، ولما بین رضي اللّه عنه تعلق المشینة بوجود الكون الجامع أردفه بذكر وجود شرائط وجوده بل موجباته بجملة حالية. فقال

i.e., the self-disclosure of that thing — 'to it,' i.e., to this locus. And since the seer here is the Real, glory be to Him, he expressed the correlation (taqābul) by 'self-disclosure' (tajallī). Some have read 'wa-lā tajliyatih' with tāʾ, on the pattern of tafʿila, i.e., 'nor the polishing (tajliya) of the locus,' from al-jalāʾ (polishing/clarifying). Then, since it is possible for the objector to return and say: just as the Real, glory be to Him, knew Himself without the comprehensive engendered being, likewise He knew what would accrue to it [His Self] upon its manifestation therein — so what need is there for its existence? — [the response is that] the cause (al-ʿilla) of the willing, in reality, is the seeing that is distinct from knowledge, in whatever manner it may be, and nothing else. It should not be said: it follows from this that He, glory be to Him, is perfected/completed by other than Himself. For it may be said [in response]: this thing is, for Him, like a mirror — [being one] of His loci of manifestation, which are not 'other than Him' absolutely, but rather [other than Him] from one aspect. Yet what is [problematic] in this answer is not hidden, for the mirror-like quality (mirʾāʾiyya) of this thing is only from the aspect of otherness (mughāyara), so it would follow that He is perfected by it insofar as it is other, and this remains a difficulty, not [truly] removed as an objection. So the sound answer is to say: the Real, glory be to Him, has two perfections — essential (dhātī) and Names-based (asmāʾī). And the impossibility of His being perfected by another applies only to the essential perfection, not the Names-based one. For the manifestation of the properties of the Names is impossible without the engendered loci of manifestation (al-maẓāhir al-kawniyya). And since he, may God be pleased with him, explained the connection of the willing to the existence of the comprehensive engendered being, he followed it with the mention of the existence of the conditions of its existence — rather, its necessitating causes — in a circumstantial clause (jumla ḥāliyya). So he said:

﴿ولا تجلية﴾

بالتاء على وزن تفعلة. أي، منغير وجود هذا المحل ومن غير تجليته للمحل من الجلاء. قوله

with the tā', on the pattern of taf-ʿila—that is, without the existence of this locus and without its [i.e., the Real's] disclosing (tajliya) [Himself] to the locus—from [the root] al-jalāʾ (manifestation/polishing). His statement

﴿ولا تجليه﴾

أي من غير تجلي المحل له أي للشيء الناظر. ومعنى تجلي المحل ظهوره إليه على الجلاء كما قال فكان آدم عين جلاء تلك المرآة

That is, without the disclosure of the locus to it — that is, to the thing that perceives. The meaning of the locus's self-disclosure (tajallī) is its manifestation to it by way of jalāʾ (clarification/polishing), as he said: "So Adam became the very polishing (jalāʾ) of that mirror."