THE BACKGROUND AND CENTRALITY OF

Another early Christian reference to the incomprehensibility of God is found in an early compilation entitled The Shepherd of Hermas (c. 140 CE?). In the first commandment conmtained therein God is reckoned One Who "comprehendeth all things" being Himself "incomprehensible".

· BS Thou hast asked regarding the phrase "He is God!" written above the Tablets. By this Word it is intended that no one hath any access to the Invisible Essence. The way is barred and the road impassable. In this world all men must turn their faces toward "Him-whom-God-shall-Manifest." He is the "Dawning‑place of Divinity" and the "manifestation of Deity." He is the "Ultimate Goal," the "Adored One" of all and the "Worshipped One" of all. Otherwise, whatever flashes through the mind is not that Essence of essences and the Reality of realities; nay, rather, is [460] it pure imagination woven by man and is surrounded, not the sur‑rounding. Consequently, it returns finally to the realm of sup‑positions and conjectures." (Bahā’ī Scriptures (ed. Horace Holley, ) No. 847, pp. 459-60. = Ma’idih IX:22-23).

· Fazlur Rahman Islam 2 "On the basis of the Plotinian idea of the ultimate ground of Reality the One of Plotinus, as interpreted by his followers and endowed with a mind that contained the essences of all things, the philosophers re‑interpreted and elaborated the Mu`tazilite doctrine of the Unity of God. According to the new doctrine, God was represented as Pure Being without essence or attributes, His only attribute being necessary existence. The attributes of the Deity were declared to be either nega‑tions or purely external relations, not affecting His Being and re‑ducible to His necessary existence. God's knowledge was thus defined as `non-absence of knowable things from Him'; His Will as `impossi‑bility of constraint upon His Being'; His creative activity as `emanation of things from Him', etc. in the framework of the Greek theories of Aristotle and Plotinus, it was impossible that God should know par‑ticulars: He could cognize only universals since a cognition of the particular would introduce change in the Divine Mind both in the sense of a temporal succession and a change of different objects. But this theory could hardly be accepted by any religion for which a direct relationship between the individual and the Deity forms the core of interest. Accordingly, Avicenna devised a clever theory which would do justice both to the demands of religion and the requisites of his philo‑sophy. God, according to this theory, knew all the particulars since He, being the ultimate cause of all things, necessarily knew the whole causal process. Thus, God knew from eternity that, for example, a solar eclipse would occur, with all its particular characteristics, at a particular point of the causal process This type of knowledge would require no change in the Divine knowledge since it removes the necessity of perceptual knowledge which occurs at a definite time and place.

From Greek epistemological and metaphysical theories, again, the Muslim philosophers acquired the idea of a radical dualism between body and mind, which under Greco-Christian influences had also developed into an out-and-out ethical dualism between the material and the spiritual. This affected the Muslim philosophers' eschato [118 THE PHILOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT] logical teaching very fundamentally. The philosopher al-Farabi (d. 33919so) held that only the soul survived in an individual and, further, that only the souls of thinkers survived, 'undeveloped' minds being destroyed at death.2 Ibn S;na held that all human souls survived, body being unresurrectible, although he allowed that souls, after being separated from their bodies, especially those that are 'undeveloped' but morally virtuous, felt a kind of 'physical' pleasure since they were in‑capable of experiencing purely mental states. But in general he taught that the resurrection of the body was an imaginative myth with which the minds of the Prophets were inspired in order to influence the moral character of the unthinking masses.3 Ibn Rushd (Averroes, d. 5941~ I 98), the Spanish Arab philosopher who introduced medieval Europe to Aristotle in his own interpretation, came nearer to orthodox Islam with his doctrine that although the same body could not be identically resurrected, a numerically different but qualitatively identical body, a simtllacrum, would be supplied. 4

· Having thus reached a stage of consciousness where the entire philo‑sophical metaphysic seemed to correspond, point by point, to theo‑logical beliefs of religion but never exactly tallied with the latter, a general problem was raised before the philosophers about the nature of religion and philosophy and their mutual relationship. Either there was a double truth, one apprehended by philosophy, the other by re‑ligion, or the truth was unitary but appeared now in rational, and again in a metaphorical, imaginative form. The first alternative, that of two truths, did not seem possible rationally and so the philosophers decided to pursue the latter line of thought. Religious truth is but rational truth, but instead of being expressed in nakedly rational formulas, manifested itself in imaginative symbols - a fact which was responsible for its widespread acceptance by, and effectiveness among, the masses. Thus, religion is but philosophy for the masses, and, once accepted, iS philosophy of the masses, having as its primary function their moral education and purification.

· In order to make this view possible, an intricate and brilliant theory of Prophetic Revelation was constructed to do justice to the Islamic phenomenon as the philosopher saw it. Basically, nothing new was imposed on the Greek system of thought: the materials were those of late Hellenism, but these were pressed into a new direction so that a novel, original pattern emerged from them. The Greek theory and psychology of cognition were internally manipulated to yield the idea of a unique type of human intellect which intuitively apprehended the

· Reality in a total sweep and then clothed this truth, through an inner impulsion~ into figurative symbols to make them accessible to the

[1] This essay is published in Jack McLean (ed.), Revisioning the Sacred (Los Angeles: Kalimat Press, 1997), 37-78. This Web version adds a few extra details and notes and puts the essay into more academic format with occasional Arabic and Persian.

1 The terms `apophatic' ("negative") and `cataphatic' ("positive") to indicate a theology seem to have been first used in the Christian world by Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (f.c. 500CE) (see below).

2 The meaning or etymologies which Philo gives to Hebrew words often tell us more about his allegorical intention than anything philologically exact. Both the meaning and location of Sinai are uncertain or unknown. There is no evidence that it means "inaccessible".    .

3 Along with other Abrahamic religious traditions, the Christian doctrine of the incomprehensibility / unknowability of God is closely associated with various eclectic forms (`Aristotelianizing' and `Stoicizing') of Middle and Neo-Platonic philosophy. This intellectual heritage was welcomed by Socrates and Plato for example, were seen by the Alexandrian apologists and later Christian thinkers as subject to divine inspiration through the logos spermatikos, the pre-Christian operations of the Holy Spirit of Christ.

4 These terms were earlier used by Proclus (412-485 CE) in a quasi-theological context. Wolfson opens his 1957 paper as follows, "By the time the Fathers of the Church began to offer negation as a solution to the problem of divine attributes, the theory of negative attributes had already been dealt with by Philo, Albinus and Plotinus." (145).

"We have seen the importance for late Neoplatonism of the interpretation of the successive hypotheses of the second part of the Parmenides: the first hypothesis yields the One of whom nothing at all can be said, the succeeding hypotheses yield manifestations of the divine of whom something can be said. There is a neat distinction between apophatic theology (that is, theology of denial) and cataphatic theology (that is, theology of affirmation): apophatic theology applies to the One, cataphatic theology to the henads and other divine manifestations of the One." (Louth, 1989:87).



5 Arabic huwiyya is an abstract word that was originally "coined in order to express in Arabic the nuances of Greek philosophy" (Goichon, `Huwiyya' EI2 III: 644). It occurs in the so-called `Theology of Aristotle', Ibn Sinā and in many later mystical and Sufi writers as well as in numerous Bābī and Bahā'ī texts (see below).

6

7 The complications of the various categories of the divine attributes cannot be entered into here. See further, for example, Gardet ER 6:33-34. For some Sunni Muslims the strict doctrine of tawḥīd ("Unity of God") was maintained by holding that the `Attributes of the Essence' were co-eternal with and subsisted in His Essence. In an inexplicable way they were not God nor other than Him (bi-lā kayf wa bi-lā tashbīḥ   = `Without asking how or comparison').

8 I follow here the translation of Chodkiewicz, 1993:97 referring to various passages in Ibn `Arabī's al-Futuḥāt al-makiyya.
9 Worth noting in this respect is the following spontaneous supererogatory supplication for the month of Raman n transmitted by Abī `Abd Allāh (Imam Ja`far al-Ṣādiq, d. c. 80/669-700), in which six pavilions are spoken about relative to specific Divine attributes, "O my God! I verily, ask Thee by Thy Name which is inscribed in the pavilion of Glory (surādiq al-majd) and I beseech Thee by Thy Name which is inscribed in the pavilion of Splendour (surādiq al-bahā'). I verily, ask Thee by Thy Name which is inscribed in the pavilion of Grandeur (surādiq al-`aẓimat) and I beseech Thee by Thy Name which is inscribed in the pavilion of Radiance (surādiq al-jalāl). I verily, ask Thee by Thy Name which is inscribed in the pavilion of Might (surÿdiq al-`izzat) and I beseech Thee by Thy Name which is inscribed in the pavilion of Secrets (surādiq al-sara'ir) which is Foremost (al-sābīq), Paramount (al-fā'iq), Beauteous (al-ḥusn), Splendid (al-nayyīr). And by the Lord of the Eight [Arch-] Angels (al-malā'ikat al-thamāniyat) and the Lord of the Mighty Celestial Throne (rabb al-`arsh al-`aẓīm)." (Cited in Majlisī, Bihar 2 58:43 from al-Iqbāl of Sayyid Raḍī al-Dīn ibn Tāwūs (589/1193-664/1266). It is noted in this 2nd edition of the BIḥār vol. 58:43 (fn.2) that this spontaneous supererogatory supplication cannot be traced (?).

10 The Du`a al-sabāḥ cannot be found, for example, in al-Qummī, Mafatīḥ.. 91-94. Clarification of a phrase within it was requested of the Bāb by a certain Mīrzā Muhammad `Alī, the Guilder -- the Tafsīr Du`a al-ṣabaḥ can be found, for example, in INBMC 40:155-162.

11 This ḥadīth is found in a variety of forms in a number of Sunnī and Shī`ī sources. The word `amā' ("loosely "Cloud") has been variously translated and interpreted. For some details see Lambden, 1984.

12 This letter of the Bāb is contained in TBAMS 6007 C:1-16. It was apparently written in reply to questions posed by Siyyid Yaḥyā Dārābī, Vaḥīd (a leading disciple of the Bāb; see Fāḍil-i Mazandaranī, Asrār al-athār, 4:391 (text also partially quoted here).
13
14 On another level `amā' ("cloud") and hawā' ("air") indicate the created nafs ("Self") of God, as opposed to the mystery of His transcendent and uncreated reality. God's being in `amā' is expressive of the station (maqām) of the manifestation (ẓuhūr) of the "First Dhikr" (dhikr al-awwāl = the primal divine manifestation and locus of prophethood).
15 Various modes of the Divine theophany (tajallÿ) are mentioned in Sufi treatises; i.e. (1) tajallī al-dhāt (`the theophany of the Divine Essence'); (2) tajallī al-ṣifāt (`the theophany of the Divine Attributes') and (3) tajallī al-af``āl (`the theophany of the Divine Actions'). See for example, Shihāb al-Dīn `Umar al-Suhrawardī, `Awārif al-ma`ārif (Per. trans, Mahmūd ibn `Alī al-Kāshānī) translated into English by H. Wilberforce Clarke (1891; reprint ed. Octagon Press London 1980), p. 79ff.

16 Both Sayyid Kāẓim and the Bāb accept this reading (see Sayyid Kāẓim, 1270/1853/4: cf. Lambden and Fananapazir, 1995 and see above). The recent edition of Rajab al-Bursī's Mashariq al-anwār.. reads, "I saw the Mercy of God (raḥmat Allāh)" (p.166) while that printed in ÿ'irÿ's Ilzām al-nāib places a letter "wāw" before the word God (Allāh) (II:243).

17 That passage from the Dawn Prayer of Imam `Alī on which the Bāb commented is cited here. It has influenced many passages in Bābī-Bahā'ī scripture. Here is an example from a meditation of Bahā'-Allāh, "From eternity Thou didst Thyself describe Thine own Self unto Thy Self, and extol, in Thine own Essence, Thine Essence unto Thine Essence. I swear by Thy glory, O my Best-Belovedl Who is there besides Thee that can claim to know Thee, and who save Thyself can make fitting mention of Thee? Thou art He Who, from eternity, abode in His realm, in the glory of His transcendent unity and the splendours of His holy grandeur." (P&M trans. No 184/252).

18 This Tablet is listed by Shoghi Effendi in his list of `Bahā'u'llāh's Best-Known Writings'. It is noted that it was "revealed in Baghdad". (see BW XVIII:833-834). As far as I am aware it has not been published. I have relied on a typed Arabic copy supplied to me in 198? by the Bahÿ'ÿ World Centre, Haifa, Israel.

18 See TAB III:485 (= SW IV/18:304 = Holley, 1928, No. 847, pp. 459-60; cf. SW III/14:8f).

19 Therein the "Sun of the Unseen" (shams al-ghayb) blazes forth from the "Horizon of the Unseen" (ufq al-ghayb). In it's universe are spheres with moons generated from Light which dawn forth and set in the "Ocean of the Unseen" (bar al-ghayb). None but God and the "Manifetations of His Self" (maÿhir nafsihi)   are aware of this realm and its recondite mysteries (AQA 3:86ff).

20 Apart from underlining the transcendence and unknowability of the Absolute Essence of God, the Bāb emphasized the presence of the "Day of God" through His manifestation. He frequently claimed Divinity Himself and sometimes bestowed it upon others, upon a "pleroma" of leading disciples. There exist writings of the Bÿb -- certain passages from them cited by Bahā'-Allāh in his Lawḥ-i Sarrāj -- which make it clear that a number of leading Bābīs shared in His eschatolgical Divinity. He stated that God conferred "Divinity" (al-ulūhiyya) and "Lordship" (al-rubūbiyya) on whosoever He pleased (Ma’idih 7:64).

21 This Tablet is fully contained in INBMC 66:187-205 (partly cited in MA 4:26-45). For a full annotated translation see Lambden, `A Tablet of Baha'-Allah explaining an utterance attributed to Mary the Jewess/Copt' (BSB forthcoming).

22 "What is meant by personal God is a God Who is conscious of His creation, Who has a Mind, a Will, a Purpose, and not, as many scientists and materialists believe, an unconscious and determined force operating in the universe. Such conception of the Divine Being, as the Supreme and ever present Reality in the world, is not anthropomorphic, for it transcends all human limitations and forms, and does by no means attempt to define the essence of Divinity which is obviously beyond any human comprehension. To say that God is a personal Reality does not mean that He has a physical form, or does in any way resemble a human being. To entertain such belief would be sheer blasphemy." (From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, April 21, 1939 cited Hornby 1983:477 No 1574).