51 replies to this topic

[Lanatin]

Kazmi_202, on 27 July 2012 - 10:14 PM, said:

Salam,

The 'Soul' in Islam in described as 'immaterial' and is therefore not subject to time and space. This then also means it is not 'limited'.

How do we then differentiate between the Essence of Allah (swt) and the human soul? How is it possible to have more than one infinite and unlimited being?

Is my reasoning failing somewhere? I wish to know the Shia perspective on differentiating between the Absolute Essence of Allah (swt) and the human soul.

Jazakallah in advance

The soul has form and is limited to time and space as it waits in the grave; it certainly isn't infinite. Immateriality does not immediately denote timelessness, a non physical realm still has space and time is not defined by matter but by sequences of events and their dynamic relations. Allah creates and originates, we don't have the power to do that even with the medium of a physical body.

Edited by La'nat Ma Man, 29 July 2012 - 09:51 PM.

[wundermonk]

Belial, on 29 July 2012 - 09:24 PM, said:

What if I said, that I had no soul,  What would it mean?  Should I drop dead? Should I lose consciousness? Should I lose emotion? I dont understand what it means to have a soul. And in that, to not have a soul, and to have a soul...these statements, they dont seem to hold meaning.

What do you think wondermonk?

Hi Belial,

Nearly all religions that I know of posit the existence of a "soul" - even Buddhism. (The difference however is that Buddhism states that what we perceive as "I", "mine", etc. is an illusion and no enduring entity called the soul exists).

In any case, the soul can not be perceived. Hindu schools of thought ended up trying to infer it. But then again, the inference will be valid to you only if you accept the axioms used in the first place. There is no reason these have to be accepted.

Samkhya is an early school of Hinduism that reduced the entire universe to two principles - consciousness (purusha) and non-conscious matter/nature (prakriti). Charvakas (early Indian atheists) rubbished all of this and said that purusha can further be reduced to prakriti itself. Perhaps this is your thought as well?

Edited by wundermonk, 29 July 2012 - 09:54 PM.

[Lanatin]

^^Can you please not hijack the topic?

[wundermonk]

La, on 29 July 2012 - 09:56 PM, said:

^^Can you please not hijack the topic?

Perhaps the OP'er can resurface from time to time and indicate whether the discussions that have ensued since his/her OP are in line with his/her thoughts when he/she chose to create a thread in the Philosophy, Atheism/Theism & Other Interfaith Dialogue subforum?

I do not believe any of our discussions thus far are hijacking the thread. The OP'er should clarify. This is after all his/her thread!

[adnan121]

I not 100% sure but the soul is some what the same as our body and the face structure will be the same as ours -its in hadees books that we will be able to recognise each other in heaven so it has to be same as the body according to Islam.

Jism = Body
Nafs = Soul
Ruh = Spirit

The nafs is the soul, this is our true self, the part of us that will live forever. The ruh is the spirit, this is the completely holy and pure entity that Alllah has blown into our nafs, this guides us and informs us whether something is good or bad, it is the electricity that powers our soul to Allah.

http://www.shiachat....the-difference/


Get one think CLEAR. The ruh is NOT part of Allah. Allah does not have parts. You cannot associate anything.
nafs is then divided into 7 parts !


The seven levels (Nafs) are as follows:

1) Ammara (Nafs-e-Ammara / Commanding Soul): There are various verses in the Holy Qur'an relative to the existence of this kind of Nafs. This Nafs commands us to commit sin. It is lower than animals because they behave according to the demands of nature. When a lion or tiger devours another animal it is because it needs food. And once an animal is full it does not pursue another animal, while a man is capable of swallowing the whole world and still be hungry. Man can kill thousands and still long for more blood. There are lots of factual accounts which are indicative of the existence of Ammara, one of whom was the late Shah of Iran; the more he killed the thirstier he became and the more he stole the greedier he got. Saadi, the famous Iranian man-of-letters recounts the story of Mahmoud Shah Ghanzanavi who was at the threshold of dying but he would not die. Eventually he commanded that his royal jewels be mounted on mule backs so the caravan could pass in front of his eyes. Once this was done, he died comfortably. These are a few samples of men who became so degraded that they sank lower than any animal. Man tramples upon his nature and behaves relative to the demands of his desires and whims for which there is no limit. In short, Ammara is lowest of all the Nafs and Dr. Shariati has compared it to mud.

"Nor do I absolve my own self (of blame): the (human) soul is certainly prone to evil, unless my Lord do bestow His Mercy: but surely my Lord is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful." (Holy Qur'an 12:53)

Imam Ali has said that: "The Nafs is like a wild horse and you are riding upon him, if you move your attention for one second, he will throw you off." "The restraining the soul (or self) from its appetite is the greatest holy war." Here, Imam Ali is referring to the Nafs-e-Ammara.

Bade Moozi Ku Mara, Nafs-e-Ammara Ku Gar Mara Nahang o Azdaha o Sher-e-Nar Mara To Kya Mara?

2) Lawwama (Nafs-e-Lawwama / self-accusing soul): This word is derived from 'Lom' which means to 'reproach.' At this stage Nafs reaches a point that if it commits a sin its conscience wakes up and criticizes the doer. This is the first indication that man's Nafs is wakening up and perhaps most men in the world are at this stage. When common men commit a sin they awaken and become sorry and sad. It is this self critics that forces some criminals to give themselves up (or it allows the psychologist to find them). Nay! I swear by the self-accusing soul. (Holy Qur'an 75:2)

3) Agheleh: At this stage Nafs posses the power of thinking and reflection and so, it bases its actions upon logic and thinking and does not fall prey to extremes of sentiments, rage, whims, and fleeting desires; it calculates. Not too many people reach a stage where they can ponder over the consequences of their own behavior before acting.

4) Malhama (Nafs-e-Malhama / Inspiring soul): Malhama is derived from Elham (inspiration). The person who reaches this stage receives inspiration from the Lord. Namely, he is so virtuous and devout that he has developed the aptitude to accept the Lord's inspiration. God's light shines upon all, but this particular Insan at this stage is capable of absorbing the Divine's light and comprehends it.

There are beautiful definitions for Elham and Wahy (inspiration) which must be clarified at this point. Elham is from low to high, while Wahy is from high to low. Specifically, in Wahy God establishes communication with man, while in Elham Insan establishes communication with God. Of course, Elham depends upon the extent to which a personality has evolved while Wahy is not subject to such rule; it is God's command that descends to man. And since Wahy is from the Lord, it is absolute and perfect and there is no doubt in it because He wants man to receive the message in it entirely. However, this is not true about Elham which is always incomplete since it depends each man's aptitude and personality. The stronger and more perfect man is, the more perfect will be his Elham. But since men are not perfect, often times Elham appears as lightning in the sky in a dark night, so quick that man gets a chance to perceive the truths very briefly.

5) Mutmainnah (Nafs-al-Mutmainnah / satisfied soul): At this stage Nafs reaches the stage of certainty; it will neither collapse nor will it retrogress. It is sure of its evolutionary cycle and its meeting with the Lord. It can commit a fault or sin but it is so ahead that it is certain it will never backslide.

"O you Tranquil Soul, return to Your Lord, well pleased, and well-pleasing unto Him! Enter you, then, among My devotees! Enter you My Heaven!" (Holy Qur'an 89:27-30)

This is the stage, which is the goal of this life. To reach the stage of total contentment with Allah سبحانه وتعالى. To commit no sin knowingly and to take pleasure in doing good acts. It is this soul, which was called on the day of Ashura, when Imam Hussain put, down his sword and heard the voice saying "Oh soul that is content! Come back to your Lord, well pleased (yourself) and well pleasing to Him."

6) Raziyah: This is derived from satisfaction. In its evolutionary cycle Nafs reaches a degree that becomes satisfied with its own position.

7) Marziyah: At this stage not only Nafs is satisfied with itself but also the Lord almighty is satisfied with it too. Now Nafs is a lover of the Divine. This is the last stage in our Islamic theosophy in the Nafs cycles. There are many verses which contain various Nafs I discussed here.

What I want to mention here is that from the Qur'anic Point of View, Nafs (from Ammara to Marziyah) requires an evolutionary cycle and man must discipline himself for this evolution. We know when a Nafs has reached the Marziyah stage it will share some of the attributes of Rooh. However, I emphasize that Nafs is different from Rooh; the former has a corporeal condition while the latter is abstract. Thus, the two are not of the same essence. Further, Nafs is a kind of energy which is equivalent to matter subject to physical lava. Matter is the condensed form of energy, so the internal psychological stimulations such as actions reactions, sentiments and feelings are all forms of energies equivalent to matter. We can say that Nafs has a material tendency.

Rooh is God's behest; it is His knowledge and His power and it is conscious of the past and the future. Therefore, Nafs in its evolutionary journey becomes live Rooh and establishes communication with the Lord and becomes a part of His manifestation. At this stage we can say that Insan has become a God-like, By this I do not mean that Insan is God, rather he radiates God's manifestations. God has one thousand and one attributes such as Jamal, Kamal, Rahman, Rahim, Elm... When such attributes appear in man, he becomes God-like or His viceroy on earth. If God is wise man becomes wise and if He is powerful, his vicegerent becomes powerful also. At this stage there is constant communication between Insan's Nafs and his Rooh and anytime he wishes he can establish communication with the Lord through his Rooh, ask for advice and seek answer to his inquiries. At this level nothing will remain vague and insolvable to Insan.

Imam Ali said: Surely God has characterized the angels by intellect without sexual desire and anger, and the animals with anger and desire without reason. He exalted man by bestowing upon him all of these qualities. Accordingly, if man's reason dominates his desire and ferocity, he rises to the station above that of the angels, because this station is attained by man in spite of the existence of hurdles which do not vex the angels.

[adnan121]

http://www.al-islam....h_reason/46.htm

[ßÑíã]

wundermonk, on 29 July 2012 - 09:20 PM, said:

It is highly relevant. When all religions talk about a "soul", and this is considered to be an entity that persists after death and was present prior to birth, I think it is most relevant to know all we can know about the soul.

I am not sure what you mean above - are you saying the soul has a shape? If yes, what is that shape? Also, does it have a size?

I believe you meant "true" rather than "untrue". In any case, the sky is a bad example - because what we know as the "sky" is not a substance material/immaterial. It is not like the earth, for instance, which is a material substance. The sky is simply what we refer to when we look up. Space may be a better example. Now, space is omnipresent. Can you break up space into parts? Does space have a form/shape?

My point is whether it has the shape of i.e. a banana or a watermelon, it doesn't change the fact that it has a shape, so the details of the size or type of shape irrelevant in this matter. Like i said previously the fact that it is bound to space in our bodies, proves it has a shape and this can not be disputed.

Secondly, you said previously: "anything that has a form/shape can be broken into parts", im showing you by using the sky example that not everything can be broken into parts just because it simple has a form/shape.

Thirdly, in terms of space, it has a form/shape i believe, however i'm not sure on whether it can be broken into parts or not.

Belial, on 29 July 2012 - 08:09 PM, said:

Can the sky be broken into parts?  Yes it can.

Elaborate Please...

Edited by ßÑíã, 30 July 2012 - 01:02 PM.

[Belial]

كريم, on 30 July 2012 - 01:01 PM, said:

Elaborate Please...

Well, I can, for example, take a plastic bag.  Swing the bag through the sky and bury it, and I will have buried a piece of the sky.  "Sky" is a word that we use to describe the atmosphere.  The atmosphere is made of gases, which are...parts.  When I measure gases, I can measure them in parts per million, for example.

[ßÑíã]

Belial, on 30 July 2012 - 07:33 PM, said:

Well, I can, for example, take a plastic bag.  Swing the bag through the sky and bury it, and I will have buried a piece of the sky.  "Sky" is a word that we use to describe the atmosphere.  The atmosphere is made of gases, which are...parts.  When I measure gases, I can measure them in parts per million, for example.

Wouldn't that be air? because when i mean sky i mean literally what seperates us from space, i'm not referring to the atmosphere...

[wundermonk]

كريم, on 30 July 2012 - 01:01 PM, said:

My point is whether it has the shape of i.e. a banana or a watermelon, it doesn't change the fact that it has a shape, so the details of the size or type of shape irrelevant in this matter.

You keep claiming that the self has a shape. But when asked what shape it is, you claim it is irrelevant! Then, HOW do you know it even has a shape?!

Quote

Like i said previously the fact that it is bound to space in our bodies, proves it has a shape and this can not be disputed.

If you can not specify its shape or size, how do you know it is "bound to space in our bodies"? Something can be shapeless and still be bounded within something else - for instance, a point within a line. A point is dimensionless/shapeless/formless yet there exist an uncountably infinite number of them on any finite line.

Quote

Thirdly, in terms of space, it has a form/shape i believe, however i'm not sure on whether it can be broken into parts or not.

If you believe so, you should be able to specify what the form/shape of space is.

Space is omnipresent. Something that is omnipresent cannot be broken into parts. It also does not have a form or a shape. There ought to be a boundary to the entity that has a form/shape.

Edited by wundermonk, 31 July 2012 - 12:15 AM.

[Belial]

كريم, on 30 July 2012 - 11:37 PM, said:

Wouldn't that be air? because when i mean sky i mean literally what seperates us from space, i'm not referring to the atmosphere...

What literally separates us from space is...non space.  Which means, the gas in between us, which is the atmosphere, which is the sky as well.

Air is what makes up our atmosphere.  The lower parts anyway.  And some of the higher parts are made of air too, though its a bit less dense.  The only thing that separates....earth, from empty space.  Are gas particles. Well, and a magnetic field.  If you fly in a plane, you are still flying through air.  When you fly in a space shuttle to the moon, you still are flying through air until you exit the air and enter space. You may for a period of time find it terribly difficult to breathe as the oxygen thins out...but you are still flying through separable gas, none the less.  Particles...

Earth is a big rock.  Thats all it really is, with some magma in the middle and hunks of metal.  The sky is a variety of gases.  Oxygen, methane, carbon dioxide...all sorts of stuff.  A gas particle is a physical object, like a ball.  The heavy balls like bowling balls can be bounced and they wont go very far.  They will stay close to the earth due to the earths gravitational pull.  Ligher balls, like plastic squishy dodge balls, bounce far higher and easier.  And if you bounce them hard enough they will reside high in the sky.

Gases work the same way.  Oxygen we breathe is heavier like a bowling ball, so it resides closer to the surface where we breathe.  And as you get higher, other gases that are lighter, like squishy dodge balls, reside higher in the atmosphere.

And so, the upper parts of the sky may be different than the lower parts (like a bowling ball is heavier than a plastic squishy ball).  But its still all made of gas (or squishy dodge balls, whichever you prefer). Which is to say, made of an almost countless number of tiny particles bouncing up and down. Some heavier than others. And the absolute lightest gases, just shoot off into space and latch on to other things.

Its why clouds float and rain falls.

May I ask...aside from gas particles and a magnetic field, what is it, you believe separates us from space?

Edited by Belial, 31 July 2012 - 06:15 PM.

[Belial]

I guess the person just passed away in thhe middle of the convo

[ßÑíã]

lol, I don't know about you but when people start talking about science in paragraphs etc, sometimes I kind of lose interest. This topic deviated way too much, to the extent where we're not even helping the starter of this topic; rather just helping ourselves.

[Belial]

كريم, on 03 August 2012 - 02:04 PM, said:

lol, I don't know about you but when people start talking about science in paragraphs etc, sometimes I kind of lose interest. This topic deviated way too much, to the extent where we're not even helping the starter of this topic; rather just helping ourselves.

"Secondly, you said previously: "anything that has a form/shape can be broken into parts", im showing you by using the sky example that not everything can be broken into parts just because it simple has a form/shape."

Alright, I will claim victory in the fact that the sky can be broken into parts.

In order to compare the soul and Allah, we would first have to know something about either or.  Understanding the souls shape and size, or what exactly a soul is, is very significant in determining how it relates to Allah.  The soul is not a gas like the atmosphere that makes a divisible sky.  This isnt a complex scientific topic at all.  Aside from that, how can you compare one thing to something else when we know nothing of either? That question is rhetoric.  These questions are necessary in discussing the topic.

Consider the following...

What do we really know about the soul?  In order to compare it to anything, we must determine what we do know.  What does it consist of (what is it made of?)? Where is it? Why does it reside where it does. Why does it exist as it does?  When is it present and when does it go away? And how? etc. Can I touch it? Can I see it?  Can I manipulate it? and how? If I take X action, will the soul make Y response? How do we know?

Once we can objectively answer some of these questions, then we can start drawing comparisons. We can utilize this knowledge for application to greater our knowledge.   Once we have knowledge, then we can compare to Allah.  Once we compare to Allah, we can accurately answer the question at hand.  This is a practical approach, sometimes it requires a bit of aggressive skepticism.

And you can ask these questions for anything.  The computer in front of you for example, you can ask these questions for, and with them, you can learn how the computer operates, and you can then compare your computer to...your tv, or your phone, or pencil, or anything.

Edited by Belial, 03 August 2012 - 06:34 PM.

[ßÑíã]

Belial, on 03 August 2012 - 06:04 PM, said:

"Secondly, you said previously: "anything that has a form/shape can be broken into parts", im showing you by using the sky example that not everything can be broken into parts just because it simple has a form/shape." Alright, I will claim victory in the fact that the sky can be broken into parts. In order to compare the soul and Allah, we would first have to know something about either or. Understanding the souls shape and size, or what exactly a soul is, is very significant in determining how it relates to Allah. The soul is not a gas like the atmosphere that makes a divisible sky. This isnt a complex scientific topic at all. Aside from that, how can you compare one thing to something else when we know nothing of either? That question is rhetoric. These questions are necessary in discussing the topic. Consider the following... What do we really know about the soul? In order to compare it to anything, we must determine what we do know. What does it consist of (what is it made of?)? Where is it? Why does it reside where it does. Why does it exist as it does? When is it present and when does it go away? And how? etc. Can I touch it? Can I see it? Can I manipulate it? and how? If I take X action, will the soul make Y response? How do we know? Once we can objectively answer some of these questions, then we can start drawing comparisons. We can utilize this knowledge for application to greater our knowledge. Once we have knowledge, then we can compare to Allah. Once we compare to Allah, we can accurately answer the question at hand. This is a practical approach, sometimes it requires a bit of aggressive skepticism. And you can ask these questions for anything. The computer in front of you for example, you can ask these questions for, and with them, you can learn how the computer operates, and you can then compare your computer to...your tv, or your phone, or pencil, or anything.

I agree; we have very little knowledge of what the soul really is, however that doesn't mean we have no knowledge what so ever about it. One thing we know for sure about the soul is it has a shape, and due to this it is confined within space i.e. our bodies, we know that Allah The All-Just has no shape and can not be confined within space due to him being self-sufficient. So in essence, a being without a shape cannot be compared to a being with a shape - this little knowledge we have of the soul is sufficient enough for us to make a justified conclusion such as the said. That being the case, the knowledge we do not have about the soul is un-essential to answer Kazmi_202's question.

Edited by ßÑíã, 03 August 2012 - 11:13 PM.

[Belial]

كريم, on 03 August 2012 - 11:06 PM, said:

I agree; we have very little knowledge of what the soul really is, however that doesn't mean we have no knowledge what so ever about it. One thing we know for sure about the soul is it has a shape, and due to this it is confined within space i.e. our bodies, we know that Allah The All-Just has no shape and can not be confined within space due to him being self-sufficient. So in essence, a being without a shape cannot be compared to a being with a shape - this little knowledge we have of the soul is sufficient enough for us to make a justified conclusion such as the said. That being the case, the knowledge we do not have about the soul is un-essential to answer Kazmi_202's question.

Even a simple comment such as "souls are confined within our bodies", is very challenging (if not impossible) to demonstrate.  It would have to be assumed through scripture.  Which people may or may not do.  If someone were to do that, then yes I would agree with you.

Edited by Belial, 04 August 2012 - 12:12 AM.

[Belial]

Alright, ill stop editing and leave it at that now.

[Quisant]

Certainly, 'souls' exist in every religion.
They appeared shortly after humanity decided that Gods require those souls as elements to reward and/or torture after death.


Ancient Greek concepts of the soul varied considerably according to the particular era and philosophical school.
The Epicureans considered the soul to be made up of atoms like the rest of the body.
For the Platonists, the soul was an immaterial and incorporeal substance, akin to the gods yet part of the world of change and becoming.
Aristotle’s conception of the soul was obscure, though he did state that it was a form inseparable from the body.

In Islam, Al-Farabi believed that the rational soul may or may not survive eternally; others, like Ibn Sina, believed that it has no beginning and no end; still others, such as Ibn Rushd, believed that the soul with all its individual parts comes into existence and is eventually destroyed.
http://www.muslimphi...ip/rep/H010.htm

Wslm.
*

[Gypsy]

Belial, on 03 August 2012 - 11:54 PM, said:

Even a simple comment such as "souls are confined within our bodies", is very challenging (if not impossible) to demonstrate.  It would have to be assumed through scripture.  Which people may or may not do.  If someone were to do that, then yes I would agree with you.

I was under the impression that the original poster wanted his question answered from the religious angle (point of view).

We already have a discussion about soul from the scientific (non-religious point of view).

There's no way to reconcile the concept of the soul from the religious angle and from the non-religious point of view.

[eThErEaL]

Kazmi_202, on 27 July 2012 - 10:14 PM, said:

Salam,

The 'Soul' in Islam in described as 'immaterial' and is therefore not subject to time and space. This then also means it is not 'limited'.

How do we then differentiate between the Essence of Allah (swt) and the human soul? How is it possible to have more than one infinite and unlimited being?

Is my reasoning failing somewhere? I wish to know the Shia perspective on differentiating between the Absolute Essence of Allah (swt) and the human soul.

Jazakallah in advance

The Human Being:

Spirit (ruh) = Immaterial, Luminous, Formless
Soul  (nafs) = both Immaterial and Material, Luminous and Dark, Formless and in Form
Body  (jism) = Material, Dark, in form



The World:

Heavens (Samawaat) = Luminous, Intelligible, Immaterial, and Formless realm.
The In-between Heaven and Earth Realm (Barzakh) = Luminous/Dark, Intelligible/Unintelligible, Immaterial/Material, Formless/Forms.
Earth (Ard) =  Dark, Unintelligible, Material, Forms.  


Notice how God does not fall in any of these two sets of categories (neither that of the human being nor that of the world).  God is neither in the Heavens nor the Earth nor anywhere in between them.  God is neither spirit, nor body, nor soul.  He is neither Immaterial, nor material.  He is neither dark, nor luminous.  He is neither intelligible, nor unintelligible.  He is neither formless nor in a form.  

God may not be in Heaven, but the purpose of Heaven is that it unveils, discloses, or manifests God.  It expresses or reveals what God is.  

God may not be in Earth, But the purpose of Earth is to veil, enclose and hide God.  It's purpose is to express or reveal what God is not.

Edited by eThErEaL, 09 August 2012 - 06:19 AM.

[eThErEaL]

Jebreil, on 05 August 2012 - 02:48 AM, said:

I will refer to macisaac's post quite a while back, which I found illuminating - on his head be it! :

[/size][/color]


Either way, we all agree that we are conscious without being able to point out a thing called "consciousness" - similarly, if we incline towards it, we can believe we are "ensouled" without hoping to point out a thing called "soul".



A substantive [noun] misleads us into looking for a substance. - Wittgenstein

yes, Ruh i think everyone would agree is definitely not a separte substance.  But that is precisely why it is immaterial.  It is that principle which animates the body.  The body without the spirit would rot away and disintegrate.  All positive qualities we see in the body are in fact nothing but the Ruh.  It is this "life force or Ruh" which always remains.  But this is not a materialistic view.  It is not saying the spirit is something divisible in parts (at least I hope macisaac isnt saying that!).  The body in itself is a quantitative reality and the spirit is in itself a qualitative reality that can only be experienced or intuited.  Life, Beauty, Power, and Knowledge, are in themselves universals or intelligibles which cannot be reduced to the sensible bodily forms through which they become instantiated; rather they are of the spirit.  It is not matter or material we experience or know.  It is ultimately the intelligibles or universals that we know whenever we sense anything.

Edited by eThErEaL, 09 August 2012 - 06:57 AM.

[Ibrahim Ali]

eThErEaL, on 09 August 2012 - 06:12 AM, said:

\  

God may not be in Heaven, but the purpose of Heaven is that it unveils, discloses, or manifests God.  It expresses or reveals what God is.  

God may not be in Earth, But the purpose of Earth is to veil, enclose and hide God.  It's purpose is to express or reveal what God is not.

But are God's attributes not manifested on earth? By Heaven do you mean anything "above" or ontologically prior to earth?

[eThErEaL]

Ibrahim Ali, on 21 February 2013 - 05:41 PM, said:

But are God's attributes not manifested on earth? By Heaven do you mean anything "above" or ontologically prior to earth?

Everything is both heaven and earth.  This is because heaven and earth are in fact relative like up and down.  For example we normally say (for good reason) that the angels are "heavenly" creatures.  But the fact of the matter is that they are "earthly" as well.  Why?  Because even though angels are heavenly in relation to jinns, animals, plants, and stones, they are nevertheless earthly in relation to saints or for that matter God (Who is in fact beyond creation).  Another example are plants.  We normally (and for good reason) would say that plants are earthly creatures.  But the fact of the matter is that they are "heavenly" as well.  Why?  Because even though plants are earthly in relation to the creatures above them they are nevertheless heavenly in relation to stones or for that matter, nonexistence itself (which of course doesn't exist).

The fact is that everything at once veils and unveils God because everything is relatively Heaven and relatively Earth.  The arifun like Ibn Arabi say that God manifests or unveils Himself by veiling Himself and that He veils Himself by manifesting Himself (i.e. by unveiling Himself).  You might ask how is that possible?  It is possible because in the case of God, who is like a blindingly intense light, the only way He can make Himself (His Light) known is by diffusing His light (i.e. veiling Himself).  And the only way He is concealed from others (i.e. the only way He veils His Light), is by making His light even more manifest, intense and therefore blinding.  So God's veiling and unveiling are identical.

Edited by eThErEaL, 21 February 2013 - 07:16 PM.

[Ibrahim Ali]

Mashaallah, you're on point. I think this quote fits well with this discussion. The link to the whole article is here:http://www.sacredweb.com/online_articles/sw6_upton.html.

"Manifestation is by nature expansive and entropic. If there were no entropy in stars, they would not shine, and consequently nothing could be seen. If there were no entropy in matter, then the friction which produces sounds and tactile sensations would not exist; the universe would be silent, and numb. Without entropy, the processes by which conscious life is materially embodied would not exist, nor would any potentially embodied life would be capable of experiencing its environment including its spacio-temporal self, since no information from this “environment” could ever reach it. And there is absolutely no logical way of determining whether the environment experienced or the capability of experiencing it has precedence, since neither is possible nor conceivable without the other: where there is no existence, there can be no experience; where there is no experience, there can be no existence. This is the real significance of the “anthropic principle,” which is essentially the same as the doctrine of the Primordial Man, found throughout traditional metaphysics and mythology. According to this universal doctrine, God created the universe first in the form of the Primordial Adam, the insan al-kamil—the eternal self-reflexiveness inherent in the Divine Nature—who contained within himself the entirety of spiritual and material creation. The manifestation of the Primordial Adam, the “motion” from eternity to time, is visible. The reintegration of the manifest universe as the form of the Primordial Adam, the “motion” from time to eternity, is secret and invisible. If the Big Bang radiated energy, the Spiritual Path, as it were, absorbs it; the Path is, in the words of Seyyed Hossein Nasr, “the reversal of the cosmogonic process.” (According to Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time, even black holes do not absorb energy such as to violate or reverse the Second Law of Thermodynamics).8 This is the true meaning of the Hindu concept of a cyclical universe, termed “the outbreathing and inbreathing of Brahman.” In Muslim terms, it is the polarity between ar-Rahman, God’s all-manifesting creative mercy which generates the macrocosm, and ar-Rahim, His particular and saving mercy which, as the principle of the Spiritual Path, is ultimately directed only to the individual, the microcosm. The analogous concepts from Hinduism are Avidya Maya, the manifestation of God which progressively veils Him, and Vidya-Maya, the intimation of God as transcending manifestation, which ultimately reveals Him."