THE BACKGROUND AND CENTRALITY OF APOPHATIC THEOLOGY IN BĀBĪ
AND BAHĀ'Ī SCRIPTURE.
Stephen N. Lambden
Being
revised, corrected and supplemented :
2006-7
Originally
published in 1997 as 'The Background and centrality of Apophatic Theology in Bābī and
Baha'i Sacred Scripture' in Jack MacLean ed. Revisioning the
Sacred, New Perspectives on a Baha'i Theology ( = Studies in
the Bābí and Bahā'í Religions, Vol. 8), pp. 37-78. Los
Angeles: Kalimat Press, 1997. ISBN 0-933770-95-2 (HBk) ISBN
0-933770-96-0 (PBk).
"God (ḥaqq) in His Essence (bi-dhātihi) and in His
Own Self (bi-nafsihi) hath ever been unseen,
inaccessible and unknowable." (Bahā'u'llāh, ESW:139 trans. 118)
"Immeasurably exalted is His Essence above
the descriptions of His creatures... The birds of men's
hearts, however high they soar, can never hope to attain the
heights of His unknowable Essence... Far be it from His
glory that human pen or tongue should hint at His mystery,
or that human heart conceive His Essence" (Bahā'u'llāh,
Tablet to Hashim. GWB XCIV:192)
The following paper will attempt to trace aspects of the history of
the theological position of the incomprehensibility-unknowability of
God in past major Abrahamic religions and to highlight its
importance and significance for contemporary Bahā'īs. Born out of a
concern with the ultimate Godhead/ Reality /Truth, the roots of the
idea of the unknowable God are disputed. It is likely that the idea
has both eastern and western roots; multifaceted interrelated
origins in for example, Greek philosophical sources (e.g. Plato, Parmenides, 137cff) Hellenistic Judaism and Gnostic mythologies
as well as the writings of the Christian apologists and Fathers --
not to mention the sometimes related dimensions of the via
negativa ("negative way") in Asian religious (Hindu and
Buddhist) sources.
It
will, I hope, become absolutely clear that the Bahā’ī position, far
from being new or unique in all its aspects, is rooted in the
propositions of past religious and philosophical thinkers. The
Bahā’ī via negativa is most directly rooted in Bābī theology
and in Islāmic / Shī`ī / Shaykhī texts which have apophatic
("negative") theological dimensions.
Any student of the Bābī and Bahā'ī religions will readily come to
realize that the doctrine of the unknowability of the ultimate
Godhead is foundational. One can only say what God is not or use
negative (apophatic) language. The incomprehensibility of
the nature of the Divine Essence (dhāt; dhāt al-dhāt) is, in
one way or another, frequently celebrated in Bābi and Bahā’ī
Scripture -- the extensive Arabic and Persian writings of Sayyid `Ali
Muammad the Bāb (1819-1850) and Mārzā Ḥusayn `Alī
Bahā'-Allāh
(1817-1892), the founders of the Bābī and Bahā’ī religions
respectively. In their writings apophatic ("negative")
language is quite frequent.
1 No
Bahā’ī systematic theology could be written without locating the
ultimate Divinity beyond the infinite cosmos and totally beyond
human knowledge.
Any
Bahā'ī
theology would however, identify the Manifestation of God as the
locus of His indirect "knowability". While the Divine Essence is the
centre of negative
(apophatic)
theology, the person of the Manifestation of God, who is born from
age to age to communicate the Divine Will to humankind, is the
centre of a positive, an affirmative (cataphatic) theology
of nearness and knowability of God. It is by virtue of this that the
Divine immanence is realized without incarnation but through the
perfect manifestation of the divine Names and Attributes in nature,
humanity and in the loving Fatherhood of the Manifestation /
Messengers of God.
The Bābā-Bahā’ī doctrine of the unknowability of God is not a
"bloodless abstraction" (a phrase of Louis Jacobs, 1967:4) but
rather one which points to and celebrates the truth of the fact that
through His Messengers God is "closer to humanity" than their,
"jugular vein" (Q.50:16b; see below). By virtue of the
Manifestation of God, the divine "image" is deep within the soul of
every individual though the Absolute Deity ever remains outside of
the human universe of discourse.
JUDAISM
"Truly, thou art a God who hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the
Saviour." (Isaiah 45:15).
The Hebrew Bible does not contain a systematic theology, theogony or
theodicy. It champions the oneness and supremacy of the
inconceivable yet personal, universal God of Israel (Heb. `Eloha, `Elohim,
YHWH = Yahweh, etc). Though hardly directly spelled out in Hebrew
scripture the belief that the nature or essence of God is
unfathomable came to be important in Jewish religious thought.
Implying that God is incomparable, Isaiah posed the rhetorical
question: "To whom then will you liken God, or what likeness
compare with him." (40:18). Indeed, no likeness can be made of the
invisible God of Israel (Exodus 20:4) who created the heavens and
the earth (Genesis 1f).
The absence of images of God in the ancient Israelite cultus has
been reckoned a "most striking feature" (Ringgren, 1966:39;
Freedman, 2005). In
referring to the God of Israel as One supremely, One thrice "holy"
(Heb. qadosh), the implication is that He is, One distinctly
"set apart" (see the trisagion, Isaiah 6:3 etc). Direct vision of
this transcendent God Who dwells in "thick darkness" (Heb.
araphel, Exod 20:21; I Kings 8:12) is denied Moses and other
human beings (Exod 33:20; Jud. 13:22): "The Lord reigns.. Clouds and
thick darkness are round about him.." (Psalm 97:2). It has sometimes
been reckoned that the mysterious hiddenness of this Self-Existent
God is reflected in His terse Self-designation (RSV. loose trans.)
"I AM WHO I AM" (Heb. `ehyeh `asher `ehyeh, Exod. 3:14).
During the second Temple period (6th Cent. BCE -> 1st Cent. CE)
reverence for the transcendent God was greatly underlined. Biblical
anthropomorphisms were often avoided or reinterpreted. Both the
writing and the uttering of His personal Divine name YHWH ("Yahweh")
came to be strictly outlawed -- it was indirectly pronounced (vowelled)
'Adonai ("Lord"). The Qumran Jewish faction (Essenes?) which
preserved the so-called `Dead Sea Scrolls' at some stage observed a
Community Rule (Serek ha-yaḥad, 1QS. c.100 BCE?) in
which the following rather extreme guideline is contained:
"If any
man has uttered the [Most] Venerable Name even though frivolously,
or as a result of shock or for any other reason whatever, while
reading the Book or praying, he shall be dismissed and shall return
to the Council of the Community no more." (trans. Vermes, n.d.:70).
Certain Jewish thinkers and various Christian Biblical exegetes
have found hints of God's unknowability in the Hebrew Bible. In for
example, the mention of the fact that Moses "drew near to the thick
darkness where God was" (Exod. 20:21b) and that he was refused
direct vision of God's "face" (Exod 33:18f). In A Jewish
Theology, Jacobs states that in the history of Jewish religious
thought there is, "a definite tendency among some thinkers to negate
all attributes from God. He is to be described, if He is to be
described at all, as unknowable." (1973:38)
The Jewish philosopher and scriptural exegete Philo of
Alexandria (Judaeus c. 20 BCE - c. 50 CE) "has some claim to be called
the Father of negative theology" (Louth, 1981:19). In his
allegorical interpretation of the Greek Septuagint (= a Greek
version of the Hebrew Bible) he often had reason to underline the
supreme transcendence and unknowability of the ultimate God of
Israel, `the Existent' (Gk. to on cf. Plato Timaeus
27Df). God is "unknowable" (Gk. akataleptos; see De. Som.
I:67; De Mut. nom. 10; De post. Caini, 169, etc). Human beings can
grasp the truth of the existence of God but not the nature of His
unknowable Being: "Do not… suppose that the Existent that truly
exists is apprehended by any man... why should we wonder that the
Existent cannot be apprehended by men when even the mind in each of
us is unknown to us?" (Mut. II:7, 10). God is only knowable through
His works.
Commenting on "And the Glory of the Lord came down upon Sinai"
(Exodus 24:16a), Philo rejects a literal reading. He denies
"movements of place or change in the Deity". It is the "Glory of
God" which descended not the "essence of God". For Philo it is
fitting that "Sinai" signifies something "inaccessible" for "the
divine place is truly inaccessible and unapproachable, for not even
the holiest mind is able to ascend such a height to it so as merely
to approach and touch it." (Qu.Ex. II:45).
2
The late Harvard Professor of Hebrew Literature and Philosophy
H. A. Wolfson (d. 1974) entitled a lengthy chapter of his
Philo:
Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity and
Islam,
`The
unknowability of God and Divine Predicates' (II:94ff) and wrote,
"One of the most familiar facts about Philo is that to him God was
the Absolute, a single and unique Being beyond even the Monad and
the number One, as well as beyond the Good and all other
categories." In sketching the Philonic doctrine of the
unknowability of God he noted Philo's going beyond Plato and
Aristotle by holding that "it is wholly impossible that God
according to His essence, should be known by any creature" (Post. C
48:168) for as One "unnamable" and "ineffable" He is "not
comprehended by the mind" (Immut. 13:16) (Wolfson II:111).
For Philo, God is indirectly knowable through His powers
(dynameis)
-- for example, the intermediaries, "Logos", "Idea" and
"Angel". While he gave great weight to the ultimate unknowability
of God, his ontology and anthropology neither rule out the human
ecstatic mystical experience of the Godhead nor the vision of His
blinding Light (Opif. 71; Abr. 74-6).
The largely occasional Rabbinic perspectives extant in the Midrashic
and Talmudic literatures (1st BCE -> 6th cent. CE) contains
relatively little precise theological speculation. A few references
which approach a `theology of negation' have been registered by
Louis Jacobs. He noted, for example, that the Palestinian teacher R.
Abin said: `When Jacob of the village of Neboria was in Tyre, he
interpreted the verse, "For Thee, silence is praise, O God" (Psalm
65:2) to mean that silence is the ultimate praise of God' (Jacobs,
1973:47-8).
Influenced by Neo-Platonism, the medieval Jewish philosophers
generally held to a negative theology. They held the belief that God
transcends all human knowledge and experience. In discussing the
significance of the unity of God in his The Book of Direction to
the Duties of the Heart, Baya ibn Pakudah (c. 1050-c.1156 CE)
propounds such a negative theology. Human beings should negate from
God all human and finite limitations and hold that He is unknowable
or beyond human comprehension: "The essence of your knowledge of
Him, O my brother, is your firm admission that you are completely
ignorant of His true essence." (Ibn Pakuda, 1973:143, cf. Jacobs,
1973:39f)
The great Spanish Jewish philosopher Maimonides (Moseh ben Maimon,
c. 1135-1204) in his Guide for the Perplexed dwelt at length
on aspects of a negative theology of the nature or essence of God.
For him talk about attributes of the divine nature was tantamount to
polytheism. Even negative attributes cannot be befittingly
predicated of God: "In the contemplation of His essence, our
comprehension and knowledge prove insufficient; in the examination
of His works, how they necessarily result from His will, our
knowledge proved to be ignorance, and in the endeavour to extol Him
in words, all our efforts in speech are mere weakness and failure."
(Guide LVIII, Maimonides, 1956:83).
The ancient Jewish Kabbalistic tradition (partly rooted in
antiquity) on the other hand, upholds an esoteric theology in which
the ultimate Godhead is the unknowable and incomprehensible En
Sof ("without limit"). The Infinite without name and beyond
attribute is one with, though beyond, the emanated ten Sefirot
("Spheres") which are His instruments in the seen and unseen cosmos.
Writing about God in the Kabbalah Gershom Scholem has stated, "From
the sayings of some early kabbalists, it is apparent that they are
careful not even to ascribe personality to God. Since He is beyond
everything -- beyond even imagination, thought, or will -- nothing
can be said of him that is within the grasp of our thought." (Scholem,
1972:661).
While the doctrine of the incomprehensibility of God is not exactly
central to mainstream Judaism key medieval and other Jewish thinkers
have subscribed to an apophatic theology.
CHRISTIANITY
As
with the Hebrew Bible and Rabbinic literatures, the New Testament
does not contain a systematic doctrine of God (Gk. theos; kyrios
= `Lord') -- there is neither a use of the word trinity nor a
sustained deification of Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus Christ frequently
spoke intimately of the God of the Hebrew Bible as the divine
"Father" (Aram. `Abba') though His transcendence was not
compromised. The Pauline and pseudo-Pauline letters He cannot be
visioned for "No one has ever seen God.." (John 1:18a). As a divine
manifestation however, Christ the "Son" has indirectly "made him
known" (Jn 1:18b cf. Jn 6:46).
3
From the early second century CE occasional and then numerous
Christians writers in one way or another held to a negative
theology. The "incomprehensibility" of God was widely affirmed. The
partially preserved apocryphal
Preaching
of Peter (Kerygma Petrou
110 CE?) contains one of the earliest explicit Christian references
to God being "incomprehensible"; the "Incomprehensible who
comprehends all things" (Hennecke II:99 cf. ERel. 6:19).
Many early and later Christian and non-Christian gnostic groups
viewed the Ultimate Godhead as One unknown/ unknowable. He is the
`Wholly Other' not responsible for this material sphere of darkness.
Such is the basic theodicy of many gnostic groups (Zandee 1964:21).
Presenting itself as a revelation of "the mysteries" by Jesus the
Saviour to John Son of Zebedee, The Apocryphon of John for
example opens with an extended negative theology (see Robinson,
1984:99ff). The early gnostic theologia negativa has been
thought to be "an anticipation of the speculations of the Church
Fathers, especially of the mystics among them" (Quispel
1955:57).
Due in part to the influence of eclectic contemporary Middle
Platonism and Hellenistic Judaism, a negative definition of God
"appears occasionally and incidentally among the apostolic fathers..
and is a significant feature among the apologists (Palmer, 1983:224;
see Grant, 1988). Like Philo, various early Christian apologists use
such negative theological epithets as "uncreated", "uncontained", "unnameable"
(Daniélou, 1973:323f, cf. their uses of "invisible", "impalpable",
"impassible"; "uncontainabele"). By this means they underlined the
transcendence of God.
Justin Martyr (c.100-165 CE) was perhaps the most important second
century apologist. He sates that God the Father is "nameless" and "unbegotten"
and adds, "The name Christ.. contains an unknown significance, just
as the title `God' is not a name, but represents the idea, innate in
human nature, of an inexpressible reality.." (Apologia II.5
cited Bettenson, 1969:63). Christ the "Logos" is a subordinate Deity
distinguished from the ultimate unknowable Godhead. He is a "visible
God" -- "God" born from "God", like Fire lit from another Fire or
Light radiating from the Sun (Dial. 128).
In
the late 170s CE Athenagoras of Athens in his Presbeia
("Supplication") refers to "the One God" as "incomprehensible" (Suppl.
10.1 cited Prestige, 1952:3). Theophilus bishop of Antioch (late 2nd
c. CE) in his Ad Autoclycum ("To Autolycus") declared, "The
form of God ineffable.. in glory He is uncontainable, in greatness
incomprehensible, in height inconceivable." (ad. Aut. I.3; cited
Prestige ibid).
The famed author of the anti-gnostic Against the Heresies (Adversus haeresus), Irenaeus bishop of Lyons (fl. c.115-190 CE)
spoke of Christ the Logos as the Mediator of revelation. The Son
(Jesus) safeguarded the invisibility of the Father (God)" for the
invisible, incomprehensible God "in his true nature and immensity
cannot be discovered or described by his creatures" (Adv. Haer.
IV.20.6 cited Bettenson, 1969:74).
Brought up in Carthage the, the African theologian Tertullian
(160-220) wrote a large number of polemical treatises. He often
refers to God as invisible and incomprehensible. In his early Apologeticum (c.197 CE) he refers to God as "..invisible,
though he is seen, incomprehensible, though manifested by grace" (Apol.
17 cited Bettenson, 1969:103).
Clement of Alexandria (c.150-c.215 CE) reckoned God both One and
beyond Oneness, a transcendent Deity that human thoughts can never
match. He reckoned Moses a true Gnostic (gnostikos) since he
did not attempt to "encompass" the transcendent God Who "cannot be
encompassed"; not setting up any representative "statue" of Him in
the "sanctuary" (the Holy Place / Holy of Holies, at the centre of
the Tabernacle or Jerusalem Temple), "thus making it clear that God
is a mystery, invisible and illimitable" (Strom V 11:74.4 cited
Daniélou, 1973:326). Like Philo, Clement and other apologists --
including Theophilus of Antioch (d.c.180 CE; refer Ad. Autolycum
I,3) and Athenagoras (2nd cent. CE; see Supl. 10) -- specifically
refer to God as One "unknowable" (Gk. akataleptos;
Clement,
Strom V.12.82 etc).
Son of a Christian martyr the erudite Origen (c.185-c.254 CE),
perhaps the most prolific and learned of the fathers of the Church,
in his De Principiis ("On First Principles") and other works
propounds a primarily negative theology. He asserts that without
doubt God is "incomprehensible and immeasurable", beyond the grasp
of the human mind (De Prin. I.1.5). God comprehends all things but
is comprehended by none among His creatures. Human minds cannot
behold God as He is in Himself (ibid IV.4.8; I.1.5f).
Plotinus (205-270 CE; the founder of Neoplatonism) settled in Rome
around 245 CE and subsequently composed his fifty-four treatises
known, after their grouping by his disciple Porphry (d.304 CE) as
the Enneads (`Nines' 6x9 = 54). He was an important source
of negative and mystical theology (Clark, 1987:368) for it was "he
who raised the concept to philosophical respectability" (Walker,
1974:9). Among his teachings is that the Divine exists in a "Triad"
of three entitles (hypostases) the highest degree of which,
the `One' transcends Psyche ("Soul") and Nous
("Intellect"), is unknowable, beyond human thoughts, essence,
existence and oneness (Ennead V. 3.13; 5.6, etc). It can
only be inadequately described negatively.
Plotinus' work directly or indirectly through such of his followers
as the anti-Christian Porphyry (232-305 CE), Iambilicus (c.245-326
CE) and Proclus (c.412-485), influenced both the Church Fathers and
emergent Islamic philosophy (see Baine Harris, 1976:1ff). It was
partly under the influence of eclectic Middle and Neo-Platonic
philosophy -- which directly or indirectly held to the
transcendence/incomprehensibility of the `Absolute' -- that many of
the Church Fathers championed a negative theology in which the
incomprehensibility of God is fundamental.
The adoption of consubstantial (homoousios) trinitarianism
by more than 300 (largely Eastern) Christian bishops at the Council
of Nicea (325 CE) did not prevent most Church Fathers from
continuing to champion the Absolute Mystery of the Godhead. The
doctrine of the incomprehensibility of God was not eclipsed by
either a literalist incarnationalism nor a trinitarianism of
"substance" (ousia)
Athanasius (c. 296-337 CE) the youthful champion of Nicean orthodoxy
and anti-Arianism, in a `Letter to the Monks' (358 CE) stated that
"..even if it is impossible to grasp what God is, yet it is possible
to say what he is not." (Hanson, 1970:448).
The various major Cappodocian theologians of the fourth cent. CE. in
different ways spoke about the incomprehensibility of God. Gregory
of Nyssa (c.335-395?) for example, regarded the heights of mystical
contemplation as the realization of the incomprehensibility of God.
In his writings (influenced by Neo-Platonic works) is layed the
foundation of a `mysticism of darkness' based upon an exegesis of
Moses' Sinaitic ascent (Exodus 24:15ff). It is related to the three
stages of 1) being in the "light" (phos) = purification 2)
being in the "cloud" (nephele) = contemplation of
intelligibles and 3) being in the "darkness" (gnophos; Exod.
20:21) = the termination of knowledge before the ultimate
inaccessibility of God and the mystical "ascent" through divine
love: "Moses' vision of God began with light; afterwards God spoke
to him in a cloud. But when Moses rose higher and became more
perfect he saw God in the darkness.." (Comm. on the Song XI:1000;
cited Louth 1981:83)
Among the many illuminating passages in the writings of Gregory it
must suffice to quote a brief extract from his marvellous exegetical
treatise On the Life of Moses,
What then does it mean that Moses entered the darkness and
then saw God in it? [Exod 20:21]... as the mind progresses,
through an even greater and more perfect diligence, comes
to apprehend reality, as it approaches more nearly to
contemplation , it sees more clearly what of the divine
nature is uncontemplated. For leaving behind everything that
is observed, not only what sense comprehends but also what
the intelligence thinks it sees, it keeps on penetrating
deeper until by the intelligence's yearning for
understanding it gains access to the invisible and the
incomprehensible, and there it sees God. This is the true
knowledge of what is sought; this is the seeing that consist
in not seeing, because that which is sought transcends all
knowledge, being separated on all sides by
incomprehensibility as by a kind of darkness. Wherefore John
the sublime, who penetrated into the luminous darkness, says
No one has ever seen God, [John 1:18] thus asserting
that knowledge of the divine essence is unattainable not
only by men by every intelligent creature.
When therefore, Moses grew in
knowledge, he declared that he had seen God in the darkness,
that is, that he had then come to know that what is divine
is beyond all knowledge and comprehension, for the text
says, Moses approached the dark cloud where God was.
What God? He who made darkness his hiding place as
David says [Psalm 17:12] who was initiated into the
mysteries in the same inner sanctuary." (Gregory of Nyssa,
1978:94-95).
Writing in the Platonic and Alexandrian tradition, the influential
bishop and theologian Athanasius (d. 377 CE) in his Letter to
the Monks (358 CE) wrote that `..even if it is impossible to
grasp what God is, yet it is possible to say what He is not." (cited
Hanson 1970:448). He occasionally described God as incomprehensible
(Gent. 2.35.40). Referring to Psalm 138:6 and other Biblical texts,
Basil of Caesarea (d. 379 CE) warned that it is "presumptuous to
claim to know what is God's essence (ousia)." (Turner
1977:302). A homily on the `Incomprehensible nature of God' is
extant from the great orator and one time bishop of Constantinople,
John Chrysostom ("golden mouth" c. 354-407 CE) (Graffin, & Malingren,
1972). Though not exactly a proponent of negative theology, the
influential Christian theologian Augustine of Hippo (d.430 CE)
advised when talking about God, `Put everything from your mind;
whatever occurs to you deny it ... say, He is not that." (Enarr. 2
in Ps 26:8; MPL xxxvi, col. 203 cited Turner 1977:301).
The writings of the unknown philosopher-monk Pseudo-Dionysius the
Areopagite (fl. c. 500 CE cf. Acts 17:34) present a synthesis of
Christian doctrines and Neoplatonic thought. Perhaps of Syrian
provenance, they are very important texts in the history of
Christian mysticism. Lossky reckoned that they "have enjoyed an
undisputed authority in the theological tradition of the East, as
well as that of the West" (Lossky 1957:24). Following Proclus (d. c.
487) Pseudo-Dionysius seems to have the first Christian thinker to
have made use of the theological terms `apophatic' ("negative
[theology]") and `cataphatic' ("affirmative [theology]") 4
Subsequently they became familiar terms in Byzantine
theology, from the time of the
Greek theologians Maximus the Confessor (d.662 CE)
and John Damascene (d. c. 749 CE) (see Louth, 1989:87). For Pseudo-Dionysis
"the reference of both apophatic and cataphatic theology is the One
God.. It is of the same God that we are to make both affirmations
and denials" (Louth 1989:87). For him God in Himself is beyond the
God we know through cataphatic theology. God is more adequately
"known" through apophatic theology, the paradoxical mystical
theology of denial or unknowing:
"God is known in all things and apart from all things; and
God is known by knowledge and by unknowing. Of him there is
understanding, reason, knowledge, touch, perception,
opinion, imagination, name and many other things, but he is
not understood, nothing can be said of him, he cannot be
named. He is not one of the things that are, nor is he known
in any of the things that are; he is all things in
everything and nothing in anything; he is known to all from
all things and to no-one from anything. For we rightly say
these things of God, and he is celebrated by all beings
according to the analogy that all things bear to him as
their Cause. But the most divine knowledge of God, that in
which he is known through unknowing, according to the union
that transcends the mind, happens when the mind, turning
away from all things, including itself, is united with the
dazzling rays, and there and then illuminated in the
unsearchable depth of wisdom. (DN VII.3: 872A-B)
The first chapter of
The
Mystical Theology
poses the question `What is the Divine darkness' and opens with a
beautiful prayer in which the supplicant says,
"Lead us up beyond unknowing and light, up to the farthest,
highest peak of mystic scripture, where the mysteries of
God's Word lie simple, absolute and unchangeable in the
brilliant darkness of a hidden silence.." (cited Rorem,
1993:184).
Mystical union with God is only possible in terms of the darkness of
"unknowing" (agnāsia). It is never an actual or complete
union with the Unnameable God, the transcendent Divinity Who is
beyond Being (huperousios). The Dionysian corpus had a major
influence upon a range of key Christian thinkers and mystics most of
whom made significant theological statements about the
incomprehensibility of God.
At the end of the Patristic period, John of Damascus (d. 749) taught
that positive statements about God do not reveal His nature. Nothing
can be said about Him beyond what has been indicated in revelation.
In his On the Orthodox Faith (I.4) he states that the
existence of God is clear though His nature is incomprehensible: "..
what He is by His essence and nature, this is altogether beyond our
comprehension and knowledge." (PG. 94, 797b cited Ware, 1963:??).
The Irish theologian and Neoplatonist philosopher John Scotus
Eriugena (d.c. 875 CE) translated the writings of Pseudo-Dionysius
into Latin and gave a central place to apophatic theology. He
mediated apophatic theology to the theologians of the Latin Middle
Ages. The doctrine of the incomprehensibility of God was frequently
voiced in the Middle Ages. It was upheld by the Christian
Scholastics and by notable Reformist theologians.
The Italian Dominican theologian Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274 CE) in his
magnum opus, the Summa Theologica discussed whether
God is the object of the science of theology. He noted the point
that theology does "not start by making the assumption of defining
God; as St John Damascene remarks, In God we cannot say what he
is .." . (Ia.7; Aquinas, 1964:25). In various of his works
Aquinas echoes his words "What God actually is always remains hidden
from us. And this is the highest knowledge one can have of God in
this life, that we know Him to be above every thought that we are
able to think of Him." (De Veritate cited Happold 1971:31).
In the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) incomprehensibilitas is
explicitly declared to be a property of God.
The unknown English, possibly Carthusian author of the mystical
treatise The Cloud of Unknowing (14th cent. CE) gave
preeminence to spiritual love in the quest for experience of the
unknowable Godhead beyond reason. Much influenced by
Pseudo-Dionysius (= Saint Denis) -- cited as having said, "The truly
divine knowledge of God is that which is known in unknowing" (LXX)
-- this work which is addressed to a young contemplative monk. It
has it that the mystic quest is beyond both intellectual study and
the imaginative faculty. In the humble lifting up of the heart to
God one finds a "cloud of unknowing" for, "This darkness and cloud
is always between you and your God, no matter what you do, and it
prevents you from seeing him clearly by the light of understanding
in your reason, and from experiencing him in sweetness of love in
your affection." (III:33 trans. Walsh, 1981:120).
The German philosopher Nicholas of Cusa (d.1464 CE) wrote a treatise
On Learned Ignorance (1440 CE). Much influenced by Dionysius
and Erigena he reckoned `learned ignorance' to be the most advanced
stage of knowledge. This in the light of the unknowability of
absolute truth and of the Godhead beyond names and positive
attributes. He regarded negative theology as fundamental.
Martin Luther (d.1546) frequently referred to the All-Powerful God,
as One hidden Deus Absconditas (hidden God) "in distinction
from the Deus Revelatus (revealed God) as still a hidden
God in view of the fact that we cannot fully know Him even through
His special" (Berkhof:31)
Best known for his monumental The Mystical Theology of the
Eastern Church, Vladimir Lossky (d. 1958) is widely recognized
as having been a pre-eminent Russian Orthodox émigré writer.
He considered negative theology' (apophasis) to be normative
in Christian dogmatic reflection (Williams, 1980:96).
The influential Swiss Reformed (Protestant) theologian Karl Barth
(d. 1968) in his incomplete though massive Church Dogmatics
(1927>) devotes a section to `Limits of the knowledge of God' (II §
27;179-254), the basic `Hiddenness of God'. A useful sketch of the
history of the Christian affirmation of the incomprehensibilitas
Dei is registered. The unknowability of God has a "basic and
determinate position" relative to those doctrines surrounding the
knowledge of God (Barth 1957:185)
In
the article `Trinity' in the recent Encyclopedia of Religion
(ed. Eliade et al. 1987) the incomprehensibility of God is clearly
stated, "First, God is an ineffable and Absolute Mystery, whose
reality cannot adequately be comprehended or expressed by means of
human concepts." (ERel. 15:55).
ISLAM
The Arabic word Allāh (probably a contraction of al+ilāh =
`the deity') is the Islamic proper name indicative of the Essence of
God (occurring over 2,500 times in the Qur'ān). It is basically the
same as several of the Biblical Hebrew (and other Semitic)
designations of God (El, Eloah, Elohim). According to Gardet, the
term Allāh describes God "in his inaccessible nature as a deity both
unique and one (tawād) whose essence remains unrevealed.."
(ER 6:29). Without bypassing the divine providential immanence, the
Qur'ān repeatedly underlines God's transcendence. It refers, for
example, to God as greatly exalted above human theological and other
concepts. God is "above and beyond all categories of human thought
and imagination, for He is "beyond all that they describe [of Him]"
(Q. 6:100b cited Nasr, 1987:314). He is One Who "cannot be
comprehended by vision" (Q. 6:101): "Vision comprehendeth Him not,
but He comprehendeth [all] vision". He is One incomparable -- "There
is naught like unto Him" (Q.42:11; cf. 16:60; 32:27) -- and
supremely "All-High", "Transcendent" or "Exalted"
(al-`alíy
Q. 4:34; 22:62; 31:30).
The Arabic third person masculine pronoun
هو
huwa = `He is' is many times used of God (Allāh) in the
Qur'ān. An extended form of this word
هويةhuwiyya
(lit. "He-ness") indicates the Divine Self Identity, the Ipseity.
5
[=60] In medieval and
later Islamic mysticism it was a term used to denote the
transcendent Divinity. In his Meccan Revelations (al-Futūḥāt
al-Makkiyya) and other works, Shaykh Muḥyī al-Dīn Ibn al-`Arabā
(d.1270 CE)
It has been said that Ibn `Arabī, who championed the unknowability
and unmanifest nature of the Absolute Essence, "experienced the
vision of the highest divine essence in the shape of the word hū,
"He," luminous between the arms of the letter CHECK hā’
" (Schimmel,
1975:270).
There is a section on huwiyya (“He-ness”) in the important al-Insān al-kāmil.. ("The Perfect Man...") of `Abd al-Karām al-Jīlī
(d.c.832/1428). This Persian Shī`īte Sufī writes in this work:
"The Ipseity of the True One (God; huwiyya al-ḥaqq):
this indicates His hiddenness (ghayb), the manifestation
of which is impossible save by means of the totality of the
[Divine] Names and Attributes. This since their Reality alludeth
unto the interiority of the Divine Uniqueness (bāin al-wāidāya);
it alludeth unto His Being (kun) and His Essence (dhāt)
by means of His Names and Attrubutes: `The Ipesity (al-huwiyya)
is the hiddenness of the Divine Essence which is Uniquely One (wāhid)...”
(Jīlī, al-Insān [1956] 1:96-7).
Also related to the Arabic letter
ﮫ
"h" (hā') and هو huwa (`He is') is the designation of the Divine Essence
dhāt, (loosely) `the sphere of the Divine Ipseity'.
Traditionally it lies `above' and `beyond' the ever more elevated
succession of spheres or `worlds', [1] Nāsāt ("this Mortal World");
[2] Malakūt ("the world of the angels or the Kingdom [of God]");
[3] Jabarūt (`the sphere of the divine decrees or celestial
Powers"); [4] Lāhūt ("the realm of the Divine theophany"). The
term هاهوت Hāhūt is modelled on the names of these `realms' -- themselves
rooted in Christian Aramaic or Syriac theological terminology (see
Arnaldez, `Lāhūt and Nāsūt'). References to Hāhūt are found in the
writings of Muslim theosophical writers and mystics.
The Qur'ān accords God various "Names" indicative, anong other
things, of the Divine perfections. Certain of these Qur'ānic `Names
of God' are traditionally reckoned among the ninety-nine `Most
Beautiful Names [of God]' (al-asmā ' al-ḥusnā, see Q. 20:8).
Certain of them indicate the divine unknowability just as others
indicate the divine immanence. Of obvious relevence in the former
respect is God's being al-ghayb ("the Mystery", "the
Unseen") which occurs a number of times in the Qur'ān (2:3 see
Kassis, 479-80) Relevant also is the hapax legomenon (`once
occuring') and Divine attribute, the name amad (loosely,
"Impenetrable", "Eternal", "Everlasting") which occurs only in the
centrally important Sūrat al-Tawḥīd ("Sūra of the Divine
Unity", 112:2). The Arabic root Ṣ-M-D has the primary meaning
"without hollow" or "without cleft" perhaps indicating, as Louis
Gardet has recently argued, the Divine impenetrability or
unknowability (Gardet, ER 6:28). The same writer has translated the
name of God `Aẓīm as "Inaccessible" (Q. 2:255;42:4, etc)
indicating One "well beyond the bounds of human understanding, which
cannot limit him in any way or compare him to anything (ibid, 31).
Qur'ān 57:3 not only describes God as the "First and the Last" but
also the "Manifest and the Hidden (ẓāhir wa'l-bāin)." While
His attribute ẓāhir implies the possibility of His being
"disclosed", "manifest" or "outward",
bāṭin indicates his
being "Hidden", "Unmanifest" or "Inward".
It is sometimes reckoned that the supreme or "Greatest Name of God"
(al-ism al-a`ẓam) is the "name of God's Essence
(al-dhāt)
as well as of all the Divine Names (asmā') and Qualities
(ṣifāt) as related to and "contained" in the Divine Nature." (Nasr,
1987:312). The many attributes of God (ṣifāt Allāh) are
fundamentally appellations and actions of the Divinity. From early
medieval times attempts were made to systematize and classify them.
[6]
The relationship of the various Attributes and the Essence was much debated.
The most basic attribute was
wujūd
= "Existence" which has been equated with the dhāt Allāh, the "Essence of God" and with the nafs Allāh or "Self of
God" which is several times mentioned in the Qur'ān (Q.3:28; 6:54;
5:116; 20:41).
Some Muslim "theologians", furthermore, spoke of the `Attributes of
the Essence' (ṣifāt al-dhāt) which indicate aspects of the
divine transcendence (e.g. Qayyūm = `Self-Subsisting') which
are (in varying ways) differentiated from other supplementary divine
attributes e.g. various divine powers, providence and immanence.
Islamic theologians and philosophers disagreed as to whether the
divine attributes are [1] the very Essence -- the opinion of various
Mu`tazilites and philosophers; [2] something different from the
Essence, or [3] neither the Essence nor something different. (al-Sharkawi,
1983:30)
7 Shī`ī
Muslims have often made a sharp distinction between the attributes
of the divine dhāt ("Essence") and the other divine
attributes which they generally understood figuratively. Worth
quoting in this connection is Imām `Alā's declaration: "Absolute
unity (kamāl al-tawhād) excludeth all attributes (al-ṣifāt)"
(cited AQA 3:15 = SV:15).
Seven divine Attributes are sometimes called the "Names of the
Essence" ( ). Ibn `Arabī reckoned them as [1] "The Living" (al-ḥayy), [2] "the Knowing (al-`alām), [3] "the Wanting"
(al-mārid), [4] "the Powerful" (al-qadār), [5] "the
Speaking" (al-mutakallim / al-qā'il), [6] "the Hearing"
(al-samā`) and [7] "the Seeing" (al-baṣīr).
8
In
sayings attributed to the Prophet Muhammad and the [Twelver] Imāms
contained in a multitude of Sunnā and Shī`ī sources, many statements
underlining the exalted transcencdence or unknowability of God are
registered. A well-known Prophetic tradition cited by al-Ghazali
(d.1111 CE) in his Mishkat al-anwār ("The Niche of Lights")
-- and occasionally referred to by the Bāb and Bahā'-Allāh -- has it that,
"Before God are 70[000] veils of Light and Darkness. Should they be
unveiled, the Splendours of His Countenance (subuhāt wajhihi)
would assuredly set ablaze all who discern Him with their vision."
(cited al-Ghāzālī, 1964:39)
In
summing up aspects of Shā`ā cosmology it has been noted that "The
essence of the Creator is separated from the creation by veils (ḥejāb),
curtains (setr), and pavilions (sorādeq) impregated
with the divine attributes.." (EIr 6:317).
9
Among the
significant traditions of the Imāms cited by Kulaynā is his Uṣul
al-Kāfī
is the following attributed to Abū Ja`far,
"Talk together about the creation of God (khalq Allāh)
but do not talk about God Himself for direct discussion about
God increases naught but the bewilderment the one who indulges
in it." (Kāfī, I:92)
"Talk together about everything but never talk about the
Essence of God (dhāt Allāh)." (ibid).
The inacessibility and unknowability of God are indirectly expressed
in Islamic cosmology in a multitude of different ways. Neoplatonic influence was early felt in Islam. A recension of the
last three books of Plotinus' Enneads with some commentary
was early on translated into Arabic (and Syriac) under the erroneous
title `The Theology of Aristotle' (Uthālājiyā Arisṭāṭālīs).
Widely known from the mid 9th century CE the Pseudo-Aristotelain
`Theology' was commented upon by early Muslim philosophical
theologians; including al-Kindā (d.c.870 CE) and Al-Farabā (d.950)
the so-called `Second Teacher' (al-mu`allim al-thānī) whose
highly influential `Opinions of the Inhabitants of the Virtuous
City' commences with a Neoplatonically influenced chapter `On the
First Being' (Lawson, 1991:118). One of the Arabic Plotinus sources Fā al-ilm al-ilāhā ("On the Divine Science") has it that,
"Whoever wishes to describe the Almighty Creator must remove from
Him all attributes" (from the Arabic Enneads fragments, cited
Walker 1974:13). This is echoed in many Islamic and Bābā-Bahā’ī
sources.
In
addition to writings of Plotinus, certain works of Porphry and
Proclus were also available in Arabic "as a result of the
Hellenistic scholars having took refuge in Persian courts after
Justinian closed the then Neoplatonic Platonic academy at Athens in
529." (Morewedge, 1992: viii). As a religious philosophy
Neoplatonism was utilized by Avicenna (Ibn Sina d.1037 CE), Averroes
and other Islamic theologians and philosophers. It had a significant
effect upon major Jewish and Christian medieval philosophers and
theologians.
Fazlur Rahman succinctly sums up the influence of Neoplatonic
streams of thought about the One into early Islam:
"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."
At one point in his Mishkat al-anwār ("Niche of Lights") the
great Muslim theologian Abu Hāmid al-Ghazali (d.1111) writes that
"..none knows Allah with a real knowledge but He Himself; for every
known falls necessarily under the sway and within the province of
the Knower.." (Gairdener, 1952:107)
In his article `The Unknowability of God in al-Ghazali' Burrell
writes, "So the upshot of God's unknowability for Ghazali, is to
render speculative inquiry into God and the things of God
effectively incompatible with the essential human task of responding
wholeheartedly to the lure of the One -- from whom all things
derive. For such inquiry is bound to fall short of its goal, and to
the extent that it pretends to carry us to that goal, we will be
misled and diverted from setting out on the path which can take us
there
The aforementioned Ibn `Arabā underlined the unknowability and
unmanifest nature of the transcendent Divine Essence: "The Divine
Essence (al-dhāt al-ilāhiyya) cannot be understood by the
rational faculty..." (Ibn `Arabi, Futuhāt II:257; Chittick,
1989:60). The Divine Essence is transcendent above the cosmos,
"independent of the worlds" (Q. 3:97 ibid II:502). The Great Shaykh
often cited the the following prophetic tradition: "Reflect (tafakkur)
upon all things, but reflect not upon God's Essence." (cited ibid
62). Any attempt by human beings to fathom the Divine Essence is
futile as implies in the Qur' ānic phrase, "God would have you
beware of Himself (nafsihi)" (3:28/30).
Chittick sums up key aspects of Ibn `Arabā's theology when he
states, "God is known through the relations, attributions, and
correlations that be‑come established between Him and the cosmos.
But the Essence is unknown, since nothing is related to It."
"In respect of Itself the Essence has no name, since It is
not the locus of effects, nor is It known by anyone. There
is no name to denote It without relationship, nor with any
assurance (tamkān). For names act to make known and
to distin‑guish, but this door [to knowledge of the Essence]
is forbidden to anyone other than God, since "None knows God
but God." So the names exist through us and for us. They
revolve around us and be‑come manifest within us. Their
properties are with us, their goals are toward us, their
expressions are of us, and their be‑ginnings are from
us...Reflection (fikr) has no governing prop‑erty or
domain in the Essence of the Real, neither rationally nor
according to the Law. For the Law has forbidden reflection
upon the Essence of God, a point to which is alluded by His
words, "God warns you about His Self" (3:28). This is
because there is no interrelationship (munasaba) between the Essence of the Real and the essence of the
creatures. (Futuḥāt I:230)
In our view there is no disputing the fact that the Essence is
unknown. To It are ascribed descriptions that make It in‑comparable
with the attributes of temporal things (al-ḥadath). It
possesses eternity (al-qidam), and to Its Being is ascribed
beginninglessness (al-azal). But all these names designate
negations, such as the negation of beginning and everything as
aproprlate to temporal originatlon." (Futuḥāt II:557 cited Chittick,
1989:62).
Nascent Ismā`īlī (Shī`ī) philosophy was strongly influenced by
Neoplatonic thought: "leading members of the Ismā`īlī sect accepted
… a considerable dose of neoplatonic theory as a reinforcement for a
dogma whose central proposition was the unknowableness of God"
(Walker 1974:7). Neoplatonic cosmology and theology seems to have
been introduced by the dā`ī ("summoner") al-Nasafā (d. Bukhārā
332/943) who was influenced by an Arabic recension of Plotinus' Enneads -- in the form of the Pseudo-Aristotelan `Theology'
(Walker 1993:40f). His ideas were developed by Abū Ya`qūb al-Sijistānī
(fl. mid. 10th cent. CE?). For al-Sijistānī the ultimate Godhead is
beyond `being' and attributes; the Divine Identity (innāyah)
is way beyond unknowability. Even the logicality of apophatic
theology is an inadequate indication of the nature of the Godhead.
Negative theology is negated before the sublime mystery of the
Ultimately Unknowable; the transcendent Godhead beyond unknowing.
Before the God Who transcends being and non-being is the negation of
the negated:
"There does not exist a tanzīh ["transcendence"]
more brilliant and more splendid than that by which we
establish the absolute transcendence of our Originator
through the use of these phrases in which a negative and a
negative of a negative apply to the thing denied." (Kitāb
al-Iftikhār, cited Walker 1993:78).
Among other Ismā'īlī texts the unknowability of the God beyond
attributes is all but registered in the Rasā'il Ikhwān al-safā'
("Treatises of the Brethren of Purity" 10th cent. CE?) which show
the influence of various schools of Hellenistic wisdom (Netton
1982:39f).
Sayyid `Alī Muhammad Shirazi,
the Bāb (d. 1850 CE).
There is hardly a major or minor work of the Bāb which does not
contain a celebration of the Divine Transcendence. For the Messiah
figure from Shārāz, the absolute Divine Essence (dhāt al-dhāt)
is `Wholly Other'. Numerous exordiums to scores of the Bāb's Arabic
and Persian compositions contain verses in which the Ultimate
Godhead is declared beyond the ken of the human mind. So central was
the Bāb's maintaining of the transcendence of God that He changed
the basmalah (= "In the Name of God the Merciful the
Compassionate" ) to "In the Name of God, the Inaccessible
(al-amna`),
the Most Holy (al-aqdas)." The last two Divine Attributes of
this classical Islamic invocation -- present before all but one of
the 114 suras of the Qur'ān -- are replaced with two non-qur'ānic
superlatives which, in one way or another indicate, the ultimate
Godhead being set apart in His transcendent Holiness. Qur'ān 42:11b
("There is naught like unto Him") is frequently quoted in his
writings from the Qayyām al-asmā' (suras 30, 32, 33, etc)
until the Kitāb al-asmā'.
Tafsīr Du`a al-ṣabāh.
Among the minor works of the Bāb is his Tafs’īr Du`a al-ṣabāh,
a commentary upon a phrase within a dawn prayer ascribed to Imām `Alā
(d. 40/661) the cousin, son-in-law and successor of the Arabian
Prophet Muammad (INBAMC 40:155-162).
10
The phrase commented upon is part of a prayer in which God is
addressed as One "the proof of Whose Essence is furnished
through this same Essence (dalla `alā dhātihi bi-dhātihi)"
(Qummī, 1989:92). The transcendent Divine Essence is really only
adequately testified to Its Own Self. Only God Himself can
comprehend His "Essential Reality" (dhātiyyat) for the
"bird" of the human "heart" has, for all eternity, been unable to
"ascend" unto the domain of His mystery. Knowledge/ gnosis of the
Eternal Divine Essence is impossible and inaccessible (ibid, 155-9).
In this work of the Bāb, the transcendence and unknowability of God
is quite frequently underlined.
Tafsir hadīth of al-`amā'
Tradition has it that the Prophet Muhammad was asked, `Where was our
Lord before He created the creation [or, `the heavens and the earth']?
He is said to have replied, `He [God] was in a Cloud (`amā'),
above it [or Him] air (hawā') and below it [or Him] air".
11
This reply probably originally expressed the conviction that God was
hidden and self-subsisting in His own Being; dependent upon nothing.
It perhaps indicated that before His work of creation,
God was in obscurity, enshrouded in the cloud of His own Being,
wrapped in a dark mist.
For Sufis like `Abd al-Karīm al-Jīlī (1365-1420)
`amā'
indicated the absolute hiddenness of the transcendent Godhead. It
signfies "Being sunk in itself, bare potentiality" , "the eternal
and unchangeable ground of Being", the "absolute inwardness (buṭūn)
and occultation (istitar)" of the transcendent Divine
Essence (Nicholson, 1967:94-6).
Influenced by theosophical Sufism, both the Bāb and Bahā'-Allāh used Sufi
terminology extensively including the term `amā' though they
rejected the monistic ontology that sometimes informs and determines
certain attempts to locate the mystery of `amā'. In
Bābī-Bahā'ī scripture it is not always indicative of the hidden and
unknowable essence of God.
In
one of his early epistles the Bāb commented in some detail on the
`tradition of `amā'
12` amā'
13
He states that this tradition indicates God's isolated
independence. The term al-`amā' ("the Cloud") only inadequately indicates the Divine dhāt
("essence").14
In his interpretation, the Bāb seems to underline God's absolute
otherness to such an extent that the term
`amā'
only indirectly hints at his transcendent unknowability. God's nafs ("Logos-Self") and
dhāt ("Essence") are probably to
be thought of as created and hypostatic realities indicative of, yet
ontologically distinguishable from, His uncreated and absolute
Ipseity.
The manner then in which the Bāb expounds the
ḥadīth of al-`amā'
outrules those theosophical interpretations that are monistically
oriented. The term `amā' indicates God's absolute otherness.
It is derived from al-`amā or al-`amān ("blindness",
"unknowing") for vision is blinded before God's Face and eyes are
incapable of beholding His Countenance. `Amā' is indicative
of a Reality that is "Unconditioned" (muṭlaq), "Absolute"
(irf), "Uncompounded" (bat) and "Definitive"
(?
bātt ?).
For the
Bāb the `ḥadāth of al-`amā' enshrines subtle and
bewildering mysteries surrounding the Sinaitic theophany (see Qur'ān
7:142). It was not the unknowable essence of God (dhāt al-azal)
that appeared in the "Kingdom of `amā' (malakāt al-`amā')
and radiated forth from the Divine Light on Mount Sinai" but an
amr
(= lit command; here loosely `Logos' which God created from nothing.
The theophany on the Mount was not the manifestation of `amā'
as God's absolute essence or a monistic type `theophany or the
Divine Essence' (tajallā al-dhāt) but the disclosure of the
Divine Light (nār) "unto, through and in His Self
(nafs)." In abstruse language the Bāb counters the monistic type
interpretation of the relationship between `amā' and the
`theophany
of the Divine Essence' (tajallā al-dhāt) found in
certain Sufi treatises.
15
■
Letter to Mīrzā Ḥasan Waqāyī`-Nigār
In
a letter addressed to Mīrzā Ḥasan Waqāyī`-nigār, the Bāb comments
upon various qur'ānic texts including the Qur'ānic phrase, "We are
nearer to him [to man] than his jugular vein (abl al-warād)."
(Q. 50:16b; see INBMC 40:180-192). At the very beginning of his
comments on this phrase, its author underlines the utter singleness,
isolatedness, transcendence and unknowability of the Divine Essence (al-dhāt). God has eternally "detached" the Divine "Names
and Attributes" from referring to the "court" of His transcendent
"Presence" (adratihi) -- they apply primarily to His "Will"
(al-mashiyyat). Nearness to the Divine Essence is impossible
except by virtue of the theophany (tajallā) of His "Self"
(nafs) the locus of His "Will" and of the Messenger or
Manifestation of God. Qur'ān 50:16b alludes to the "sign of God" (āyat Allāh) which is found within the inmost human reality
which is (symbolically speaking) the human "heart" (fū'ād)
(see INBAMC 40:18183ff). T
Tafs’īr Laylat al-qadr ("Commentary on the Night of
Power")
Probably dating from time of the Bāb's imprisonment in Ādhirbayjān
(1848-9), the Tafs’īr Laylat al-qadr ("Commentary on the
Night of Power") is a succinct commentary on a phrase in sāra 97
(Sūrat al-qadr) of the Qur'ān. The sublimity of God's "Essential
Reality" (al-dhātiyyat) is early on declared transcendent
above "all things" (kull shay). Among other things it is
indicated that no praise is more lofty than praise of Him and no
eulogium more splendid (abhā) that that of the Divine Being.
Human beings only inadequately testify to the "Divinity"
(uluhiyya)
and "Lordship" (rububiyya) of the transcendent God Who is
beyond human comprehension (see INBAMC 69:14f).
Persian and Arabic Bayāns ("Expositions")
Both the Persian and Arabic Bayāns ("Expositions") of the Bāb
contain clear statements about the transcendence and
incomprehensibility of the Godhead. Some key theological issues are
set down in the first two bābs ("gates") of the 4th Wāid ("Unity")
of the Persian Bayān. Persian Bayān IV:2 discusses the two stations (maqāmayn) of the Nuqṭa ("Point") or "Sun of Truth" (shams-i
ḥaqīqat = Manifestation of God). The first station is that of
his being the Divine Manifestation (mahar-i ilāhiyya) representative of the ghayb-i dhāt ("Unseen Essence"). As
the Voice of the ghayb-i dhāt ("Unseen Essence") He
articulates a divinely revealed negative theology:
"..
He is One Indescribable by any description; One Who cannot be
characterized by any depiction. Supremely Transcendent (muta`ālī)
is He above any mention or praise -- sanctified beyond both
pristine whiteness (kāfūr lit. Camphor) and the acme of
actualization (jawhar imā' ā). It is impossible that He
be comprehended by anyone other than Himself or for anyone other
than He His Own Self to be united with Him. His is the creation
and the Command. No God is there except Him, the One, the
All-Powerful, the Transcendent" (Bayān-i farsā IV:1, 105 cf.
Bayān `Arabī, IV:1).
The second bāb ("gate") of the 4th Wāid ("Unity") makes it clear
that, God being unknowable, the "Point" (nuṭqa =
Manifestation of God) as the centre of the Divine Will (mashiyya)
is the locus of all theological statements: "The essence of this
section (bāb) is that the Eternal Divine Essence
(dhāt-i
azal).. hath ever been and will ever remain incomprehensible,
indescribable, beyond characterization and human vision.." (Bayān-i
farsā IV:2, 110; cf. Bayān-i `arabā IV:2).
Perhaps addressed to a Shaykhi (and Bābi?) the Persian Dalā'il- i Sab`ah opens with a testimony to God's uniqueness, eternality
and unknowability. In the light of his claim to be the Qā'im a shift
in the Bāb's eschatological views can be seen in the Dalā'il-i
Sab`ah. His earlier futurist though imminent eschatological
perspective begins to be transformed into a partly realized or
inaugurated eschatological stance. Traditional apocalyptic and other
expected latter day "signs" central to the Shā'ā messianism are
given, in the light of their alleged fulfilment, non-literal
interpretations (see Lambden, 1995x:00). The eschatological "meeting
with God" (liqā' Allāh; see Qur'ān 13:2, etc) is not a
literal coming into the presence of the eternal divine essence (dhāt-i
azal) but the meeting with the divine manifestation of God
(mahar-i
haqāqat): with, in fact, the Bāb on the mount of Mākā (or
wherever he resides: Dalā'il, 31f;cf. 57f).
A Verse of the Khuṭba al-ṭutunjiyya ("Sermon of the Gulf")
The direct vision of the absolute Divine Essence is not regarded as
possible in either Bābī or Bahā'ī scripture. In a sermon ascribed to
Imām `Alā known as the Khuba al-ṭutunjiyya ("Sermon of the
Two Gulfs") the Imām at one point declares, "I saw God (rūyat
Allāh) and Paradise through the vision of the eye (rāy al-`ayn)."
Taken literally this statement is highly controversial.
16 al-Lawāmi` al-badā` ("The
Wondrous Brilliances", 1846/7 CE), the Bāb interpreted it to refer
Imām `Alī's inner "vision of the Primal Will of God" (rū 'yat al-mashiyya)
and not direct vision of the transcendent Deity (INBAMC 40:179). In
the previously referred to Risalā Du`a al-sabāh the same
passage from the Khuba al-utunjiyya is quoted and
interpreted in terms of the "vision of the Divine Theophany" (rā'yat
al-tajallā) understood as a Divine Manifestation not a
disclosure of the Divine Essence (INBAMC 40:161).
Apart from underlining the transcendence and unknowability of the
Essence of God the Bāb also emphasised the presence of the "Day of
God" through His manifestation. He frequently claimed (secondary)
Divinity and also bestowed it upon others. There exist writings of
the Bāb cited by Bahā'u'llāh in his Lawḥ-i Sarrāj (c. 1867)
which make it clear that a "pleroma" of Bābis shared in his
eschatological "Divinity" (al-ulāhiyya) and "Lordship"
(al-rubūbiyya). He stated that God conferred "divinity" and
"Lordship" upon whomsoever He pleased (see MA 7:64).
BAHĀ’Ī APOPHATIC THEOLOGY
As
with Bābī scripture the Bahā'ī texts are strictly monotheistic; or
rather super-monotheistic. The doctrine of the Divine Oneness (tawḥīd)
is uncompromisingly upheld; there is no place for
anthropomorphism, anthropopathism, pantheism or any unio mystica
with the Unknowable Godhead. On one level Baha'-Allah understood tawḥīd
("The Oneness of God") to singify the complete transcendence of
God:
"Regard
thou the one true God (ḥaqq) as One Who is apart from, and
immeasurably exalted above, all created things. The whole universe
reflecteth His glory, while He is Himself independent of, and
transcendeth His creatures. This is the true meaning of Divine Unity
(tawḥīd).." (GWB LXXXIV)
SEE REST OF THIS SECTION.
It
also indicates regarding the non-ontological relationship between God and the Manifestation of God as
something unitative , something "One and the same"
(ibid) as well as affirmning the essential oneness of the
divine Manidestations of God.
Lawḥ-i madānat
al-tawḥīd
Towards the beginning of his centrally important
Lawḥ-i madānat
al-tawḥīd ("Tablet of the City of the Divine oneness" c. 1868
CE) -- one of the cornerstones of any emergent Bahā’ī theology --
Baha'-Allah
categorically and repeatedly asserts the transcendent
incomprehensibility of God:
"Praise be to God, the All-Possesing, the King of incomparable
glory, a [praise which is immeasurably above the understanding
of all created things, and is exalted beyond the grasp of the
minds of men. None else besides Him hath ever been able to sing
adequately His praise, nor will any man succeed at any time in
describing the full measure of His glory. Who is it that can
claim to have attained the heights of His exalted Essence, and
what mind can measure the depths of His unfathomable mystery?..
All the Embodiments of His Names wander in the wilderness of
search, athirst and eager to discover His Essence, and all the
Manifestations of His Attributes (maāhir al-sifāt)
implore Him, from the Sinai of Holiness (ār al-muqaddas),
to unravel His mystery... So perfect and comprehensive is His
creation that no mind nor heart, however keen or pure, can ever
grasp the nature of the most insignificant of His creatures;
much less fathom the mystery of Him Who is the Day Star of
Truth, Who is the invisible and unknowable Essence. The
conceptions of the devoutest of mystics, the attain‑ments of the
most accomplished amongst men, the highest praise which human
tongue or pen can render are all the product of man's finite
mind and are conditioned by its limitations. Ten thousand
Prophets, each a Moses, are thunderstruck upon the Sinai of
their search at His forbidding voice, "Thou shalt never behold
Me!"; whilst a myriad Messen‑gers, each as great as Jesus, stand
dismayed upon their heavenly thrones by the interdiction, "Mine
Essence thou shalt never apprehend!" From time immemorial He
hath been veiled in the ineffable sanctity of His exalted Self,
and will everlastingly continue to be wrapt in the impenetrable
mystery of His unknowable Essence. Every attempt to attain to an
understanding of His inaccessible Reality hath ended in complete
bewilderment, and every effort to approach His exalted Self and
envisage His Essence hath resulted in hopelessness and failure."
(MAM:307ff; trans. GWB:60f).
Having said this Bahā'-Allāh goes on to closely relate
tawḥīd (the
Divine "oneness", "unicity") to the "oneness" or essential unity of
the Divine Manifestations of God.
In
Bahā’ī theology God is reckoned supremely transcendent. He is beyond
number, names and attributes. His "unity" is such as to be beyond
numerical "oneness": GWB:166-7 P&M
"The Divine Reality is sanctified from singleness, then how much
more from plurality" (SAQ:103)
The
focus is not so much on the numerical "oneness" of a transcendent
Deity who is really beyond unicity and multiplicity but upon a
theology that highlights the oneness of religion as communicated by
the Manifestation of God Who are considered "one" in their purpose
and religion.
■
Lawḥ-i kull al-ṭa`ām
("Tablet of All Food")
Baha'-Allah's early Lawh-i kull al-ta`ām ("Tablet of All Food" c. 1854
CE) is basically a mystical commentary upon Qur'ān 3:87 which, he
explains, has "subtle meanings infinite in their infinitude".
Towards the beginning of this "tablet" the mystical significance of
"food" (a`ām) is related to the hierarchy of metaphysical
realms well-known in theosophical Sufism and mentioned below
(p.00). Following Islamic mystical cosmology, its author makes
mention of the `arsh al-hāhūt ("the Throne of He-ness [Ipseity]")
which is related to the "Paradise of the divine oneness" (jannat
al-aadiyya).
Relative to this realm and the "paradise of the Divine Oneness",
none -- not even Bahā'-Allāh himself -- can expound even a letter of Qur'ān
3:87. The realm of hāhāt is that of "the mystery of Endless
Duration (sirr al-samadāniyyat), "Unique Sonship" (ibniyya
al-ahadaniyyat), "Incomparable Israelicity" (Isrā'iliyyat al-firdāniyyat)
and "Resplendent Selfhood" (nafsāniyyat al-lama`aniyyat).
Here, perhaps, are the unfathomable mysteries of Qur'ān 3:87
known only to God their "Creator and Lifegiver" whose esoteric
and exoteric aspects are one and the same.
See
further: http://www.hurqalya.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/BAHA'-ALLAH/L-ta`am.htm
The Seven Valleys (Haft vādī)
In
the fourth of the Seven valleys, the `Valley of Unity' (vādī)
Bahā'-Allāh counters an anthropomorphic understanding of the experience of the
Divine and underlines the Divine Transcendence and unknowability.
"However, let none construe these utterances to be anthropomorphism
(ḥulū), nor see in them the descent of the worlds of God
into the grades of the creatures.. For God is, in His Essence (bi-dhātihi muqaddas), holy above ascent and descent, entrance
and exit; He hath through all eternity been free of the attributes
of human creatures (ṣifāt-i khalq), and ever will remain so.
No man hath ever known Him; no soul hath ever found the path‑way to
His Being. Every mystic knower (`urufā) hath wandered far
astray in the valley of the knowledge (vādi ma`rifatish) of
Him; every saint (awliyā) hath lost his way in seeking to
comprehend His Essence (dhātish). Sanctified is He above the
understanding (`irfān) of the wise (`ārif); exalted
is He above the knowledge of the knowing! The way is barred and to
seek it is impiety; His proof is His signs; His being is His
evidence.
Wherefore, the lovers of the face of the Beloved have said [words of Imām `Alā]: "O Thou, the One Whose Essence alone showeth the way to
His Essence (dalla `alā dhāthih bi-dhātihi)", and Who is
sanctified above any likeness to His creatures." How can utter
nothingness gallop its steed in the field of preexistence, or a
fleeting shadow reach to the everlasting sun? The Friend3' hath
said, "But for Thee, we had not known Thee," and the Beloved' hath
said, "nor attained Thy presence." (SV:22-23).
17
The Ipseity and the Tafsīr-i Hū’ هو
[Huwa] c. 1859?)
