Ibn Arabi's Cosmology: The Unity of Existence in Fusus al-Hikam (Rasoul RAHBARI GHAZANI) 

Inshallah! I will ...

I agree. If you are interested in Persian Sufi poetry, I have a whole playlist for Shaykh Mahmoud Shabistari, and one for Rumi.

I know a few poems of Shabistari from 'Desert Wisdom' from Douglas Klotz and yes, I would very much love your playlist for both him and Rumi..

Thank you, I will, inshallah (after a temporary pause!)

Thank you very much.

I’m glad to hear you’ve found the video helpful. Currently I am doing a PhD in philosophy at Istanbul University (I am Iranian though). In your case, I can recommend several works by or about “Platonic” Arabic scholars that are available in English: 1. Al-Farabi - Al-Farabi was a renowned philosopher and polymath from the Islamic Golden Age. He was deeply influenced by the Greek philosophical tradition, especially Plato and Aristotle. A good book to start with is “Al-Farabi's Philosophy of Plato and Aristotle" by Al-Farabi and Muhsin Mahdi. 2. Avicenna (Ibn Sina) - Avicenna is a giant figure in Islamic philosophy and one of the most significant thinkers in the Neoplatonic tradition. His "The Metaphysics of The Healing (Brigham Young University - Islamic Translation Series)" translated by Michael E. Marmura provides a deep dive into his metaphysical ideas. 3. Averroes (Ibn Rushd) - Averroes is another key figure in Islamic philosophy, known for his extensive commentaries on Aristotle. "Averroes' Three Short Commentaries on Aristotle's "Topics," "Rhetoric," and "Poetics"" translated by Charles E. Butterworth can be a good starting point.

Al-Kindi - Known as the first of the Muslim Peripatetic philosophers, al-Kindi was heavily influenced by Aristotle and the Neoplatonists. "Al-Kindi's Metaphysics: A Translation of Ya'qūb ibn Isḥāq al-Kindī's Treatise "On First Philosophy" (fī al-Falsafah al-Ūlā)" by Alfred L. Ivry is a recommended read. 1. Suhrawardi - Suhrawardi's philosophy is often described as "Illuminationist" or "Ishraqi," and represents an interesting synthesis of Platonic and Aristotelian thought. "The Philosophy of Illumination" by Suhrawardi and John Walbridge, Hossein Ziai provides a great introduction. 2. Mulla Sadra - A significant figure in later Islamic philosophy, Mulla Sadra brought together a wide range of philosophical traditions, including a significant element of Neoplatonism. "Mulla Sadra's Transcendent Philosophy" by Muhammad Kamal is an excellent introduction. It might also be beneficial to look into secondary sources that provide an overview of the Islamic/Arabic Platonic tradition. "Islamic Philosophy from Its Origin to the Present: Philosophy in the Land of Prophecy" by Seyyed Hossein Nasr offers a comprehensive overview, while "The Cambridge Companion to Arabic Philosophy" edited by Peter Adamson and Richard C. Taylor provides a collection of essays on various topics and figures in Arabic philosophy.

Lastly, some of my humble works might align with your interests: 1. My latest book, The Oneness Of Being in Ibn ‘Arabī and Plotinus: www.researchgate.net/publication/366544407_The_Oneness_of_Being_In_Ibn_'Arabi_and_Plotinus 2. Paper, "A Journey in Search of 'I': The Self in Shabistarī's Rose Garden": www.academia.edu/101924418/A_Journey_in_Search_of_I_The_Self_in_Shabistar%C4%ABs_Rose_Garden_of_Mystery_Gulshan_i_R%C4%81z_

Henry Corbin may also be of interest.

Muhammad (SAW) also described Jibreel (AS) as having "600 wings, with pearls, rubies and diamonds dripping from each wing, [and] fill[ing] up the entire horizon... The colors of his wings and the soles of his feet were green. (Ahmad in al-Musnad, Ibn Katheer) Not to plug myself too shamelessly, but now that I'm done writing my book I intend to make a video on the similarities between religion and the psychedelic experience in the near future. Edited to add parentheses

@@thebookofpsychedelics936 I would be interested to watch that video and read that book, dear colleague. Thanks for the comment.

Thank you, inshallah

Glad to be of help.

Thanks

Thanks, it is very kind of you.

Exactly, Ibn Arab also argues for a combination of tanzih and tashbih.

You are welcome

Thank you for your kind reception. Mulla Sadra is for sure a future project, inshallah, but, unfortunately, not a near future one.

@@Rumi.Echoes Waiting

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your thorough comment. Please allow me to give a brief answer here, since I have already discussed this in my "Plotinus" video. If it does not help, you may please refer to the Plotinus chapter of the thesis put (its link) in description. - The underlying assumption in your point is that the "consciousness" we experience is, and should be the same for the Real. A second assumption is that "consciousness" can grasp the realities of things. Short answer: it isn't; it doesn't!!! Long answer: - Our consciousness is limited to time. Plotinus can be of help here. He asks in the Enneads, how does the soul know the One? To which he answers (VI, 9, 4), "awareness of The One comes to us neither by knowing nor by the pure thought . . . but by a presence transcending knowledge" (p. 78). Not knowledge because knowledge implies the duality of the knower and known. "When the soul knows something," he says there, "it loses its unity; it cannot remain simply one . . . . The soul then misses The One and falls into number and multiplicity." If the soul sets aside knowledge, then carried along in a way by the wave of the intellect, and in a way raised on high by it, puffed up in a way, he sees suddenly without seeing how. . . . The One is absent from nothing and from everything. It is present only to those who are prepared for it and are able to receive it, to enter into harmony with it, to grasp and to touch it, by virtue of their likeness to it . . . . Thus will The One be ‘seen’ as far as it can become an object of contemplation. (VI, 7, 36, p. 843; 1964, VI, 9, 4, p. 79) It is difficult to ‘see’ the One even in this contemplation (ibid., VI, 9, 3): "when the soul seeks to know" the One "in its own way-by coalescence and unification-it is prevented by that very unification from recognizing it has found the One, for it is unable to distinguish knower and known" (pp. 76-77). "When we wish to speak with precision, we should not say that the One is this or that, but revolving, as it were, around it," says Plotinus (p. 78), "try to express our own experience of it, now drawing nigh to it, now falling back from it as a result of the difficulties involved." Using discursive reason to speak about the One (VI, 9, 7), the purpose is to direct the seeker towards the vision, which is the only way to experience that presence transcending knowledge (p. 82). Therefore, it is not "consciousness" by which you grasp the One, it is by "a presence transcending KNOWLEDGE" (which is doomed to duality of the knower and known. I hope it clarifies the point, if it doesn't, I told you where to look! Best wishes.

O’Brien, E. (1964). The essential Plotinus. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company.

To conceive the One, the soul should not be distracted by external things. Turning inward, it ‘must forget everything, the subjective first and, finally, the objective. It must not even know that it is itself that is applying itself to contemplation of The One’ (p. 83). In mystical experience (O’Brien, 1964), the mystic ‘stands outside’ himself. He has gone beyond the contingency of the ego and is fixed upon . . . something immovable that intimately penetrates the ego while infinitely transcending it. . . . [A] plenitude in which all the fumbling potentialities of the ego are luminously fulfilled, because these potentialities were never more than shadows of this substance, partial sharings in this pienitude [sic.]. (p. 24)

One may ask, why are we not aware of the activities of our true selves? Plotinus (1964, V, 1, 12) answers, while we are in this world, ‘Such activities are known only when perceptible by sensation.’ Otherwise ‘they are not communicated to the entire soul and thus we are not conscious of them’ (p. 103). ‘Consciousness is a point of view, a center of perspective. . . . [I]n order for a psychic activity to be “ours,” it must be conscious’ (Hadot, 1998, p. 29). Moreover, says Hadot (ibid.), to be conscious of the higher part of ourselves, our self should coincide with consciousness: Consciousness, then-and along with it our “self”-is situated, like a median . . . between two zones of darkness, stretching above and below it: on the one hand, the silent, unconscious life of our “self” in God; on the other, the silent and unconscious life of the body. (p. 103) We are aware of the activities of our higher part when they present themselves to the middle part. Thus, to be aware of them, we need to direct the middle part upward (29-30). The middle part, i.e., our ‘consciousness’, says Hadot, ‘is a kind of mirror: it need only be polished and turned in a certain direction for it to reflect the objects that present themselves to it’ (p. 30).

How does consciousness act and how is it different from the way our true self acts? [O]ur consciousness . . . requires us to split into two, for there must be a temporal difference-however infinitesimal-between that which sees and that which is seen. Consciousness is thus more of a memory than a presence. It is inexorably entangled up in time. All it can give us is images . . . . (Hadot, ibid., p. 32) Our true self, however, according to Hadot, acts differently. It acts ‘in total presence, eternity and perfect simplicity’ (p. 30), and, because it is in total presence when we reach our true self, we lose self-awareness and consciousness. As Plotinus says, ‘Consciousness tends to render more faint those very activities which it accompanies’, for example, reading and being conscious that one is reading, would slow one down. When such activities are not accompanied by consciousness, they are pure and more active (p. 33). Therefore, ‘The more intense an activity is, the less it is conscious’ (p. 33). If so, then, how can we raise ourselves to the spiritual life? Because we are conscious beings and split into two, ‘The only way . . . we can raise ourselves up to spiritual life is by a kind of continuous oscillation between the discontinuous levels of our inner tension’ (p. 33). That is, by oscillating between the unconscious life of our self, and the conscious life of our soul in the corporeal world.

Thank you for your kind remarks. Well, because poetry, "on appearance", seems more reachable than philosophy to the general public, it is more popular. However, it should be noted that hardcore philosophical problems are also discussed through poetry, especially in Arabic and Persian (also in other languages). One reason for poetic composition of philosophy and mysticiam in the past was the fact that such topics and arguments could bring them unwelcome consequences (e.g., Socrates, Hallaj, etc.).

I am currently (but slowly!) preparing philosophical Persian poetry videos. Stay tuned!

@@Rumi.Echoes Great can't wait!

Yes but the are words are coming the one the self him you and me all one Blessing Blessing

I am talking about "essential & necessary" existence.

And, you are welcome. Thank you for your comments.

Thank you, but nowhere have I claimed that God has "parts" or that God needs a Spirit to exist. I'm afraid this is not what I have said, it is, respectfully, what you have taken. Watching the video again would help clear the misunderstanding.

In-sha-Allah

Sure: شرح موحد

@@Rumi.Echoes Do you have a link where I can purchase the book?

In Islamic theology, the belief is that ultimately, these questions, words, things, "I, me, myself" are ultimately not 'real' because He is Al-Haqq (One of His names meaning The Truth/The Reality). So, Muslims like myself say that the best way to know, to experience and witness His reality is to fully realize that whatever you think Allah is, He is exactly not that. He is so Transcendant that He is even Transcendant of being Transcendant, ﷻ. So it is futile to ask oneself such questions which are ultimately not Real. So how do we attain 'real' knowledge? By the annihilation of "Me, myself, I" which is best manifested in Islam as the concept of complete and utter servitude, true servitude by its nature being the process of negation of "Me myself I". The terminology used for the experiential state of complete servanthood in Islamic Mysticism is "Fana wa Baqa" which is much like the concept of Moksha/Nirvana in Hinduism and buddhism.

@@yahya2925 Beautifully put! Thanks, brother.

@@yahya2925 So here I find you :) We are fictions in a way, yes. When you become one with the aether, it is, in a sense, like dying. I see you have outlined the 'neti neti' method above (not this, not that) .. I mentioned this on Ep5 of The Perfect Storm (EF Dawah) ... it is called 'apophatic' ... it then switches to declaratory 'cataphatic' statements, like 'Al Rahman' or 'Al Raheem' etc. In this way, it is like on/off. Godhead Vs God manifesting (passive vs active) .. pure transcendence as you are outlining is more profound than Moksha (liberation) and Nirvana (which simply means, 'blow out' or 'phew') .. Islam needs people like yourself, Yahya, to bridge the gap between spiritual experiences and orthodox beliefs as they are oftentimes a world apart. Belief can imply a lack of faith. This is where we need immanence (the jugular vein idea) to 'feel' our soul and contact with broader spiritual essence. This is why I am a panentheist (not pantheist).. We cannot get too lost in this either as then we are nothing more than those who take dangerous deliriants like jimsonweed. Salam :)

@@Rumi.Echoes what did @yahya say ?

What is objectionable with pantheism and panentheism is that they are inconsistent with Ibn ʿArabī’s metaphysics. Pantheism is the doctrine that equates the cosmos with God and holds a substantial identity between them. Panentheism, on the other hand, is the doctrine that holds that although God pervades the cosmos, it is not identical with and limited to it; it extends beyond the cosmos. Both these accusations are erroneous! As Nasr (1964) puts it, taking the doctrine of the unity of existence as pantheism is wrong because ‘pantheism implies a substantial continuity between God and the Universe, whereas the Shaikh would be the first to claim God’s absolute transcendence over every category, including that of substance’ (p. 105). To expand on this point, pantheism holds that the cosmos is God but Al-ʿArabī holds that the world is the manifestation of God’s Names and Qualities, and even though these manifestations derive their essences from God, the divine Essence is transcendent concerning them. ‘The world and the things in it are not God but their reality is none other than His; otherwise, they would be completely independent realities, which is the same as considering them to be deities along with Allah’ (ibid., pp. 106-107). There is also another difference between the two doctrines under discussion. Unlike pantheism, according to the doctrine of the unity of being, God existentially differs from the cosmos. He exists necessarily and independently but the world exists contingently. Taking the doctrine of the unity of being as panentheism is also false. ‘It is true that God dwells in things,’ however, in the doctrine of the unity of being, ‘the universe does not “contain” God’ (p. 105), as it is attested in panentheism. P. S.: You may check the references in the text I have put (link) in the caption.

There is but the One. Although He has brought about multiplicity in the world, He is transcendent concerning them. The divine Reality encompasses the manifestations without being reduced to them. To conclude, the unity of being is neither pantheism nor panentheism.

@@Rumi.Echoes This is where I feel you are wrong. It about the universe being in God, not being contained or restricted. I call it dual flip. 1 in the other yet God transcends the Creation.

@@Rumi.Echoes I agree with your definition and that's panentheism, not pantheism. All panentheists would agree with you.

I suggest this entry: "Pantheism" (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)