As to what the questioner asked concerning the saying of the philosophers that "the Simple Reality is all things," say: Know that what is meant by "things" in this context is none other than existence and the perfections of existence insofar as it is existence, and by "all" is meant that which possesses and encompasses. This "all" admits of no part, nor is it opposed by any portion. In essence, since the Simple Reality is simple from all aspects, it possesses and encompasses all perfections that are without limit or end, as has been said: "His creation has no bounded limit."
… The philosopher did not mean that the Necessary Being dissolves into infinite existences - glorified, glorified be He above that! As the philosophers themselves have said: "The Simple Reality is all things yet is not any of the things," and in another context: "The lights of the Simple Reality are seen in all things." This depends on the vision of the beholder and the perspective of the observer. Those of penetrating sight behold in all things the signs of divine unity, for all things are and have ever been manifestations of the divine names, while the Truth has ever been and will ever be sanctified above ascent and descent, limitations, conjunction and connection.
The uncompounded reality
uncompounded reality [basitu'l-haqiqah]
Editorial introduction
The philosophers said that the simple reality is all things, and a questioner wanted to know how anything could be everything without being a heap of parts. Bahá’u’lláh’s answer turns a riddle into a lesson about perfection: the word things means the perfections of existence, and the word all means possession, so that a reality simple in every respect holds every perfection without limit, while never dissolving into the multitude it sustains. Those of penetrating sight see the signs of divine unity in all things, yet the Essence remains beyond ascent and descent, beyond names, the way to it barred. Around that answer gather other voices: Mullá Ṣadrá’s formula, Parmenides’ one that is both everything and nothing, the Báb and Shaykh Aḥmad refusing any tie between the Essence and creation. Aquinas reaches the same refusal of composition from the side of the first cause, which can depend on no parts [1]. The inquiry opens onto the divine attributes within every atom, the self-generation of the Primal Will, and the long debate over the unity of existence.
Selected passages
Some souls, in what they say, intend either sophistication or jest. How many souls in this Most Great Revelation have asked questions about wisdom and other abstruse matters, and answers descended and were revealed from the heaven of the favor of the Lord of all return. Yet no trace remained of those souls. For example, one of the philosophers asked about the Uncompounded Reality, and an answer was revealed from the Kingdom of Utterance according to his capacity, yet it yielded no fruit.
Further quotations · supplied wording and references
All that which is Simple in Its essential Reality (basit al-haqiqa) is, by virtue of Its (absolute) Unity (wahdat), all things.
Thus, if there is a one, the one is both all things and nothing whatsoever, alike with reference to itself and to the others.
Most of the Islamic philosophers, the peripatetic philosophers, the followers of Mulla Sadra (as-Sadra'iyyin), and the Theosophical philosophers (al-ilahiyyin) have erred in their explanations of this station. The signs of the effulgences (tajalliyat) of creation were mistaken by them for the countenance of the Essence [of God]. … All of this is absolute heresy (shirk mahd) in the estimation of the family of God, the Imams of justice, for God has always been the All-Knowing without the existence of anything having form and shape (? - shay'un bi-mithl ma inna-hu kana shayyar).
God, verily, created the Will from nothing through itself, then He created through it all that to which the name "thing" can be applied. The cause of its existence, in truth, is its own self and naught else. Those who believe that the Essence is the cause of creation have made themselves partners with Him, as He cannot be known. He, verily, abideth in a state accessible only to Himself. Nothing is connected to Him, and in Him not a trace of the existence belonging to created things can be found. It is established in philosophy that cause and effect are alike. Therefore, the Imam hath declared: "The cause of things is His fashioning, but He is not its cause."
The notion of the unity of the thinker with the object of thought is based upon what was put forward by the author of the doctrine of the oneness of existence (wahdat al-wujud). He was obliged, for the sake of the correctness of this principle, to forget what it implied in corruption of belief and to cross over into unworthy speculations. God willing, we will explain the falsity of everything he depends upon and the repugnance of what he implies, such as the oneness of the agent and the patient, cause and effect, and so on....
He [Sadra] has asserted that the Intellect is utterly uncompounded, as is applicable to the Creator, exalted be He. But whatever is created, without a doubt, is composed of two aspects, and aspect from its Lord, which is existence, or matter; and an aspect from itself, which is the quiddity, or form. This is because every contingent thing is a composite pair, and nothing other than God has an uncompounded nature. How then can it be said to be uncompounded?
Concerning the doctrine of the True Indivisible Being (Basitu'l-Haqiqah), as mentioned by some philosophers as evidence for a common existence between the Absolute Being and utter nothingness: this is, undoubtedly and for many conclusive reasons, a false concept.... … Thus, no recourse is there for one who claimeth the truth of the idea of the True Indivisible Being, except to assert one of two blatant errors: either the pre-existence of pluralities in the Essence of God, or the descent of the Essence into the rank of the dust. Both of these are impossible, nay, forbidden, inasmuch as there can never be any descent for the Essence of God, nor can any mention ever be uttered, other than of Him, at His level. He is God; all else are His creatures, and there can be no third between, or besides, them.
Two stations can be observed in the Divine Unity: Existential Oneness (tawhid-i wujudi), and this is that [station] wherein they negate everything with a 'no' and affirm the Absolute Reality. … [The second station in Divine Unity,] Manifestational Oneness (tawhid-i shuhudi), is that [station] where the signs of the Primal Divine Unity (ahadiyah), the manifestations of Eternity, and the effulgences of the light of Singleness can be observed in all things. Thus it is that in the divine book it is revealed: 'We shall show them Our signs on the horizons and in themselves.' In this station the effulgences of the signs of the uncompounded reality can be observed and are apparent in all things. The meaning of the philosopher was not that the Absolute Reality is dispersed into the innumerable existent things. Exalted, exalted is It from being dispersed in anything or being limited by any boundary or being associated with anything in creation.
Continue exploring
For thought and discussion
Questions to carry forward
- What distinguishes possessing every perfection from being composed of all things?
- Where does the word simple change its meaning when applied to created realities and to God?
- Which disagreements between the philosophical voices clarify the issue rather than merely complicate it?
- How might an account of transcendence affect the way we recognize divine signs in ordinary life?