Spirituality Studies 11-1 Spring 2025 11 Patrick Laude virtue of a soul – wisdom, and at any other part of a soul which resembles this”. Thus, the seat of wisdom that lies at the core of the soul can be known a priori through its contemplation in others. This leads one to realize the deepest selfhood within one’s soul, “this part of her [note: the soul that] resembles God”. The self is seen/known in and through the other as eye/self, and more precisely in that central part of the eye/soul that is the principle of vision/wisdom. The subject knows itself in and through the object, more precisely in that which in the object is subject. It is through knowing the “seat of knowledge and thought” that one “comes to know all that is divine [note: and] will gain thereby the best knowledge of himself” (Plato 2005, 213). The concentration of the outward eye on virtue as inwardness invites contemplators to look inward and know themselves, thereby reaching unity. This is yet another type of occurrence of the Platonic dialectics involved in the discovery of the truth. 4.2 Seeing Ad Infinitum [Note: The intellect – al-‘aql] perceives itself as knowing and powerful, it perceives its knowledge of itself, it perceives its knowledge of its knowledge of itself, it perceives its knowledge of its knowledge of its knowledge of itself (‘ilmuhu bi-‘ilmuhu bi-‘ilm nafsahu ilā ghayr nahayat), and so on ‘ad infinitum’ (Al-Ghazālī 1998, 6). A similar inward vision is involved in the Sufi quest for unity. In his Niche of Lights, one of the paramount works of Sufi metaphysics, Al-Ghazālī (1058–1111) distinguishes between the bodily eye and the spiritual eye by contrasting the imperfections of the first with the perfection of the second. The limitations of the physical eye are the one that must occupy us most, though, since they are an obstacle to mystical self-knowledge. As was implied in Alcibiades, the eye can see objects, but it cannot see itself. By contrast, for Al-Ghazālī, the eye of the intellect can perceive “other than itself” (Ar. ghayrihi) and the “qualities (Ar. sifāt) of itself (Ar. nafsihi)” (Al-Ghazālī 1998, 7). It is important to note, within an Islamic context, that the reference to the perception of sifāt, or “qualities”, still implies that the heart cannot perceive its own “essence” (Ar. dhāt) (Gianotti 2001). This echoes inwardly the Prophetic tradition on outward meditation: “Meditate upon the bounties of God but not on God [note: Himself, His Essence] for God is above and beyond all possibility of being described in terms of any form” (Shah-Kazemi, quoted in Volf 2012, 111). This is because God’s Essence lies beyond “form” (Ar. sūra), and analogously the “secret” (Ar. sirr) of the soul lies beyond the formal domain. By contrast with the eye that does not see the principle of its vision, Ghazālī maintains that the intellect or inner eye “perceives its knowledge of itself”. Moreover, this reflective ability has no end, since knowledge of the knowledge of itself ensues from knowledge of itself, and “so on ad infinitum”, in Ghazālī’s Arabic “ilā ghayr nahāyat”, literally “endlessly” (Al-Ghazālī 1998, 6). But what is the ultimate meaning of this unending regress if not an intimation of infinity? Al-Ghazālī, as a Sufi whose function lied at the intersection of exoteric and esoteric sciences, simply alludes to this meaning by stating that “behind this lies a ‘secret’ (Ar. sirr) that would take too long to explain” (Sherif 1975, 173). This allusive comment opens onto the question of the mystery of selfhood as embracing Unity. 4.3 The Investigative Eye If we return now to Hinduism, we find that in a parallel intuition of the mystery of subjectivity the Upanishadic tradition teaches that the true Self cannot be objectified, and therefore cannot be reached through any infinite regress of perception or knowledge. Thus, the following is stated in the Katha Upanishad: “The Self-existent One pierced the apertures outward, therefore, one looks out, and not into oneself. A certain wise man in search of immortality turned his sight inward and saw the self within” (quoted in Olivelle 1996, 240). The Upanishads teach that human beings have been created with two dimensions, as it were. Their sense perceptions are contemplated as God-given apertures that allow them to apprehend the outer world. This appears to be the natural direction of mankind, one that confirms the meaning of creation as a field of human experience. However, this outward motion is also centrifugal, therefore distancing one from the Self. Therefore, the realization of the true Self results from a conversion from natural extraversion to spiritual introversion. This is the Atmā Vichāra, or “Self-investigation”, favored by Ramana Maharshi (Maharshi 1958, 431). In a sense, this motion is “anti-natural”, if by nature is meant the outgrowth of manifestation; the type of spiritual interiorization that runs contrary to this natural flow has been coined a “decreation” by Simone Weil. As she states, “Decreation: to make something created pass into the uncreated. Destruction: to make something created pass into nothingness. A blameworthy substitute for decreation” (Weil 2002, 32). In the Upanishads, this “decreation” does not in the least affect the Ultimate, however, and it is indeed only an “appearance” since reintegration is to be understood spiritual more than metaphysically. Reality is what it is, and the Divine Self is eternally free from creation and decreation. It is in this
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTUwMDU5Ng==