Section Three: On the statements of the philosophers and the views of people about the temporality and eternity (qidam) of the soul in the misrepresentation of their statements
Know that this issue is something precise in procedure (daqīqat al-maslak) and far-fetched in depth (baʿīdat al-ghawr). Thus, there has been a great disagreement between the earlier philosophers on this matter whether the human soul
ليس لها مقام معلوم في الهوية ولا لها درجة معينة في الوجود
Does not have a known station in identity, nor does it have an ascertained rank in existence.[1]
Like other natural, spiritual, and rational existents, all of which have a known rank. Rather, the human soul has many different stations and ranks, and has preceding and proceeding emergences. It also has in every station and every realm, a different form. Whatever is as such, perceiving its reality is difficult (ṣaʿb), and knowing its identity is hard (mutaʿassir). That which the people have perceived regarding the reality of the soul is nothing other than the entailments of the existence of the soul from the aspect of the body and its accidents of perception and setting in motion. They did not master except the forthcoming perceptions and setting of motion from the states of the soul. Both matters are from the type which all animals are a part of, and those who have perceived more on this is that the soul is immaterial and subsisting after disconnection of the control of the soul from this body. The previously mentioned definition is in relation to the soul being the place of sciences, and knowledge is indivisible (ghayr munqasim).[2] So, the place of something indivisible is also indivisible. Thus, the soul is simple in essence, and whatever is simple in essence is not capable of annihilation (fanāʾ). If not, it would entail that the soul is composed (murakkab) of potential existence and non-existence, as well as actual existence and non-existence, however this goes against the premise, and this is the peak of gnosis (ghāyat al-ʿirfān) of the reality of the soul. Also, the one whoever comes to this much of gnosis about the soul, then there will be many objections levelled against him, some of which are irrefutable. From the objections levelled against this is that the soul being spiritual in reality and rational in existence (rūḥānīyyah al-ḥaqīqah ʿaqlīyyat al-wujūd) is contradictory to the soul’s attachment to the body and bodily reactions such as health, sickness, pleasure and pain of corporeal things. Overall, the simplicity of the soul and its immateriality from matter is contrary to the multiplicity of souls in relation to the multiplicity of bodies. Also, the people who deny of the soul as evolving in stages and changing in sensory, imaginal and rational states, the entailment of their view is that each soul from the inception of its connection to the body and its origination till the farthest ranks of immateriality of the soul and rationality of rational matters it is one thing and one substance, occurring under the type of human essence such as the occurrence of humans under the genus of animals. It must also be known that at this place, there is another subtlety which is the entailment of these people’s view. It is that these people acknowledge that the soul has an etymological differentia (faṣl ishtiqāqī) made up of a type of essence which is composed of a soul and body in external reality, such as the genus and differentia as opposed to matter and form in natural composites. Moreover, they believe that the differentia gained by the essence of type is gained from the existence of the genus. Furthermore, those who believe in the genus as an accidental in relation to the distributed differentia (faṣl muqassam). What they mean by this is not that the genus is from the external accidentals of the differentia, which would be in relation to reality, possible to be conceived of separately (infikāk). Rather, they mean that genus is from the type of imaginal accidents such that in this type of accidental occurence, the separation of the accident (ʿāriḍ) and that in which it inheres (maʿrūḍ) is unimaginable except from a conceptual aspect. When you know this, we say that if the substance of the soul (jawhar nafsānī) did not have substantial motion (ḥarakah jawharīyyah) and essential transformation, it would necessitate that it would always be unified with a sensory ody. This is because the soul is the starting point of differentia of the human type, meaning it is the concept of being rational, which is from the logical differentia. Thus, for an animal to be sensory, opposite to the sensory soul and the etymological differentia, it is identical to the typal forms of the natural bodies.
وصور نوعية بما هي فصول لا بما هي صور يحمل عليها الجسم بما هو جسم وإن لم يحمل عليها بما هو مادة
And the typal forms, in them being differentia, not in them being forms, can carry on them the body due to it being a body, even if they may not carry it due to it being matter.[3]
Hence, based on this, it entails for them that the soul is a body from one of the two previously mentioned reasons, since they believe that in immateriality of the soul both in origination and subsistence. Based on the view of the Leader of the Philosophers and Theosophists, this difficult would be entailed because the human souls, are for him, corporeal in origination and spiritual in subsistence. Thus, this is one of the demonstrates for substantial motion
كما في مقولة الكيف والكم
As is the case in the category (maqūlah)[4] of modality and quantity.[5]
Most of the contentions (ishkālāt) against the origination of the soul and its subsistence after nature are solved by this principle, and most people, due to their lack of awareness (tafaṭṭun), are confused by this principle, in the states of the soul, its origination, continuation, immateriality, attachment, and some of them have even denied the immateriality of the soul. Some have denied the subsistence of the soul after the body, and some have believed in the reincarnation of the souls.
أما الراسخون في العلم الجامعون بين النظر والبرهان وبين الكشف والوجدان
As for those firm in knowledge, those who reconcile between the view and demonstration and between the unveiling and conscience.[6]
Then for them, the human souls have states and stages that are manifold, and despite their simplicity they have ontological realms, some of which are from the realms before nature, some are with nature, and some are after nature. The truth is that the human soul is corporeal in origination and control and spiritual in subsistence and intellection (taʿaqqul). Hence, the control of the souls is in corporeal bodies, and the intellection of the souls per se and in the essence of its maker is spiritual. As for the immaterial intellects, then they are both spiritual in essence and actuality. As for the temperaments, then they are both corporeal in essence and actuality. Thus, for each of these substances there is a station that is known, contrary to the human soul which does not have a known station in identity and nor is there for it a certain grade (darajah) in existence. Thus, we rule that the soul evolves with different stages, and the control of the soul in the body is not like the control of the immaterial existences in bodies. This is because the soul, per se, has direct particular setting in motion, and its perceptions are particular in the way of being acted upon and completion, and not by way of emanation and origination (ibdāʿ). We shall at this place go towards the statements of the philosophers and things held onto by the people and return to the chapter of the temporality and eternity of the soul in the misrepresentation of their statements. As for the arguments of the rest of the philosophers on the origination of the soul, then from them is that Shaykh al-Ishrāq mentions in the book Ḥikmat al-Ishrāq:
قوله وليس هذا النور أي النفس الإنسانية قبل البدن فإن لكل شخص إنساني ذاتا تعلم نفسها وأحوالها الخفية على غيرها فليست الأنوار المدبرة الإنسانية واحدة وإلا ما علم واحد كان معلوما للجميع وليس كذلك فقبل البدن إن كانت هذه الأنوار موجودة لا يتصور وحدتها فإنها لا تنقسم بعد ذلك إذ هي غير متقدرة ولا برزخية أي جسمانية حتى يمكن عليها الإنقسام ولا يتصور تكثرها فإذن هذه الأنوار المجردة قبل الصياصي لا تمتاز بشدة وضعف ما لا يحصى ولا عارض غريب فإنها ليست في عالم الحركات ح فلما لم يكن كثرتها ولا وحدتها قبل تصرف الأبدان فلا يمكن وجودها
He (the Shaykh) says, “and this light, meaning the human body, is not present before the body, because every human individual has an essence which knows its soul and states that are concealed for the other person. So, the ordaining lights of humans are not one, otherwise what one person would know would be known to all, however, that is not how it is. So, before the body, if these lights are present, their unity is not conceived of because they do not divide after that, since they are predetermined and nor are they barzakhī, meaning corporeal, until they can be divided. Moreover, they cannot be conceived of as multiple, otherwise these immaterial lights before the bodies would not be distinct[7] in intensity and weakness in what is uncountable, and no strange accident would be there, because there is nothing as such in the realm of movements. So, when they are neither multiple nor unified before the bodies, then their existence is not possible.[8]
The statements about this argument are considered from some aspects. The first aspect is that based on disproving of the second possibility it can be said that we do not accept that the souls are unified in type in this meaning that they are individuals of one type and distinct in existence. Rather, their being parts of one thing due to rational unity is more similar than their being individuals of one quiddity (māhīyyah) with typal unity. The relied upon view is that rational substances, near some of the philosophers, are complete and pure existences without quiddity, and are different in some being stronger and some being weaker. Hence, the souls, before descending (nuzūl) in bodies, are distinct in rational, actual aspects and respects, prior to the natural realms in essence and not in accidents that are accepted and attached. This is what the Master of the Prophet (sayyid al-anbīyaʾ) pointed towards in his statement:
نحن السابقون اللاحقون
We are the forerunners and the coming ones.[9]
Moreover, he said:
كنت نبيا وآدم بين الماء والطين
“I was a prophet when Adam (as) was between water and clay.”[10]
The second aspect on disproving the first possibility is that we do not accept that previously mentioned entailment if that is meant by perceptions are perceptions based on tools. If what is meant by perceptions are perceptions not based on tools, then its entailment is accepted. After accepting the entailment, we do not accept that the perception not being shared. This is because the souls, in knowledge of their own selves, are shared in the initial perceptions that are not based on tools. “Because they do not divide after that”, meaning that unity is of certain types, such as unity of genus, type, rationality, numbers, and quantity. Next to each unity is a multiplicity, meaning that next to numerical unity is numerical multiplicity, and next to typal unity is typal multiplicity. Not in the meaning that next to every unity is every multiplicity. This is because sometimes the topic of rational unity it itself the topic of numerical multiplicity. Similarly, sometimes the topic of something being one in nature can be multiple in parts. With the principle that:
بسيط الحقيقة كل الأشياء
The simple reality (basīṭ al-ḥaqīqah) is all things (kull al-ashyāʾ).
The intellect is simple and thus is the sum and total of all things that are comprehendible (ashyāʾ maʿqūlah). In what we are in, it is the likewise. This is because the descent from the origination of the intellect to the origination of the bodies necessitates the multiplicity of something that is one. Moreover, the ascent (ṣuʿūd) from the origination of the bodies to the origination of the intellect means the unification of that which is multiple. The multiplication of what is unified and the unification of that which is multiple is not based on the attachments of the quantities and bodies such that it would entail that the soul is bodily. Moreover, from the first part of what Shaykh al-Ishrāq mentions in Ḥikmat al-Ishrāq, if the souls were present before the bodies, they have no veil (ḥijāb) or concern that hinders them from the realm of pure light. Furthermore, there is also no change in the realm of light. Thus, the souls would be perfect in that realm and their control over the bodies would thus be wasted. Hence, some souls do not have priority for designation with the body, and happenings are based on the corporeal realm, and there are no such happening in the realm of light that would necessitate designation. That which has been said at this place regarding the controls in the bodies being a state of the souls that is originated and necessitates the downfall of the soul from its own ranks is an invalid statement. This is because for something which is not in the realm of movements and attachments, there is no way for renewal and origination to reach it.
I say: The teacher of the teachers, the leader of the philosophers and theosophists, Mullā Ṣadrā Shīrāzī, may Allāh sanctify his secret, in his own commentary on Ḥikmat al-Ishrāq, has answered this argument in the following manner:
For the souls there is an ontology and existence in the rational realm, and an existence and ontology in the natural and sensible realm. So, its existence and ontology in the rational realm is contrary to its ontology and existence in the natural and sensible realm, and the souls in the rational realm are although pure and undiluted, neither veiled not hindered from rational typal perfection, they are still unable to get a lot of good attributes (khayrāt) that are impossible to obtain for them without descending (hubūṭ) to the bodies and tools in relation to times and periods as well as skills of aptitudes and they would thus be devoid of them. Hence, the control of the souls in the particular bodies after their existence and ontological state in the universal stations is not wasted. Thus, the martyred Shaykh (shaykh maqtūl) has asserted that these particular controls have a great wisdom in them.
لا يعلمها إلا الله والراسخون في العلم
None know it save Allāh and those firm in knowledge. (Adopted by the author from Qurʾān 3:7).[11]
Thus, it is something to be astonished by that this Shaykh al-Ishrāq and most of those who emulate him (muqallidīn) believe that some souls continue to exist in this realm towards the realm of absolute light. The absolute intellect, without the entailment of renewal and necessitation of the appearance of a renewed state in that realm is thus proven and investigated in the view of the gnostics (ʿurafāʾ). Thus, why does he deny the descent of the souls from that realm towards this realm without the entailment of change and renewal, even though the repetition state is the same as the beginning state. Whoever does not attest to the connection of the souls with the rational realm which is free of appearance, renewal and change must easily submit to dysconnectivity of the souls from the rational realm and them being attached to the bodies. If one of the two matters is deemed correct, it entails the deeming correct of the second matter. Therefore, in the divine book, in many places the affirmation of repeating (of the souls) comes along with the affirmation of their beginning:
كقوله تعالى
As He, the exalted, states:
…كَمَا بَدَأْنَا أَوَّلَ خَلْقٍ نُّعِيدُهُ… ﴿الأنبياء: ١٠٤﴾
…As we began the first creation, so shall we repeat it… [21:104].
Know that the discourse of the descend of the human soul from the holy realm, which is its holy fatherland, towards this realm, which is the home of natural corporeality, is like a cradle. The home of the animalistic soul, which is like its mother, is such that it has been mentioned in the revealed heavenly scriptures, described by the Prophets, hinted to by the intimate friends of God and in the statements of the great philosophers. Thus, the mention of the descent of the soul and its essence in the great book and the noble Qurʾān is in many verses:
كقوله تعالى
As He, the exalted, states:
لَقَدْ خَلَقْنَا الْإِنسَانَ فِي أَحْسَنِ تَقْوِيمٍ ﴿التين: ٤﴾ ثُمَّ رَدَدْنَاهُ أَسْفَلَ سَافِلِينَ ﴿التين: ٥﴾ إِلَّا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ فَلَهُمْ أَجْرٌ غَيْرُ مَمْنُونٍ ﴿التين: ٦﴾
Surely, we have created man in the best of stature. Then, we return him to the lowest of the low. Except for those who believed and did righteous acts, for them is an uninterrupted reward. [95:4-6].
ومثل قوله تعالى در حکایت آدم و هبوط آن از عالم جنان
And like this is His saying in the mention of Adam (as) and his descend from the realm of gardens:
قُلْنَا اهْبِطُوا مِنْهَا جَمِيعًا فَإِمَّا يَأْتِيَنَّكُم مِّنِّي هُدًى فَمَن تَبِعَ هُدَايَ فَلَا خَوْفٌ عَلَيْهِمْ وَلَا هُمْ يَحْزَنُونَ ﴿البقرة: ٣٨﴾
We said, “descend from it, all of you, so when guidance will surely come from me, whoever follows my guidance will have no fear and neither will they be grieve.” [2:38].
وقوله تعالى
And His, may He be exalted, word is:
قَالَ اهْبِطُوا بَعْضُكُمْ لِبَعْضٍ عَدُوٌّ وَلَكُمْ فِي الْأَرْضِ مُسْتَقَرٌّ وَمَتَاعٌ إِلَىٰ حِينٍ ﴿الأعراف: ٢٤﴾
He said, “descend, being enemies of one another, and for you is in the earth a place of settlement and enjoyment for a time.” [7:24, also found in 2:36].
وقوله تعالى
And His, may He be exalted, word is:
أَلْهَاكُمُ التَّكَاثُرُ ﴿التكاثر: ١﴾ حَتَّىٰ زُرْتُمُ الْمَقَابِرَ ﴿التكاثر: ٢﴾
Competition in worldly gains diverts you. Until you visit the graves. [102:1-2].
إلى قوله تعالى
Until His word, may He be exalted (at the end of the chapter):
ثُمَّ لَتُسْأَلُنَّ يَوْمَئِذٍ عَنِ النَّعِيمِ ﴿التكاثر: ٨﴾
Then, surely, you will be asked about the bounties. [102:8].
وقوله تعالى
And His, may He be exalted, word is:
وَإِن مِّنكُمْ إِلَّا وَارِدُهَا كَانَ عَلَىٰ رَبِّكَ حَتْمًا مَّقْضِيًّا ﴿مريم: ٧١﴾ ثُمَّ نُنَجِّي الَّذِينَ اتَّقَوا وَّنَذَرُ الظَّالِمِينَ فِيهَا جِثِيًّا ﴿مريم: ٧٢﴾
And there is none from you, except that he will come to it, this is inevitably decreed upon your Lord. Then, we shall save those who were God-conscious, and we shall leave the wrongdoers in it, kneeling. [19:71-72].
وقوله تعالى
And His, may He be exalted, word is:
…كَمَا بَدَأَكُمْ تَعُودُونَ ﴿الأعراف: ٢٩﴾ فَرِيقًا هَدَىٰ وَفَرِيقًا حَقَّ عَلَيْهِمُ الضَّلَالَةُ… ﴿الأعراف: ٣٠﴾
…As he began you, will return. A group (of you) he guided, and a group deserved to be in misguidance… [7:29-30].
Moreover, that which has come in the ḥadīth is that:
الناس معادن كمعادن الذهب والفضة
People are mines, like the mines of gold and silver.[12]
All of this points to the priority of the existence of the soul in the mines, which are the depositories of divine knowledge, knows as the immaterial intellects. The modality of this priority in existence and we shall explain the detail of this matter as we had promised in the prior section that souls have different realms and existences, some of these realms are before nature, some of these realms are near nature and some of these realms are after nature. Hence, what is mean by the realm before nature is the rational immaterial existence of the spirits which are in the divine knowledge as immaterial rational forms and are prior to the realm near matter which is called the relational existence of the spirits. This very rational immaterial existence and affirmation of things that are particular and external which is in the rigid divine decree which is safe and secure from change, erasure, and fixation. Thus, in this place, generation and corruption, erasure and fixation occur. Therefore, in the divine scripture it has been stated:
في قوله تعالى
In His word, may He be exalted:
يَمْحُو اللَّهُ مَا يَشَاءُ وَيُثْبِتُ وَعِندَهُ أُمُّ الْكِتَابِ ﴿الرعد: ٣٩﴾
Allāh erases what he wills or fixates it, and with him is the mother of the book. [13:39].
The mother of the book is the depository of divine knowledge known as the active intellect, and is safe from changes, mutations, erasure, and fixation. Therefore, it has been called the preserved tablet. Thus, we explained in the prior section and in the words of the Commander of the Faithful ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib, peace be upon him, there is also an indication to the realms. Thus, the Imām states:
رحم الله امرأ عرف من أين وفي أين وإلى أين
May God have mercy on a person who knows where he is from, what he is in and where he is headed.[13]
The first is an indication to the existence before nature, which is in the divine depositories of divine knowledge. The middle is an indication towards the existence near nature, which is the relational existence of the soul. The last is an indication towards eventual state of the souls when the attach to the active intellects, meaning the existence of what is after nature, which is the immaterial existence of the soul, meaning an existence after the completion of the soul with that existence which is connected to the active intellects. Moreover, the Imām states:
وَلْيُحْضِرْ عَقْلَهُ، وَلْيَكُنْ مِنْ أَبْنَاءِ الاْخِرَةِ، فَإِنَّهُ مِنْهَا قَدِمَ، وَإِلَيْهَا يَنْقَلِبُ.
And so, he must summon his intellect and must become of the people of the hereafter, because he has come from it and shall turn to it.[14]
Furthermore, it has been narrated from Imām, peace be upon him, regarding the quiddity, beginning and return of the soul:
إعلم أن الصورة الإنسانية هي أكبر حجة الله على خلقه وهي الكتاب الذي كتبه بيده وهي مجموع صورة العالمين وهي المختصر من اللوح المحفوظ وهي الشاهد على كل غائب وهي الطريق المستقيم إلى كل خير والصراط الممدود بين الجنة والنار
Know that the human form is the biggest proofs of Allāh over his creation. It is the book which he wrote with his hand, it is the summation of the form of the worlds, it is the summary of the preserved tablet, it is the witness over every unseen, it is the straight path to every good thing and the path extended between paradise and hellfire.[15]
The teacher of the philosophers[16], Aristotle, in the book Theologica[17], meaning the gnosis of lordship, explains the benefit of the descent of the soul towards this realm as such:
أنها لم يضرها هبوطها إلى هذا العالم شيء بل انتفعت به وذلك أنها استفادت من هذا العالم معرفة الشيء وعلمت ما طبيعته بعد أن أفرغت عليه قواها وتراءت أعمالها وأفاعيلها الشريفة الساكنة التي كانت فيها وهي في العالم العقلي فلولا أنها ظهرت أفاعيلها وأفرغت قواها وصيرتها واقعة تحت الإبصار لكانت تلك القوى والأفاعيل فيها باطلا ولكانت النفس تنسى الفضائل والأفعال المحكمة المتقنة إذا كانت خفية لا تظهر ولو كان هذا هكذا لما عرفت قوة النفس ولا شرفها وذلك أن الفعل إنما هو إعلان القوة الخفية بظهورها ولو خفيت قوة النفس ولم يظهر لفسدت ولكانت كأنها لم تكن انتهى كلامه
The souls would not be harmed by their descent to this realm, rather, they will benefit from it. This is because they would benefit in this realm from knowing a thing and knowing what its nature is after its potentialities have been actualized in it, and its noble and motionless actions and deeds have been manifested which were in it when it was in the rational realm. For if its deeds did not manifest and its potentialities had not actualized and become factual for the sights to behold, then those potentialities and deeds in it would be invalid and the souls would forget its virtues and stable and proficient acts since they would remain hidden and not manifest. If this would have been the case, the power and nobility of the soul would not be known, and this is because the act is only the proclamation of the hidden power with its manifestation. If the power of the soul would remain hidden and not manifest, it would be corrupted and it would have been as if it was never there. End quote.[18]
In the statements of the ancient philosophers there are subtle points and noble symbols regarding the descent of the soul from the higher realms and its ascent from the lower realms. al-Shaykh al-Raʾīs was asked as to the reason for the descent of the soul. al-Shaykh al-Raʾīs wrote a poem on this, the entirety of this poem is beneficial and informative of the matter that for the soul there is an existence before the body in the higher (shāmikh) divine realm and it shall return and go back to that thing which it descended from. The sun is the reality of the soul, and the planets are its potentialities. From the west of the soul towards the east, it rises.
إما مشرقة مستقيمة وإما منكسفة منكوسة مكدرة
Either eastern and straight, or eclipsed, reversed, and troubled.[19]
And the statement of Shaykh al-Ishrāq:
وما يقال إن المتصرفات في الأبدان يسنح لها حال موجب لسقوطها عن مراتبها إلى آخره
And what is said is that the administrations in the body for the soul are a necessitated state for the soul’s descent from its ranks, etc.[20]
The leader of the philosophers, in the footnotes of that books, has answered this belief by saying that the descent of the soul means the emanation of the soul’s root cause and its descent from its holy rational fatherland. In a state where it necessitates the soul’s descent from the realm of affairs, the agent (fāʿil) of the soul and the aspects of its cause are the soul’s respects of existence. It is known that the known things descended and emanated are from the agents emanated from the agents with aspects and contingent entailments as well as its defects and contingencies. Due to the need of its essences towards the perfect maker and sustainer of existence. The mistake of Adam (as) has been expressed as being from one of these defects, such that Adam’s mistake was after being attached with the body.
نعوذ بالله من ذلك
We seek God’s refuge from that.[21]
Rather, what is meant by it is that Adam, in the realm of rational immaterial existence, due to aspects of dependence[22] and need as well as entailments of contingency and essential defects was lower in luminosity. The possibility of a lower light at the scene of the stronger light would have necessitated destruction. Therefore, the soul came down from that real to the relational realm so that it may be safe from destruction and after completion due to many good traits such as learning all the names and the transformation of that frame (haykal) for divine unity (tawḥīd) and being gathering point (majmaʿ) for complete perfection as well as being the manifestation of the greatest name etc. has been perfected in luminosity (nūrānīyyah). It had gained the capability of this potential in the presence of the strongest light. Moreover, they describe the emanation of the souls as causes to flee from the displeasure of Allāh. All of this is not except what wisdom requires in the hierarchy of existence because the lower light in the presence of the stronger light would not become capable. Do you not yourself? When you want to look at a theological matter that requires intense depth and deep pondering (taghawwul), you use the mind’s potentials in that deep pondering to attain the talent of returning to that issue and it departs quickly from that matter towards other preoccupations from worldly matters in a manner of fleeing from that. Since your brain, due to capturing the rational manifestation of that matter becomes ignited. Thus, the light of the sun on the eyes of the bats (khafāfīsh) gets captured. This is exactly what is alluded to in the Prophetic ḥadīth:
إن لله سبعين حجابا من نور لو كشفها لاحترقت سبحات وجهه كل ما إنتهى إليه بصره
Allāh has seventy veils of light. If he reveals them, the glorified lights of his face would burn whatever his sight would fall on.[23]
The philosophers, by way of symbols and allusion, have mentioned a few reasons for the descent of the soul. From the statements of the ancient philosophers is what was said by Empedocles (d. 494 BCE)[24], which is that:
إن النفس كانت في المكان العالي الشريف فلما أخطأت سقطت إلى هذا العالم وإنما صارت إلى هذا العالم فرارا من سخط الله إلا أنها لما انحدرت إلى هذا العالم صارت غياثا للنفوس التي قد اختلطت عقولها.
The soul was in an elevated and noble place. So, when it erred, it descended to this realm. It only came to this realm to escape from the displeasure of Allāh, otherwise if it had come down to this realm it would have been a helper for those souls whose intellects had become confused.[25]
From the statements of the philosophers is the statement of Godly Plato (aflāṭūn-i-rabbānī). In his own book, he states:
فإذن علة هبوط النفس إلى هذا العالم سقوط ريشها فإذا ارتاشت ارتفعت إلى عالمها الأول.
So, since the cause of the descent of the soul to this realm is the descent of its wings. So, when it gains its wings, it rises to its first realm.[26]
Moreover, in Plato’s book called Timaeus, he says:
إن علة هبوط النفس إلى هذا العالم أمور شتى وذلك أن منها ما أهبطت لخطيئة أخطأتها وإنما هبطت إلى هذا العالم لتعاقب وتجازى على خطاياها
The cause for the descent of the soul to this realm is due to many matters. From them is that the soul that was caused to descend due to an error it committed. So, it merely descended to this realm for it to be punished and recompensed[27] for its mistakes.[28]
In another place in Timaeus, he states:
إن النفس جوهر شريف سعيد وإنما صارت في هذا العالم من فعل الباري الخير فإن الباري لما خلق هذا العالم أرسل إليه النفس وصيرها فيه ليكون العالم ذا عقل لأنه لم يكن من الواجب إذا كان هذا العالم متقنا في غاية الإتقان أن يكون غير ذي عقل ولم يكن ممكنا أن يكون العالم ذا عقل وليست له نفس فلهذه العلة أرسل الباري تعالى النفس إلى هذا العالم وأسكنها فيه ثم أرسل نفوسنا وأسكنها في أبداننا ليكون هذا العالم تاما كاملا ولئلا يكون دون ذلك العالم في التمام والكمال فينبغي أن يكون في العالم الحسي من أجناس الحيوان ما في هذا العالم العقلي.
The soul is a noble and blissful substance. It only came to this world due to the act of the good creator. When he created this realm, he sent the soul to it and put it in here so that the realm may be one of intellect. This is because it would not have been necessary if this realm had been perfect, at the peak of perfection, that it would not be one that had intelligence. It would also not be possible that the realm would have been one of intelligence and would not have a soul. Therefore, due to this reason the exalted creator sent the soul to this realm and settled it here. Then, he sent our souls and settled them in our bodies so that this realm would be complete and perfect, so that it would not be less than that realm in completion and perfection. So, there needs to be in the sensible realm different species of animals like what is in this rational realm.[29]
From the statements of the philosophers is that of Aristotle, who in many places in his book Theologica, meaning gnosis of lordship, states this. In one of those places, he states:
الطبيعة ضربان عقلية وحسية والنفس إذا كانت في العالم العقلي كانت أفضل وأشرف وإذا كانت في العالم الحسي كانت أخس وأدنى من أجل الجسم الذي صارت فيه والنفس وإن كانت عقلية ومن العالم الأعلى العقلي فلا بد أن ينال من العالم الحسي شيئا وتصير فيه لأن طبيعتها متلاحمة للعالم العقلي والعالم الحسي ولا ينبغي أن تذم النفس أو تلام على ترك العالم العقلي وكينونتها في هذا العالم لأنها موضوعة بين العالمين جميعا وإنما صارت النفس على هذه الحال لأنها آخر تلك الجواهر الشريفة الإلهية وأول الجواهر الطبيعية الحسية ولما صارت مجاورة للعالم الحسي لم تمسك عنه فضائلها بل فاضت عليه قواها وزينته بغاية الزينة وربما نالت من خساستها ذلك إلا أن يحذر ويحترز.
Nature is of two types, rational and sensible. The soul, when it is in the rational realm, it is superior and nobler, and when it is in the sensible realm, it is inferior and lower due to the body that it has come in. If it is rational, and from the highest rational realm, then it must certainly acquire something from the sensible realm and come to it because its nature is in combat with the rational realm as well as the sensible realm. The soul ought not to be condemned or blamed for leaving the rational realm and its being in this realm because it is placed because both realms. The soul only changed to this state because it is the last of those noble divine substances and the first of the natural sensible substance. When it becomes adjacent to the sensible realm, it does not take from it its virtues. Rather, its own potentialities and adornments of the highest decoration overflow from it. It would also at times attain it due to its inferiority unless it remains cautious and wary.[30]
In one of those places, he says:
إن النفس الشريفة وإن تركت عالمها العالي وهبطت إلى هذا العالم السفلي فإنها فعلت ذلك بنوع استطاعتها وقوتها العالية ليتصور الإنية التي بعدها ولتدبرها وإن هي أفلتت من هذا العالم بعد تصويرها وتدبيرها إياه وصارت إلى عالمها سريعا لم يضرها هبوطها إلى هذا العالم شيء بل انتفعت به وذلك أنها استفادت من هذا العالم معرفة الشيء وعلمت ما طبيعته.
The noble soul, even though it left its higher realm and descended to this lower realm, it did so due to a type of its capability and higher power, so that it may conceive of its own realized existence which is after it and is for its ordination. Also, even though it fled from this realm after its conception and ordination of it and went to its own realm quickly, its descent to this realm did not harm it in any manner. Rather, it benefited it, and that is because it got to know from this realm about the recognition of a thing and know its nature.[31]
In one of those places, Aristotle also says:
إذا فارقت النفس العقل وأبت أن يتصل به وأن يكون هي وهو واحدا اشتاقت إلى أن تنفرد بنفسها وأن يكون والعقل اثنين ثم اطلعت إلى هذا العالم وألقت بصرها على شيء من الأشياء دون العقل استعادت الذكر حينئذ وصارت ذات ذكر فإن ذكرت الأشياء التي هناك لم ينحط إلى هاهنا وإن ذكرت إلى هذا العالم السفلي انحطت من ذلك العالم الشريف.
When the soul separates from the intellect and denies connecting to it and when it (the soul) and it (the intellect) become one, it yearns to be individualized by itself and that it and the intellect be two. Then, it comes to this realm and its sight falls on something other than the intellect. It starts to reminiscence at that point and start remembering. So, if it remembers the things there (in the higher realm), it does not come down here, and if it remembers things in this lower realm, it comes down from that noble realm.[32]
From the statements of Aristotle that signify to there being different realms and existences is the same statement of this philosopher in the second part of the Theologica. He states:
فنريد الآن أن نذكر العلة التي بها وقعت الأسامي المختلفة على النفس ولزمها ما يلزم الشيء المتجزي المنقسم الذات فينبغي أن يعلم هل تتجزى النفس أم لا تتجزى فإن كانت تتجزى فهل تتجزى بذاتها أم بعرض وإذا كانت لا تتجزى فبذاتها لا تتجزى أم بعرض فنقول إن النفس تتجزى بعرض وذلك أنها إذا كانت في الجسم فقبلت التجزئة بتجزي الجسم كقولك إن الجزء المتفكر غير الجزء البهيمي وجزؤها الشهواني غير جزئها الغضبي فالنفس إنما تقبل التجزئة بعرض لا بذاتها وإذا قلنا إن النفس لا تتجزى فإنما نقول ذلك بقول مرسل ذاتي وإذا قلنا إنها تقبل التجزئة فإنما نقول ذلك بقول مضاف عرضي وذلك أنا إذا رأينا طبيعة الأجسام تحتاج إلى النفس لتكون حية والجسم يحتاج إلى النفس لتكون منبثة في جميع أجزائه انتهى
So, now we wish to mention the cause due to which different names are used for the soul and things attach to it the way they would to something capable of separation and division in essence. So, it should be known whether the soul is divisible or indivisible. If it is divisible, then is it divisible in its essence or in its accident? If it is indivisible, then would it be indivisible with its essence or its accident? We say that the soul is divisible in its accident, and that is because if it is in a body, it accepts division with the division of the body, just as you would say that the thoughtful part is not the same as the bestial part, and the sensual part of the soul is not the same as the part of anger. So, the soul accepts division in accident only and not in essence. If we were to say that the soul is indivisible, we are merely saying that due to an essentially sent statement. If we are to say that it is divisible then we only say that due to an addition accidental statement. This is because we see the nature of bodies needing the soul to be alive, and the body needing the soul to be spread in all its parts. End quote.[33]
It is evident from these words that for the soul there is an aspect of existence that does not occupy space, neither essentially nor accidentally. This is the rational existence of the soul. There is an aspect of the soul that occupies space accidentally. It is apparent that the natural existence that occupies space is not the same as the rational existence that does not occupy space. It should not remain hidden or concealed that the custom of the ancient philosophers, by following the great prophets, is that they would construct their noble words based on symbols, indications, and metaphors to protect of the common good and for wisdom, as well as to be kind to the weak intellects and souls which are crooked and miscomprehend them. Thus, that which has come in their words that the soul made a mistake in the holy realm and escaped from the anger and displeasure of God by descending. Even though the ancient philosophers and their likes knew that the appearance of a mistake and the committing of disobedience in the holy realm is inconceivable. Thus, what they want by a mistake of the soul is its aspect of contingency (jihat-i-imkānīyyah)[34], and the aspect of the obtaining of the soul from its inception, and the aspect of the defect of the soul which necessitates its attachment to the body, and its being potential. Therefore, the natural crime of the soul is the defect of its substance, and what is meant by the descent of the soul is the emanation of the soul from the immaterial intellect with attachment to the body. What is meant by fleeing from God’s displeasure is its natural yearning towards the ordination of the body due to the passionate love of the soul to perfect its own self so that this substantial defect of the soul would be removed by the perfection of its substantial immaterial existence.
[1] Al-Asfār al-Arbaʿah, vol. 8, p. 343.
[2] This is because knowledge itself is simple (بسيط) and not composed (مركب), and anything simple cannot be divided further.
[3] Al-Asfār al-Arbaʿah, vol. 8, p. 343.
[4] Category here refers to Aristotle’s ten categories (المقولات العشر) in Arabic, which are: (1) substance (الجوهر); (2) quantity (الكم); (3) quality (الكيف); (4) relatives (الإضافة); (5) somewhere (المكان); (6) sometime (الزمان); (7) being in a position (الوضع); (8) having (المِلك); (9) acting (الفعل); and (10) being acted upon (الإنفعال).
[5] Al-Asfār al-Arbaʿah, vol. 8, p. 343.
[6] Ibid, 346.
[7] The text has the word يمتاز instead of تمتاز, but referring back to the book being quoted, I included the word تمتاز since it would linguistically make sense and is the correct word here.
[8] Ḥikmat al-Ishrāq, p. 119
[9] This text is not found within the sources of ḥadīth. However, the first part is found within the sources where the sixth Imām says نحن السابقون, we are the forerunners. See: Baṣāʾir al-Darajāt, p. 83, Kamāl al-Dīn, vol. 1, p. 206, and al-Amālī by al-Ṭūsī, no. 1354.
[10] Manāqib Ibn Shahr Āshūb, vol. 1, pp. 183 – 184.
[11] All this part can be found in Mullā Ṣadrā’s Four Asfār. See: Al-Asfār al-Arbaʿah, vol. 8, pp. 354 – 355.
[12] Al-Kāfī, vol. 8, p. 177, Man Lā Yaḥḍuruhu al-Faqīh, no. 5821. Something similar is found in Sunnī sources, see: Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, no. 3495 & 3496 and Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, no. 2638 as well as many other sources.
[13] Al-ʿIlm wa al-Ḥikmah fī al-Kitāb wa al-Sunnah, p. 283, Sharḥ Risālat al-Ḥuqūq, p. 88. The wording in the first reference states علم instead of عرف. However, this report is not in any of the books of ḥadīth.
[14] Nahj al-Balāgha, vol. 2, p. 44, Sermon no. 154.
[15] This saying is found in later works attributed to Imām al-Ṣādiq (as). See: Jāmiʿ al-Saʿādāt, vol. 1, p. 180, Tafsīr al-Aṣfā, vol. 1, p. 92 etc.
[16] Aristotle is known as the first teacher (المعلم الأول) by the Arabs, with al-Farābī being known as the second teacher (المعلم الثاني), and Mīr Dāmād, the teacher of Mullā Ṣadrā, being called the third teacher (المعلم الثالث).
[17] The book Theologica was misattributed to Aristotle by the early Islamic philosophers. Some academics described the author as pseudo-Aristotle. We now know that the book is actually by Plotinus, although the philosophers still attribute it to Aristotle in respect of the tradition of ancient authorities. The work by Plotinus is called the Enneads, and he is referred to as by the title of Greek Shaykh (الشيخ اليوناني) by the Islamic philosophers.
[18] The closest passage to this is found in the Enneads, see: Enneads, IV.8.6.25-35: “Thus, in sum, the soul, a divine being and a dweller in the loftier realms, has entered body; it is a god, a later phase of the divine: but, under stress of its powers and of its tendency to bring order to its next lower, it penetrates to this sphere in a voluntary plunge: if it turns back quickly, all is well; it will have taken no hurt by acquiring the knowledge of evil and coming to understand what sin is, by bringing its forces into manifest play, by exhibiting those activities and productions which, remaining merely potential in the unembodied, might as well never have been even there, if destined never to come into actuality, so that the soul itself would never have known that suppressed and inhibited total. The act reveals the power, a power hidden, and we might almost say obliterated or nonexistent, unless at some moment it became effective: in the world as it is, the richness of the outer stirs us all to the wonder of the inner whose greatness is displayed in acts so splendid.” The Arabic is taken from Al-Asfār al-Arbaʿah, vol. 8, pp. 356 – 357.
[19] Al-Asfār al-Arbaʿah, vol. 8, p. 358.
[20] Ibid.
[21] A way of saying ‘God forbid’ in an Islamic/Muslim context.
[22] The following footnote is from the original book:
The reason for dependence is due to essential contingency (إمكان ذاتي), which does not get removed from the contingent existence in the state of existence and non-existence. This dependency is called need (faqr), and need necessitates the darkness of man’s face. This is why one of the Gnostics expressed the dependency on a maker with being dark faced. A poem:
سیاه روی از ممکن در دو عالم جدا هرگز نشد
Being of a dark face in both worlds, was not separated from the contingent being.
And God knows best.
[23] ʿAwālī al-Liʾālī, vol. 4, p. 106. A report of different wording but similar meaning is found in certain Sunnī sources, refer to: Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, no. 179 & Sunan Ibn Mājah, no. 196. There are other narrations which mention the veils of Allāh, and the numbers vary depending on the report. See, for example: al-Kāfī, vol. 1, p. 98 & al-Tawḥīd, p. 108. Some reports mention the Prophet (ṣ) asking Gabriel if he had seen God, to which he replies that between him, and God are seventy veils of light or fire. If he were to see the nearest one of them, he would be burnt. See: al-Muʿjam al-Awsaṭ, no. 6407. The report has been called weak by al-Albānī. Refer to: Ḍaʿīf al-Jāmiʿ al-Ṣaghīr, no. 3219.
[24] Empedocles (انباذقلس) was a presocratic philosophers who, like Pythagoras, believed in the transmigration of souls or reincarnation.
[25] His writings survive in The Fragments of Empedocles. The quote mentioned from Empedocles in Arabic is known to be his doctrine, and the closest passage I could find was in The Fragments of Empedocles, p. 55. The Arabic text cited by the author is from Al-Asfār al-Arbaʿah, vol. 8, p. 360.
[26] Found in Plato’s work Phaedrus 246 a-c: “We will liken the soul to the composite nature of a pair of winged horses and a charioteer. Now the horses and charioteers of the gods are all good and of good descent, but those of other races are mixed; and first the charioteer of the human soul drives a pair, and secondly one of the horses is noble and of noble breed, but the other quite the opposite in breed and character. Therefore, in our case the driving is necessarily difficult and troublesome. Now we must try to tell why a living being is called mortal or immortal. Soul, considered collectively, has the care of all that which is soulless, and it traverses the whole heaven, appearing sometimes in one form and sometimes in another; now when it is perfect. and fully winged, it mounts upward and governs the whole world; but the soul which has lost its wings is borne along until it gets hold of something solid, when it settles down, taking upon itself an earthly body, which seems to be self-moving, because of the power of the soul within it; and the whole, compounded of soul and body, is called a living being, and is further designated as mortal.” The Arabic is from Al-Asfār al-Arbaʿah, vol. 8, p. 360.
[27] The text has the word يجازى, but the source it is quoting, that being the four Asfār who then quotes Plato, has the word تجازى, which is the feminine, since the soul (النفس) is a feminine word in Arabic. Thus, I have included the sentence was found in the work being cited.
[28] This view is found throughout Plato’s Timaeus, the closest passage I could find was Timaeus 41 d. The Arabic is taken from Al-Asfār al-Arbaʿah, vol. 8, p. 360.
[29] Found in Plato’s Timaeus, 30 a-d: “For God desired that, so far as possible, all things should be good and nothing evil; wherefore, when He took over all that was visible, seeing that it was not in a state of rest but in a state of discordant and disorderly motion, He brought it into order out of disorder, deeming that the former state is in all ways better than the latter. For Him who is most good it neither was nor is permissible to perform any action save what is most fair. As He reflected, therefore, He perceived that of such creatures as are by nature visible, none that is irrational will be fairer, comparing wholes with wholes, than the rational; and further, that reason cannot possibly belong to any apart from Soul. So because of this reflection He constructed reason within soul and soul within body as He fashioned the All, that so the work He was executing might be of its nature most fair and most good. Thus, then, in accordance with the likely account, we must declare that this Cosmos has verily come into existence as a Living Creature endowed with soul and reason owing to the providence of God. This being established, we must declare that which comes next in order. In the semblance of which of the living Creatures did the Constructor of the cosmos construct it? We shall not deign to accept any of those which belong by nature to the category of “parts”; for nothing that resembles the imperfect would ever become fair. But we shall affirm that the Cosmos, more than aught else, resembles most closely that Living Creature of which all other living creatures, severally and generically, are portions. For that Living Creature embraces and contains within itself all the intelligible Living Creatures, just as this Universe contains us and all the other visible living creatures that have been fashioned. For since God desired to make it resemble most closely that intelligible Creature which is fairest of all and in all ways most perfect, He constructed it as a Living Creature, one and visible, containing within itself all the living creatures which are by nature akin to itself.” The Arabic is taken from Al-Asfār al-Arbaʿah, vol. 8, pp. 360 – 361.
[30] The closest passages can be found in the Enneads of Plotinus, in The Fourth Ennead, Second Tractate: “In that allocation we were distinguishing things as they fall under the Intellectual or the sensible, and we placed the soul in the former class; now, taking its membership of the Intellectual for granted, we must investigate by another path the more specific characteristics of its nature…” The Arabic is taken from Al-Asfār al-Arbaʿah, vol. 8, p. 361.
[31] The closest passage to this is in the Enneads, IV.8.6.25-35: “but, under stress of its powers and of its tendency to bring order to its next lower, it penetrates to this sphere in a voluntary plunge: if it turns back quickly, all is well; it will have taken no hurt by acquiring the knowledge of evil and coming to understand what sin is, by bringing its forces into manifest play.” The Arabic is taken from Al-Asfār al-Arbaʿah, vol. 8, pp. 361 – 362.
[32] See Plotinus’ Enneads, Fourth Tractate, Problems of the soul, “But it leaves that conjunction; it cannot suffer that unity; it falls in love with its own powers and possessions, and desires to stand apart; it leans outward so to speak: then, it appears to acquire a memory of itself.” The Arabic is taken from Al-Asfār al-Arbaʿah, vol. 8, p. 362.
[33] Refer to Plotinus’ Enneads, The Fourth Ennead, Third Tractate, 19: “Thus the indivisible phase of the soul stands distinct from the divisible; they do not form a unity, but, on the contrary, a whole consisting of parts, each part a self-standing thing having its own peculiar virtue. None the less, if that phase which becomes divisible in body holds indivisibility by communication from the superior power, then this one same thing [the soul in body] may be at once indivisible and divisible; it will be, as it were, a blend, a thing made up of its own divisible self with, in addition, the quality that it derives from above itself.” The Arabic is taken from Al-Asfār al-Arbaʿah, vol. 8, p. 363.
[34] This may be applied to the story of Adam (as). He did not commit a mistake, but his mistake, or the mistake that all beings have is their inherent contingency and need for God, which is a blemish and defect imprinted in them that causes their downfall and forces them to come back up to him.
فصل ثالث
در اقوال حکماء و متمسکات قوم در باب حدوث نفس و قدم نفس و تزئيف اقوال ايشان بدانکه اين مسئله دقيقۀ المسلک و بعيدۀ الغور است لهذا ما بين فلاسفه سابقين در اين مسئله اختلاف کثير واقع شده و وجه اختلاف اين است که نفس انسانيه ليس لها مقام معلوم في الهويۀ و لا لها درجۀ معينۀ في الوجود مثل ساير موجودات طبيعيه و نفسيه و عقليه که براي هر يکي از انها مقام معلوم است بلکه نفس انسانيه ذات مقامات و درجات متفاوته است و براي او نشآت سابقه و لاحقه است و براي او در هر مقام و هر عالم صورت ديگر است و آنچه شانش اين باشد ادراک حقيقۀ او صعب است و فهم هويۀ او متعسر و آنچه قوم از حقيقۀ نفس ادراک نمودند غير از لوازم وجود نفس از جهۀ بدن و عوارض ادراکيه و تحريکيه نيست و از احوال نفس سواي لواحق ادراکيه و تحريکيه متفظن نشدند و اين هر دو امر از ان قبيل اند که جميع حيوانات در آن شريک اند و آنچه زياده بر اين ادراک نموده اند اين است که نفس مجرد است و باقي است بعد از انقطاع تصرف نفس از اين بدن و تعريف مذکور از اين جهت است که نفس محل علوم است و علم غير منقسم است و محل غير منقسم غير منقسم است پس نفس بسيطۀ الذات است و هر چه و هر چه[6] بسيطۀ الذات است قابل فنا نيست و الا لازم مي آيد که نفس مرکب باشد از قوۀ وجود و عدم و فعليه وجود و عدم و اين خلاف فرض است و اين غايت عرفان است مر حقيقت نفس را و کسي که بر همين قدر در معرفت نفس اقتصار نموده است پس اشکالات کثيره بر او وارد مي شوند که بعضي از انها غير ممکن است و از جمله اشکالات وارده اين است که بودن نفس بسيطۀ الذات منافي حدوث نفس است و از جمله آنها اين است که بودن نفس روحانيه الحقيقت عقليه الوجود مناقض تعلق نفس است ببدن و انفعالات بدنيه مثل صحۀ و مرض و لذت و الم جسمانين و از انجمله بساطت نفس و تجرد نفس از ماده منافي تکثر نفوس است بحسب تکثر الابدان و اين قوم که منکر اند مر بودن نفس را منظوره در اطوار و منقلبه در شئون حسيه و خياليه و عقليه لازم مذهب ايشان اين است که هر نفس از اول تعلقش ببدن و حدوث آن تا اقصى مراتب تجرد نفس و عاقليه و معقوليت آن شيء واحد و جوهر واحد است واقع است تحت ماهيت نوعيه انسانيه مثل وقوع انسان تحت ماهيۀ جنسيه حيوانيه و بائد دانست که در اين مقام دقيقه ديگر است که لازم مذهب اين قوم است و آن اين است که ايشان معترف اند باينکه نفس فصل اشتقاقي است مقوم است مر ماهيت نوع را که مرکب است از نفس و جسد در خارج مثل حساس براي حيوان و ناطق براي انسان و نيز قائل شده اند باينکه جنس و فصل بمقابله ماده و صورت است در مرکبات طبيعيه و ايضا قائل اند باينکه فصل محصل ماهيت نوع محصل است مر وجود جنس آنرا و نيز قائل اند ببودن جنس عرض نسبت به فصل مقسم مراد ازونه اين است که جنس از عوارض خارجيه فصل است که بحسب الواقع تصور انفکاک او ممکن باشد بلکه مراد اين است که جنس از جمله عوارض تخيليه است که در اين قسم عروض انفکاک ما بين العارض و المعروض متصور نيست مگر بنحوي از اعتبار ذهني چون اين را دانستي پس ميگوئيم که اگر جوهر نفساني انسي حرکت جوهريه و استحاله ذاتيه نداشته باشد لازم مي آيد که دائما با جسم نامي حساس متحد الوجود بوده باشد زيرا که نفس مبداء فصل نوع انساني يعني مفهوم ناطق است که از فصول منطقيه است و همچنين حساس براي حيوان بازاء نفس حساسه و فصول اشتياقيه بعينها صور نوعيه اجسام طبيعيه اند و صور نوعيه بما هي فصول لا بما هي صور يحمل عليها الجسم بما هو جسم و ان لم يحمل عليها بما هو مادۀ پس بنابر راي ايشان لازم مي آيد که نفس جسم باشد بيکي از دو وجه مذکور با اينکه قائل اند بتجرد نفس ناطقه حدوثا و بقاء و بنابر مذهب صدر الحکماء المتالهين اين محذور لازم نمي آيد زيرا که نفوس انسانيه نزد او جسمانيۀ الحدوث روحانيت البقاء اند پس اين احد البراهين است بر ثبوت حرکت جوهريه کما في مقولۀ الکيف و الکم و اکثري از اشکالات وارده در حدوث نفس بقاي آن بعد طبيعت باين قاعده منحل ميشوند و جمهور به سبب عدم تفطن شان باين اصل متحير اند در احوال نفس و حدوث نفس و بقاي نفس و تجرد نفس و تعلق نفس حتى که بعض از ايشان منکر تجرد نفس شده اند و بعض منکر بقاي نفس بعد از بدن شده اند و بعض قائل بتناسخ ارواح شده اند اما الراسخون في العلم الجامعون بين النظر و البرهان و الکشف و الوجدان پس نزد آنها نفوس انسانيه شيون و اطوار کثيره دارند و باوجود بساطۀ اکوان وجوديه دارند بعضي آن اکوان قبل الطبيعه و بعض آن مع الطبيعه و بعض آن ما بعد الطبعيۀ اند و حق اين است که نفس انسانيه جسمانيت الحدوث و التصرف و روحانيت البقاء و التعقل است پس تصرف نفوس در اجسام جسماني است و تعقل نفوس بذات خود و ذات جاعل خود روحاني است اما عقول مفارقه پس روحانيت الذات و الفعل اند جميعا و اما طبائع پس جسمانيت الذات و الفعل اند جميعا پس براي هر يکي از اين جواهر مقامي است معلوم بخلاف نفس انسانيه که نيست براي او مقام معلوم در هويت و نه از براي او است درجه معيّنه در وجود لهذا ما حکم مي کنيم که نفس متطور است باطوار مختلفه و تصرف نفس در بدن مثل تصرف مفارقات در اجسام نيست زيرا که نفس بذاتها مباشر تحريک جزئي و ادراکات جزئيه است بر سبيل انفعال و استکمال نه بر وجه افاضه و ابداع و ما در اين مقام بسوي اقوال حکماء و متمسکات قوم در باب حدوث نفس و قدم نفس و تزئيف اقوال ايشان رجوع مي نمائيم اما احتجاجات باقيه حکماء بر حدوث نفس پس از جمله آنها آن است که شيخ الاشراق در کتاب حکمۀ الاشراق ذکر فرموده قوله و ليس هذا النوراي النفس الانسانيۀ قبل البدن فان لکلّ شخص انساني ذاتا تعلم نفسها و احوالها الخفيّۀ على غيرها فليست الانوار المدبرۀ الانسيّۀ واحدۀ و الا ما علم واحد کان معلوما للجميع و ليس کذلک فقبل البدن ان کانت هذه الانوار موجودۀ لا يتصوّر وحدتها فانها لا تنقسم بعد ذالک اذ هي غير متقدرۀ و لا برزخيه اي جسمانيه حتى يمکن عليها الانقسام و لا يتصور تکثرها فاذن هذه الانوار المجردۀ قبل الصياصي لا يمتاز بشدۀ و ضعف اذ کل مرتبۀ من الشدۀ و الضعف ما لا يحصي و لا عارض غريب فانها ليست في عالم الحرکات حٍ فلما لم يکن کثرتها و لا وحدتها قبل تصرف الابدان فلا يمکن وجودها يعني اين نور که نفس انسانيه است قبل البدن نيست زيرا که هر شخص انساني ذات است که آن ذات نفس خود را و احوال خفيه خود را بر غير ميداند پس انوار مدبره انسيه واحد نيستند وگرنه لازم مي آيد که معلوم يکي از ايشان معلوم جميع ايشان باشد و حالانکه چنين نيست پس قبل از بدن اگر اين انوار موجود باشند وحدت ايشان متصور نيست زيرا که بعد از ان منقسم نمي شوند براي اينکه انوار مذکوره متقدر و برزخي يعني جسماني نيستند که تا انقسام بر ايشان ممکن باشد و تکثر ايشان هم متصور نيست زيرا که اين انوار مجرده قبل از صياصي يعني ابدان بشدۀ و ضعف ممتاز نمي شوند بسبب اينکه مراتب شدۀ و ضعف ما لا يحصي اند و نه قبل ابدان بعارض غريب ممتاز مي شوند زيرا که در ان هنگام در عالم حرکات نيستند پس چون کثرت نفوس وحدت نفوس قبل الابدان نبود وجود نفس هم قبل از ابدان ممکن نيست اقوال اين دليل منظور فيه است بوجوه عديده. وجه اول اينکه بر ابطال شق ثاني وارد مي شود که ما قبول نداريم که نفوس متحد هستند نوعا باين معنى که افراد نوع واحدند و متمايز اند در وجود بلکه بودن آنها اجزاء شيء واحد بوحدت عقليه اشبه است از بودن آنها افراد ماهيت واحده بوحدت نوعيه و مستند اين است که جواهر عقليه نزد بعض فلاسفه کاملين وجودات محضه اند بلا ماهيت و متفاوت اند باشد و اضعف پس نفوس قبل از نزول در ابدان متمايز اند بجهات و حيثيات عقليه فاعليه متقدمه بر اکوان طبيعيه بالذات نه بعوارض قابليه لاحقه و بسوي همين اشاره فرموده است حضرت سيد انبياء عليه السلام در قول خود نحن السابقون اللاحقون و نيز فرموده کنت نبيا و آدم بين الماء و الطين وجه الثاني اينکه بر ابطال شق اول وارد مي شود که ما قبول نداريم لزوم مذکور را اگر مراد از ادراکات ادراکات متوقفه بر آلات باشند و اگر مراد از ادراکات ادراکات غير متوقفه بر آلات است پس لزوم آن مسلم است و بعد تسليم لزوم عدم اشتراک و ادراکات را تسليم نمي کنيم زيرا که نفوس در علم بذوات خود و ادراک اوليات غير متوقفه بر آلات مشترک اند وجه ثالث اينکه قوله لا يتصور وحدتها فانها لا تنقسم بعد ذلک منظُر است باينکه وحدت بر چند قسم است مثل وحدت جنسي و نوعي و عقلي و عددي و مقداري و در مقابل هر وحدت کثرت است باين معني که در مقابل وحدت عددي کثرت عددي است و در مقابل وحدت نوعي کثرت نوعي است نه باين معني که در مقابل هر وحدت بر کثرت است زيرا که گاه باشد که موضوع وحدت عقليه بعينيه موضوع کثرت عدديه است و همچنين گاه باشد که موضوع واحد بالطبع کثير مي باشد باخراء و بقاعده بسيط الحقيقت کل الاشياء عقل بسيط کل و مجموع اشياء معقوله است و در ما نحن فيه همچنين است زيرا که نزول از نشاط عقل بسوي نشاء ابدان مقتضي تکثير واحد است و صعود از نشاء ابدان بسوي نشاء عقل مقتضي توحيد کثير است و تکثير واحد و توحيد کثير منحصر در متعلقات مقادير و اجرام نيست تا جرميت نفوس لازم آيد و از جمله ادله حدوث نفس نيز آنچه شيخ الاشراق در کتاب حکمۀ الاشراق ذکر فرموده که نفوس اگر قبل الابدان موجود باشند پس هيچ حجابي و شاغلي آنها را مانع از عالم نور محض نيست و در عالم نور تغير و اتفاق هم نيست پس نفوس در ان عالم کامل باشند پس تصرف شان در بدن ضائع است پس بعض نفوس اوليت از براي تخصيص ببدن ندارد و اتفاقات منحصر در عالم اجسام اند و در عالم نور محض اتفاق هم نيست که موجب تخصيص باشد و آنچه در اين مقام گفته شده است که تصرفات در ابدان حالتي است براي نفوس که حادث مي شود موجب سقوط نفوس است از مراتب خود کلامي است باطل زيرا که آن چيزي که در عالم حرکات و تعلقات نيست تجدد و حدوث در ان راهي ندارد و اقول استاذ الاساتذه صدر الحکماء و المتالهين آخوند ملا صدراي شيرازي قدس سره در تعليقات خود که بر حکمۀ الاشراق نوشته است جواب از اين دليل باين طور داده که از براي نفوس کينونۀ و وجودي است در عالم عقول و وجود و کينونت است در عالم طبيعت و حس و وجود کينونت آنها در عالم عقل مخالف کينونت و وجود آنها است در عالم طبيعت و حس و نفوس در عالم عقل اگر چه صافيه نقيه غير ممتجبه و غير ممنوعه انداز کمال عقلي نوعي و ليکن خيرات کثيره که بدون هبوط الى الابدان و آلات بحسب ازمنه اوقات و فنون استعدادات ممکن الحصول نيستند براي ايشان باقي مانده اند پس تصرف نفوس در ابدان جزئيه بعد وجود و کينونت آنها در مقامات کليه ضايع نيست چنانچه شيخ مقتول زعم نموده بلکه اندر اين تصرفات جزئيه حکمتي است جليله که لا يعلمها الا الله و الراسخون في العلم پس مقام تعجب است که اين شيخ الاشراق و اکثري از مقلدين او قائل اند بابقاء بعض نفوس در اين عالم بسوي عالم نور محض و عقل صرف بدون استلزام تجدد و استيجاب سنوح حالۀ تجدديه در آن عالم چنانچه ثابت و محقق است عند العرفاء پس چه طور انکار مي نمايد هبوط نفوس را از ان عالم بسوي اين عالم بدون لزوم تغير و تجدد و حالانکه حالت اعاده مثل حالت ابتداء است و کسيکه اتصال نفوس را بعالم عقل که بري است از سنوح و تجدد و تغير تصديق مي نمايد پس بايد که سهل باشد بر او اذعان بانفصال نفوس از عالم عقل و اتصال آنها بابدان و از تصحيح باحد الامرين من البدو الاعاده لازم مي آيد تصحيح امر ديگر و لهذا در کتاب الهي در اکثر مقامات اثبات اعاده بثبوت بدايت شده است کقوله تعالى کما بداءنا اوّل خلق نعيده[7] بدانکه حکايت هبوط نفس انسانيه از عالم قدس که موطن پدر مقدس اوست بسوي اين عالم که موطن طبيعت جسمانيه است که بمنزله مهد است و موطن نفس حيوانيه است که بمنزله مادر اوست از ان قبيل است که در صحف منزله سماويه و مرموزات انبياء و اشارات اولياء و اقوال حکماي کبراء واقع شده است پس ذکر هبوط نفس و صعود آن در کتاب عزيز قرآن مجيد در آيات کثيره واقع شده کقوله تعالى لقد خلقنا الانسان في احسن تقويم ثم رددناه اسفل سافلين الا الذين آمنوا و عملوا الصالحات[8] و مثل قوله تعالى در حکايۀ ادم و هبوط آن از عالم جنان قلنا اهبطوا منها جميعا فامّا ياتينّکم منّي هدى فمن تبع هدي فلاخوف عليهم و لا هم يحزنون[9] وقوله تعالى اهبطوا بعضکم لبعض عدو و لکم في الارض مستقر و متاع الى حين[10] و قوله تعالى الهکم التکاثر حتى زرتم المقابر الى قوله تعالى ثم لتسئلنّ يومئذ عن النعيم و قوله تعالى و ان منکم الا واردها کان على ربک حتما مقضيّا ثم ننجي الذين اتقوا و نذر الظّالمين فيها جثيا[11] و قوله تعالى کما بداء کم تعودون فريقا هدى و فريقا حق عليهم الضللۃ و آنچه در حديث نبوي ص الناس معادن کمعادن الذهب و الفضۃ[12] واقع شده است که اشاره بسوي تقدم وجود نفوس در معادن آنها يعني خزائن علم الهي که عبارت از عقول مفارقه است و کيفيت اين تقدم در وجود و تفضيل اين مطلب را چنانکه در فصل سابق وعده نموده ايم بيان مي نمائيم. باينکه نفوس اکوان و وجودات مختلفه دارند بعض آن اکوان قبل الطبيعت و بعض آن اکوان عند الطبيعۀ و بعض آن اکوان ما بعد الطبيعه پس مراد از کون قبل الطبيعۀ وجود عقلي تجردي ارواح است که در خزائن علم الهي از صور مفارقه عقليه است و مقدم است بر کون عند الطبيعۀ که وجود تعليقي ارواح عبارت از ان است و همان وجود عقلي تجردي وجود و ثبوت است اشياء جزئيه خارجيه را در صلب قضاي الهي که در آنجا از تغير و محو اثبات محفوظ و مصئون اند چنانکه در اينجا در کون فساد و محو و اثبات واقعه اند چنانچه در صحيفه الهيه وارد شده است في قوله تعالى يمحو الله ما يشاء و يثبت و عنده ام الکتاب ام الکتاب خزانه علم الهي است که عبارت از عقل فعال و محفوظ است از تغيرات و تبدلات و محو اثبات لهذا آن را بلوح محفوظ تعبير نموده اند چنانچه در فصل سابق بيان کرديم و در کلمات امير المومنين علي بن ابي طالب عليه السلام نيز اشاره بهر سه اکوان شده است چنانچه آنحضرت مي فرمايد رحم الله امراء عرف من اين و في اين و الى اين يعني خدا رحم کند مردي را که شناخته است که از کجا آمده و در کجا است و بسوي کدام طرف مي رود پس اول اشاره است بوجود قبل الطبيعۀ که در خزائن علم الهي است و وسط اشاره است بسوي وجود عند الطبيعۀ که وجود تعليقي نفس است يعني وجوديکه متعلق بابدان جزئيه حادث است و اخير اشاره است بسوي مآل حال نفوس اتصال بعقول فعّاله است يعني بسوي وجود ما بعد الطبيعۀ که وجود تجردي نفس است يعني وجوديکه بعد از استکمال نفس بآن وجود متصل بعقول فعاله مي شود و نيز آنحضرت عليه السلام فرموده اند وليحضر عقله وليکن من انباء الآخرۀ فانه منها قدم و اليها ينقلب يعني بايد انسان عقل خود را حاضر نمايد و بايد که از انباء آخرۀ باشد زيرا که انسان از انها آمده است بسوي آنها منقلب مي شود و نيز از ان حضرت عليه السلام مروي است در ماهيت نفس و مبداء نفس معاد نفس اعلم ان الصورۃ الانسانيۃ هي اکبر حجۃ الله على خلقه و هي الکتاب الذي کتبه بيده و هي مجموع صورۃ العالمين و هي مختصر من اللوح المحفوظ و هي الشاهد على کل غائب و هي الطريق المستقيم الى کل خير و الصراط الممدود بين الجنۃ و النار يعني بدانکه صورۀ انسانيه آن اکبر حجت خدا است بر خلق او و همين است کتاب که آنرا بدست قدرت خود نوشته است و همين است مجموع صورت عالميان و همين است مختصر از لوح محفوظ و همين است شاهد بر هر غايب و همين است طريق مستقيم بسوي هر خيري و همين است صراط که ممدود است درميان جنت و نار و معلم فلاسفه ارسطاطاليس در کتاب اثولوجيا يعني معرفه الربوبيه در بيان فائده هبوط نفس بسوي اين عالم فرموده است آنچه معنيش اين است انّها لم يضرها هبوطها الى هذا العالم شيء بل انتفعت به و ذالک انّها استفادت من هذا العالم معرفۀ الشيء و علمت ما طبيعته بعد ان افرغت عليه قوائها و تراءت اعمالها و فاعيلها الشريفۀ الساکنۀ التي کانت فيها و هي في العالم العقلي فلولا انّها ظهرت افاعيلها و افرغت قواها و صيرتها واقعۀ تحت الابصار لکانت تلک القوى و الافاعيل فيها باطلا و لکانت النفس تنسي الفضائل و الافعال المحکۀ المتقنۀ اذا کانت خفيۀ لاتظهر ولو کان هذا هکذا لما عرفت قوّۀ النفس و لا شرفها و ذلک انّ الفعل انّما هو اعلان القوۀ الخفيۀ بظهورها و لو خفيت قوّۀ النفس و لم يظهر لفسدت و لکانت کانها لم تکن انتهى کلامه يعني به تحقيق نفس را هبوط بسوي اين عالم چيزي ضرر نرسانيده بلکه نفس باين بهبوط منتفع شده است و آن انتفاع اين است که تحقيق نفس استفاده نموده است از اين عالم معرفت شيء را و دانسته است طبيعت شيء را بعد از فراغ قوي و اظهار اعمال و افعال شريفه بر آن شيء که در عالم عقلي در نفس ساکن و مستقر بودند پس اگر افاعيلش ظاهر نمي شدند و قواي نفس فارغ نمي شدند و افاعيل خود را واقع تحت ابصار نمي گردانيد البته آن افعال و قواي در نفس باطل مي شدند و نفس فضائل و افعال محکمه متقنه خفيه خود را فراموش ميکرد و به سبب عدم ظهور و اگر هم چنين مي بود البته شرف نفس آن معروف نشدي زيرا که فعل اعلان قوۀ خفيه است بظهور آن و اگر قوت نفس مخفي ماندي و ظهور نميکرد البته فاسد مي شد بنحوي که گويا آن قوۀ در نفس نبود و در اقوال حکماء اقدمين اشارات لطيفه و رموزات شريفه است در باب هبوط نفس از عالم علوي و صعود آن از عالم سفلي و از شيخ الرئيس سوال نمودند از علّۀ هيبوط نفس شيخ رئيس در جواب آن قصيده انشاء فرموده همه آن قصيده مفيد و مشعر اين مطلب است که از براي نفس وجود است قبل البدن در عالم شامخ الهي و عود و رجوع مي نمايد بسوي آن چيزي که از ان فرودآمده است و شمس حقيقت نفس و کواکب قواي آن از مغرب نفس بسوي مشرق آن طلوع مي نمايند اما مشرقه مستقيمۀ و اما منکسفۀ منکوسۀ مکدرۀ و قول شيخ الاشراق و ما يقال ان المتصرفات في الابدان يسنح لها حال موجب لسقوطها عن مراتبها الخ صدر الحکماء در حواشي آن کتاب جواب اين قول باينطور داده اند که سقوط نفس عبارت است از صدور آن از سبب اصلي نفس و نزول آن از موطن پدر مقدس عقلي آن و حالتيکه موجب سقوط نفس است از ان عالم شئون فاعل نفس جهات علۀ آن و حيثيات نفس است و معلوم شده است که معلولات نازله و صادره از فواعل صادر شده اند از فواعل بجهات و لوازم امکانيه و نقائص و امکانات آنها به سبب احتياج ذوات آنها بسوي جاعل تام قيومي و خطيه آدم عليه السلام را ببعضي از اين نقائص تعبير فرموده اند نه اينکه خطيه آدم عليه السلام بعد از تعلق ببدن بوده نعوذ بالله من ذلک بلکه مراد اين است که آدم در عالم وجود عقلي تجردي به سبب جهات فقر [13]و احتياج و لوازم امکانيه و نقائص ذاتيه انقص در نورانيۀ بوده و تمکن نور انقص در مشهد نور اشد موجب هلاکت بود پس از ان عالم فرار نموده بعالم تعليقي در آمد تا از هلاکت محفوظ بماند بعد از استکمال بخيرات کثيره مثل تعلم اسماء کلها و صيرورت آن هيکل براي توحيد و مجمع براي کمال اتم و بودن آن مظهر براي اسم اعظم وغيره کامل در نورانيۀ شده قابليت تمکن در مشهد نور اشد حاصل نمود و نيز صدور نفوس را از علل بفرار از سخط الله تعبير مي نمايند و اين همه نيست مگر مقتضاي حکمۀ در تربيت وجود زيرا که نور انقص در مشهد نور اشد متمکن نمي شود آيا نمي بيني خود را وقتيکه اراده ميکني که نظر کني در مسئله الهيه شديدۀ الغموض و توغل کني در آن توغل قوي ذهن تو قبل از حصول ملکه رجوع بآن مسئله کند مي شود و سريع الانصراف ميشود از ان مسئله بسوي مشاغل ديگر از امور دنيه از روي فرار از اينکه دماغ تو به سبب استيلاي ظهور عقلي آن مسئله محترق بشود چنانچه نور شمس بر اعين خفافيش مستولي ميشود و بسوي همين اشاره است در حديث نبوي انّ لله سبعين حجابا من نور لو کشفها لاحترقت سبحات وجهه کل ما انتهى اليه بصره يعني بتحقيق براي خدا هفتاد حجاب نور است که اگر بگشايد ايشان را البته سوخته مي شوند صفحات چهره آن کسي که بسوي آن نظر نمايد و حکما بر سبيل رمز و اشاره وجوه عديده در بيان علۀ هبوط نفس ذکر فرموده اند و از جمله اقوال فلاسفه متقدمين آن است که ابناذقلس ذکر کرده و آن اين است که ان النفس کانت في المکان العالي الشريف فلمّا اخطاءت سقطت الى هذا العالم و انّما صارت الى هذا العالم فرارا من سخط الله الا انها لما الخدرت الى هذا العالم صار غياثا للنفوس التي قد اختلطت عقولها يعني نفس در مقام عالي و شريف متمکن بود پس وقتيکه خطا کرد از ان مقام عالي بسوي اين عالم ساقط گرديد و سقوط آن بسوي اين عالم فرار از سخط الله است مگر وقتيکه منحدر شد بسوي اين عالم غياث آن نفوس گرديد که عقول شان مختلط شده اند و از جمله اقوال حکماء قول افلاطون رباني است در کتاب خود که فرموده فاذا علۀ هبوط النفس الى هذا العالم سقوط ريشها فاذا ارتاشت ارتفعت الى عالمها الاول يعني علۀ هبوط نفس بسوي اين عالم سقوط پر و بال آنست پس وقتي که پر و بال بر او رو بسوي عالم اول خود پرواز مي نمايد و از آنها نيز قول افلاطون است در کتاب خود که مسمي است به طيماوس ان علۀ هبوط النفس الى هذا العالم امور شتى و ذالک ان منها ما اهبطت لخطيئۀ اخطاتها و انما هبطت الى هذا العالم لتعاقب و يجازي اعلى خطايا يعني علۀ هبوط نفس بسوي اين عالم چند امور اند از انجمله اين است که نازل کرده شده است بسبب خطاي که از او صادر شده است و جز اين نيست که نازل سده است بسوي اين عالم تا که معاقب شود و جزا داده شود و بر خطاياي خود و در موضع ديگر از طيماوس فرموده ان النفس جوهر شريف سعيد و انما صارت في هذا العالم من فعل الباري الخير فانّ الباري کما خلق هذا العالم ارسل الله النفس و صيرها فيه ليکون العالم ذا عقل لانه لم يکن من الواجب اذا کان هذا العالم متقنا في غايۀ الاتقان ان يکون غير ذي عقل و لم يکن ممکنا ان يکون العالم ذا عقل و ليست له نفس فلهذه العلۀ ارسل الباري تعالى النفس الى هذا العالم و اسکنها فيه ثمّ ارسل نفوسنا و اسکنها في ابداننا لکون هذا العالم تاما کاملا و لئلا يکون دون ذالک العالم في التمام و الکمال فينبغي ان يکون في العالم الحسي من اجناس الحيوان ما في هذا العالم العقلي يعني تحقيق نفس جوهري است شريف و سعيد و بودن او در اين عالم از فعل باري است که خير محض است زيرا که باري تعالى وقتيکه خلق نمود اين عالم را نفس را فرستاد و در اين عالم متمکن ساخت تا اين عالم ذي عقل بشود و چون اين عالم در غايت احکام و اتقان محکم و متقن بود واجب نبود که غير ذي عقل باشد و ممکن نبود که عالم ذي عقل بشود و حالانکه در ان نفس نباشد يعني بدون نفس ذي عقل بودن عالم محال است پس به سبب همين علۀ باري تعالى نفس را بسوي اين عالم فرستاد و او را در آن ساکن گردانيد تا که اين عالم تام و کامل بشود تا که نشود ما دون اين عالم در تمام کمال پس لايق است که بوده باشد در عالم حسي از اجناس حيوان آنچه در اين عالم عقلي است و از جمله آن اقوال آن است که معلم اول ارسطاطاليس در مواضع کثيره از کتاب خود اثولوجيا يعني معرفۀ الربوبيۀ فرموده از جمله آن مواضع قوله الطبيعۀ ضربان عقليّۀ و حسيۀ و النفس اذا کانت في العالم العقلي کانت افضل و اشرف و اذا کانت في العالم الحسي کانت اخس و ادنى من اجل الجسم الذي صارت فيه و النفس و ان کانت عقليّۀ و من العالم الاعلى العقلي فلا بد ان ينال من العالم الحسي شيئا لان طبيعتها متلاحمۀ للعالم العقلي و العالم الحسي و لا ينبغي ان تذم النفس او تلام على ترک العالم العقلي و کينونتها في هذا العالم لانها موضوعۀ بين العالمين جميعا و انما صارت النفس على هذه الحال لانها آخر تلک الجواهر الشريفۀ الالهيۀ و اول الجواهر الطبيعيۀ الحسيۀ و لمّا صارۀ مجاورۀ للعالم الحسي لم تمسک عنه فضائلها بل فاضت عليه قوائها و زينته بغايۀ الزينۀ و ربما نالت من خساستها ذلک الا ان يحذر و يحترز يعني طبيعت بر دو قسم است عقلي و حسي و نفس در وقت بودن آن در عالم عقلي افضل و اشرف مي باشد و در وقت بودن آن در عالم حسي اخس و ادنى مي باشد باعتبار جسم که در آن مي باشد و نفس اگر چه عقلي است و از عالم اعلى عقلي است پس لا بد است که حاصل نمايد از عالم حسي چيزي را زيرا که طبيعت آن متلاحم است براي عالم عقلي و عالم حسي و لايق نيست که نفس مذمت کرده شود يا ملامت کرده شود بر ترک عالم عقلي و وجود آن در اين عالم حسي زيرا که نفس موضوع است ما بين هر دو عالم و جز اين نيست که شده است نفس بر اين حالت زيرا که نفس آخر جواهر شريفه الهيه است و اول جواهر طبيعيه حسيه است و وقتيکه مجاور عالم حسي شده است امساک نه کرد از آن فضايل خود را بلکه فيضان قواي خود را بر آن نمود و آنرا مزين نمود بغايت زينت و اکثر اوقات حاصل نموده است از خساست خود آن را يعني فضايل را مگر آنکه تحذير نموده شود و احتراز نمائد و از جمله آن مواضع قوله ان النفس الشريفۀ و ان ترکت عالمها العالي و هبطت الى هذا العالم السفلي فانها فعلت ذلک بنوع استطاعتها و قوتها العاليۀ ليتصور الانيۀ التي بعدها و لتدبرها و صارت الى عالمها سريعا و لم يضرها هبوطها الى هذا العالم شيء بل انتفعت به و ذلک انها استفادت من هذا العالم معرفۀ الشيء و علمت ما طبيعته. يعني تحقيق نفس شريفه اگر چه ترک کرده است عالم عالي خود را و نزول کرده است بسوي اين عالم سفلي پس تحقيق نفس کرده است آن را بنوع استطاعت و اختيار خود و قوۀ عاليه خود تا وجود ما بعد خود را تصور نمايد و براي تدبر آن و ميرود بسوي عالم خود سريعا و ضرر نداده است نفس را نزول آن بسوي اين اين عالم چيزي بلکه منتفع شده است بآن هبوط و آن اين است که تحقيق نفس استفاده نموده است از اين عالم معرفت شيء را و دانسته است طبيعت شيء را و از جمله اقوال ارسطاطاليس قوله اذا فارقت النفس العقل و ابت ان يتصل به و ان يکون هي و هو واحدا اشتاقت الى ان تنفرد بنفسها و ان يکون و العقل اثنين ثم اطلعت الى هذا العالم و القت بصرها على شيء من الاشياء دون العقل استفادت الذکر حينئذ و صارت ذات ذکر فان ذکرت الاشياء التي هناک لم ينحط الى ههنا و ان ذکرت الى هذا العالم السفلي انحطت من ذلک العالم الشريف يعني وقتيکه مفارقت نمود نفس از عقل و انکار نمود از اينکه متصل بعقل بشود و از اينکه آن نفس و عقل واحد بشوند مشتاق گرديد بسوي اينکه بنفسها منفرد شود و اينکه بشود نفس و عقل دو چيز بعد از آن مطلع شد بسوي اين عالم و انداخت بصر خود را بر چيزي از اشياء مادون عقل دران هنگام استفاده ذکر نمود و صاحب ذکر گرديد و اگر ذکر ميکرد آن اشياء را که در آن عالم بودند بسوي اين عالم انحطاط نمي نمود و اگر ذکر اين عالم سفلي نموده است انحطاط نموده است از آن عالم شريف و از جمله کلمات ارسطاطاليس که دلالت ميکنند بر اکوان و وجودات مختلفه نفس قول اين فيلسوف است در ميم ثاني از کتاب اثولوجيا که فرموده است فنريد الآن ان نذکر العلۀ التي بها وقعت الاسامي المختلفۀ على النفس و لزمها ما يلزم الشيء المتجزي المنقسم الذات فينبغي ان يعلم هل تتجزي النفس ام لا تتجزي فان کانت تتجزي فهل تتجزي بذاتها ام بعرض و اذا کانت لا تتجزي فبذاتها لا تتجزي ام بعرض فنقول ان النفس تتجزي بعرض و ذالک انها اذا کانت في الجسم فقبلت التجزيۀ بتجزي الجسم کقولک ان الجزء المتفکر غير الجزء البهيمي و جزء ها الشهواني غير جزء ها الغضبي فالنفس انّما تقبل التجزيۀ بعرض لا بذاتها و اذا قلنا ان النفس لا تتجزي فانّما نقول ذلک بقول مرسل ذاتي و اذا قلنا انها تقبل التجزيۀ فانما نقول ذلک بقول مضاف عرضي و ذلک انا اذا راينا طبيعۀ الاجسام تحتاج الى النفس لتکون حيۀ و الجسم يحتاج الى النفس لتکون منبثۀ في جميع اجزاءه انتهى يعني پس اراده ميکنيم الآن که ذکر کنيم علۀ را که بآن اسامي مختلفه بر نفس واقع شده اند و لازم شده نفس را آنچه لازم مي شود و شيء متجزي منقسم الذات را پس لايق است که دانسته شود که آيا نفس متجزي است يا متجزي نيست اگر متجزي است پس آيا متجزي است بالذات يا بعرض و اگر متجزي نيست پس بذاتها متجزي نمي شود يا بالعرض پس مي گوئيم که تحقيق نفس متجزي ميشود بعرض و آن از اين جهۀ است که وقتيکه در جسم باشد پس قبول تجزيه مي نمايد به تجزيه جسم مثل قول تو که جزو متفکر غير جزو بهيمي است و جزو شهواني نفس غير جز و غضبي نفس است پس قبول تجزيه مي نمايد بعرض نه بذاتها و وقتيکه ما گوئيم که نفس متجزي نيست پس جز اين نيست که ميگويم اين را بقول مرسل ذاتي و وقتيکه ميگوئيم که نفس قابل تجزيه است پس جز اين نيست که ميگوئيم اين را بقول مضاف عرضي و اين ازانجهۀ است که ما وقتيکه مي بينيم طبيعت اجسام را محتاج مي باشد بسوي نفس تا که زنده باشد و جسم محتاج است بسوي نفس تا که در جميع اجزاء آن منبث بشود انتهى از اين کلام واضح گرديد که براي نفس نحوي از وجود است که متجزي نيست نه بالذات و نه بالعرض و آن وجود عقلي نفس است و نحوي از وجود نفس است که متجزي است بالعرض و ظاهر است که وجود متجزي طبيعي غير وجود عقلي غير متجزي است و مخفي و مستور نماند که عادت حکماي اقدمين بتاسي انبياء عظام اين است که کلمات شريفه خود را بر رموز و اشارات و تجوزات مبني نموده اند برعايت مصلحت و حکمت و به سبب مدارات بعقول ضعيفه و نفوس معوجه و سوء فهم آنها پس آنچه در کلام ايشان وارد شده است که نفس در عالم قدس خطا نمود و از انجا از روي فرار از غضب و سخط الهي هبوط نمود و حالانکه حکماي اقدمين و امثال ايشان ميدانند که سنوح خطيئه و اقتراف معصيت در عالم قدس غير متصور است پس مراد ايشان از خطيئه نفس جهت امکانيه نفس است و جهت حصول نفس است از مبداء و جهت نقص نفس است که موجب تعلق آنست به بدن و بودن آن است بالقوه پس جريمه طبيعيه نفس نقص جوهر آن است و مراد از هبوط نفس صدور نفس است از مفارق عقلي بعلاقه بدنيه و فرار از سخط الله اين شوق طبيعي است بسوي تدبير بدن به سبب عشق نفس بکمال ذات خود تا که اين نقص جوهري نفس بکمال وجود جوهري تجردي نفس زايل شود.