🔰 I wanted to express the other side of what Wahdatul Wujud rejects. Where the concept of Unity must not contain division. In this sense:
- 👉 If it's Unity, then it's undivided, because Unity indeed means undivided.
📍However, there is a hidden limit that may not have been realized about Wahdatul Wujud, or it may have been realized but rejected.
🧩 I want to reveal the other side of what Wahdatul Wujud rejects.
- 〰 So that we don't see only from one side but rather in its entirety.
1⃣ In Wahdatul Wujud, it emphasizes = "IF THERE ARE PARTS, THEN IT IS DIVIDED" ✅
- 👉 What is rejected (its opposite) means = "THE EXISTENCE OF PARTS DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN DIVISION" ❌
2⃣ In Wahdatul Wujud, it is asserted = "IF THERE ARE DIFFERENCES, THEN THERE ARE PARTS THAT DIVIDE UNITY, SO THE UNITY MUST BE ALL THE SAME (to avoid implying the existence of division that divides unity)" ✅
- 👉 What is rejected (its opposite) means = "IF THERE ARE DIFFERENCES, THEN THERE ARE PARTS THAT DON'T DIVIDE UNITY" ❌
Outline of the Polemic Addressed by Wahdatul Wujud
📌 This is similar to the case of "because there is only one Existence (God), it means possible existences (creations) are considered 'non-existent,' even though we realize our existence, even if it is only a loan or a shadow, but in essence, that 'shadow' exists. It cannot be absolutely negated.
📌 So the issue of "division" can also highlight the anomaly when it is asserted that "the singular implies undivided, which means there are no differences," but in fact, there are differences.
- 👉 Have we not found the rational reasoning that "even though there are differences, it doesn't necessarily mean there is division that separates Unity into two"❓
〰〰〰
So, what is marked ❌ is what is rejected or not yet realized in its rationale, so...
For Wahdatul Wujud... "division must not exist because it implies division that nullifies Unity."
- 👉 Thus, the concept of division (composition) must be eliminated, which means eliminating anything other than Unity and affirming the existence of only one singular existence.
I don't know if this is the final conclusion of Ibn Arabi or subsequent generations who misunderstood the meaning of Ibn Arabi different from the interpretations that followed❓
However, upon deeper reflection, it actually doesn't affirm the "absence" of anything other than God but rather affirms the Unity of His existence.
In more detailed reasoning, it will be seen that what the interpreters of Wahdatul Wujud believe that...
⛔️ Unity must not affirm the existence of division that risks affirming separation that divides Unity
- 👉 Which ultimately ends with the affirmation of "nothing other than God"
✅ It turns out that absolute reason actually affirms that "Unity encompasses parts that do not separate Unity itself, so the parts do not affirm the division of Unity but rather affirm His Omnipotence and the diversity within Unity."
- 👉 In the end, this does not negate the creation created as parts of the Creator (the Undivided - Unity) but rather affirms "Division Within Unity," "Unity With Its Parts."
REASONING THE ABSOLUTE
1⃣ For one reason to yield different consequences, and many consequences always stem from different causes, so the multitude of causes is actually a consequence of a single cause.
- Many different causes can never produce a singular consequence because the diversity of causes provides different perspectives on the consequence.
- If a consequence occurs not due to a single cause, then the non-single cause has fewer causes until it reaches the initial limit of the single cause.
2⃣ If there is no single cause, then all consequences only originate from previous consequences that were never causes themselves, so every existing consequence is not actually caused by any cause, which means that every event is separate from one another.
- If the locations are separated from each other, then there is something that separates them from each other, so that there are those who are separated from each other by something between them.
- If the existence of a separate location provides a logical consequence of the existence of a separate thing, then the separate thing includes the thing that is separated, or if it does not include, it means that the thing that separates is also separate from the thing it separates.
3⃣ If what separates is also separate from what is separated, then there is something separating between the two separate things, which means this logical consequence affirms the multiplicity of the increasing number that confirms the limitless number for every separating and separated thing.
- If there is more than one limitless, then each limitless is in an equally extensive position, so one and another are actually just one part as a total unity of what was previously considered separate and mutually separating, which actually affirms the opposite about the parts that are not separate.
- If a unity is concluded from the logical consequence of the limitlessness of the logical consequence of what separates and what is separated, then it is not actually separation but rather diversity within a non-separating unity becoming two, so a unity can exhibit undivided multiplicity as singularity.
DEEPENING UNDERSTANDING OF CAUSALITY
1⃣ REASONING THE ABSOLUTENESS OF CAUSE
🔰 For one cause to yield different effects, and many effects always arise from different causes, thus the multitude of causes is actually a consequence of a single cause.
👉 One cause yields different effect
- 〰 One thing has many functions
- 〰 One thing has many characteristics
- 〰 One thing has many attributes
- 〰 One thing has many activities
🧩 Each has various potentialities reflecting different capabilities, thus having different steps as well.
👉 Many effects always arise from different causes
- 〰 Different directions yield different results
- 〰 Different starting points yield different endings
- 〰 Different strategies yield different outcomes
- 〰 Different inputs yield different outputs
🧩 If one cause is examined, there is never the same position and condition, thus it never yields the same result, except solely due to our failure to observe details, which affirms the absence of the same effect from different causes or the same.
👉 The multitude of causes is actually a consequence of a single cause
- 〰 If one cause yields many effects, and there are many causes, then the multitude of causes is only a consequence of a single cause.
- 〰 If one thing triggers many events, and there are many triggers for many events, then those many triggers will culminate in the root event as the initial trigger.
- 〰 If many events are triggered by many causes, and there is only one trigger, then the many causes originate from a single trigger, thus the multitude of causes stems from a single cause.
- 〰 If there are many causes with one single cause, it means that the multitude of causes is only a relative cause of the absolute cause, which means that the multitude of causes is only a consequence of a single cause.
🧩 If the multitude of causes stems from a single cause, it means that the multitude of causes is only a consequence of a single cause.
CONCLUSION
❇️ One cause leads to effects that serve as causes for other effects.
📍Many different causes can never produce a single effect because different causes provide different perspectives on the resulting effects
- 〰 Different frequencies yield different sound qualities.
- 〰 Different forces result in different speeds.
- 〰 Different equations produce different graph shapes.
- 〰 Different data yield different statistical values.
🧩 Different inputs result in different outputs.
CONCLUSION
❇️ Causes are broader than effects, so if the number of causes is the same as the number of effects or fewer, it means that all these causes must originate from a single cause, so that all effects are always smaller than their causes.
📍That if an effect occurs not due to a single cause, then the multiple causes have fewer reasons up to the initial limit of a single cause.
- 〰 If all effects originate from multiple causes, then as it approaches a single cause, the number of non-single causes will decrease.
- 〰 If there is only one trigger for all events, then tracing all events will reduce the number of events when approaching the initial trigger.
- 〰 If a space with many flat surfaces gives different directions of reflection, then the number of reflection directions always comes from the number of flat surfaces that end in a space encompassing many flat surfaces.
- 〰 Regardless of the number of effects, if they originate from a single cause, the number of effects will decrease as it approaches the single cause.
🧩 The more effects originate from a single cause, the fewer the number of effects when approaching that single cause.
CONCLUSION
❇️ If there are many effects stemming from one or more causes, the number of involved causes decreases when approaching a single effect or primary trigger.
1⃣ If there is no single cause, then all effects only stem from preceding effects that have never been a cause at all, meaning that every effect that exists is actually not caused by any cause whatsoever, which implies that for each separate event...
👉 If there is no single cause, then all effects only stem from preceding effects that have never been a cause at all.
- 〰 An effect arises from a cause that is an effect of a previous cause.
- 〰 If there is no convergence at a single cause, then every sequence of effects will not meet at one point.
- 〰 If the paths of effects do not converge at one point, then each path of effects ends at its own single cause or as an effect alone.
👉 If every existing effect is actually not caused by any cause whatsoever, then...
- 〰 Every cause is an effect, so every sequence of effects is separate from each other.
- 〰 If there are paths that never meet, it means their paths are always separate.
🧩 If there is no convergence, then they are separate.
CONCLUSION
❇️ In this context, the conclusion is that if there is no single cause, then all effects are separate and cannot be traced back to a single cause.
2⃣ If separate locations imply something that separates them, then there is something that separates between them, creating their separation.
- 〰 If they are separate, it means there is something between them.
- 〰 If there is nothing separating them, it means there is no separation.
🧩 If there is nothing in between, then there is no separation.
CONCLUSION
❇️ If there is a distance between two entities, there is empty space separating them.
3⃣ If the fact that separate locations have logical consequences of something separating them, then what separates includes what is separated, or if it does not include, it means what separates is also separate from what it separates.
〰 If what separates is space, then what separates includes what is separated.
🧩 What separates can be an object or empty space.
CONCLUSION
❇️ What separates can be an entity between two entities or encompasses both entities separated by that emptiness.
REFLECTING ON THE ABSOLUTENESS OF CAUSE AND EFFECT
1⃣ If what separates also separates from what is separated, then there is something that separates between the two that separates from each other, which means this logical consequence affirms the simultaneity of increasing quantities that affirm an unlimited quantity for each that separates and that which is separated.
- 〰 If separated means not merging
- 〰 There is a distance between objects, hence a separation between objects
- 〰 There is a distance between objects, implying something separates between objects, so distance is not an impossibility in separation, affirming the existence
- 〰 Recognizing the presence of a distance between objects means recognizing the non-impossibility that affirms something separates.
🧩 Something separating from what is separated also does not merge, always leaving a separating distance, so what separates is distinct from what is separated.
CONCLUSION
❇️ There is no definite number for objects that separate and objects that are separated because they continually remain separate from each other without limits.
2⃣ If there is more than one limitlessness, then each limitlessness is in the same extent, so each of them is essentially one part of the total unity of what was previously considered as separate and mutually separating, which actually emphasizes the inseparable part.
- 〰 The limitlessness implies no bounds or comprehensiveness - completeness
- 〰 Two limitlessnesses encompass everything without exception.
🧩 The same extent and the most extensive, thus occupying the same space.
CONCLUSION
❇️ Two limitlessnesses are just one limitlessness.
3⃣ If unity is concluded from the logical consequence of the boundlessness of what separates and what is separated, then it's not actually separation but rather diversity in an undivided unity that becomes two, allowing unity to manifest an indivisibility within the singularity.
- 〰 If the consequence of boundlessness negates separation, then separation is merely distinct parts within an undivided singularity.
- 〰 Separation is diversity within an inseparable unity.
🧩 Separating only expresses differences within an inseparable unity.
CONCLUSION
❇️ Parts do not divide, and dividing does not separate. However, separating indeed divides.
If we conclude between the interpreters of Wahdatul Wujud and the reasoning that I assert, then...
1⃣ Interpreters of Wahdatul Wujud
📌 God is One, Undivided, Indivisible, So There Are No Parts
〰 If there are parts, then there is division that separates Unity
- 👉 So His Creation, which appears as parts, must be seen as non-existent
PRAISE vs. UNREASONABLE
⛔️ The Unreasonableness
If, in rejecting the existence of parts (creation) within Unity, it necessitates believing in the absence of His creation, then this is absurd because...
- 👉 If there is no creation, only the Creator exists, which implies an impossibility in the Creator
- 👉 If the absence of creation is not an impossibility, it means affirming the "existence of creation"
✅ The Reasonableness
If "negating His creation" is considered a higher honor to God, but it paradoxically affirms the "existence of creation," then one should be able to honor His Unity in the context of wahdatul wujud (only one existence of God) without denying it, while remaining rational, namely...
- 👉 The concept of existence belongs only to God, not that we don't exist because we lack existence, but it should be realized according to reasonable thinking as "absolute existence" and "possible existence"
- 〰 The relationship between "Absolute Existence" does not mean negating "possible existence," but affirming dependence, where "only God has existence" means "only God has absolute causality," and His creation (possible existence) is only a "consequence" dependent on the "sole Absolute Existence."
✅ So, Wahdatul Wujud should not be interpreted as "Only God Exists, and Besides God, There Is Nothing," but it should be interpreted as "Only God Has Absolute Existence, and Besides God, Everything Depends on Him."
- 👉 This is reasonable and still honors His Unity, without considering everything besides God as mere illusion and non-existence.
〰 Because even if creation is considered by interpreters of "wahdatul wujud" as an illusion, manifestation, His shadow, as long as it has an influence, it cannot be said to be non-existent.
⛔️ Even if it is forced that we are only His shadow, illusion, manifestation, it means we exist, which is absurd because even to realize the "illusion," "manifestation," "shadow," we need to be aware of their "existence."
♒♒♒
SO, DO YOU BELIEVE AS THE INTERPRETERS OF WAHDATUL WUJUD WHO NEGATE HIS CREATION❓
OR DO YOU BELIEVE AS UNDERSTOOD BY IBN ARABI, WHICH I BELIEVE DOES NOT NEGATE OTHER THAN GOD EXCEPT BY ESTABLISHING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CREATOR & THE CREATED AS ...
- 1⃣ UNITY & CREATION
- 2⃣ UNITY & Parts That Do Not Divide UNITY
- 3⃣ UNITY & Parts That Do Not Separate UNITY
- 4⃣ UNITY & No Separation in UNITY
- 5⃣ Absolute Existence & Possible Existence
- 6⃣ Absolute Cause & Effect
- 7⃣ Support & Dependent
DISTINGUISH BETWEEN DIVIDING, PART, AND SEPARATION
- 〰 A Part Doesn't Divide, And Dividing Doesn't Separating. But Separating Indeed Dividing
- 〰 A Part Only Affirms Its Power, Not Affirming Separation
Say, "God Exists, With His (Part of) |All-Living, Almighty, as One, Perfect in an Inseparable Unity
