Quintessence

This is a Book of Wisdom, descended from the Guarded Tablet, given to people over past and present eras of time, who perhaps were unable to discern it,

We translate it to English, so it makes its way into their minds in future times,

But there is Knowledge, and Knowledge is The Quintessence, told by Plato, Aristotle and Plotinus,

And knowledge is esoteric: if you have peaked to its highs: it is a confirmation,

And neither can the mastering of yoga techniques remove the veils of one’s vision.

It was not divided into chapters, so we shall post it by sections where a retreat is needed, until the quotation is closed,

“Behold: a branch of the Tree of Being, irrigated by the River: summing all the Summums.

“Says your Lord The Sovereign, transcends He in His Godliness, Sublime is He in His Excellence, Lofty above the deficiency of the deficient, and the vanity of the vain,

And it is the Say Decisive, and not derisive, only the knowledgeable and those who have a heart discern it, or those who have lent an ear when they witnessed.

“So He began with Eternal Existence and non-Existence, and in their definiteness by the constantly eyed and non-eyed that is non-existence: or, what can be spoken of, and its opposite, or by other means,

For, none is more knowable than Existence. And the pointers are to negate, to nullify and to falsify the definition of Existence:

By the dependence of the trust on the mutual exclusiveness of existence and non-existence, which is self-evident to Him, for this is false,

Or by the compoundedness of existence while supposing it compounded, and dropping the visual representation:

And the to-and-froing of the intellect: in the case of affirmation of the absoluteness of existence, and the bonding with the concept of its opposite, while admitting division: lead to affixism (from the verb to affix: to attach something to another).

Because existence is divided into inevitablenss and potentiality, and essence and incidence, and so on.

To their dual nature there is discernibility, and for the realisation of potentiality and the outcome of conception,

And the need for evidence to the confirmation of the existence of whatness, and the obsoleteness of contradiction and the compoundedness of the Inevitability and its Ubiquity by Whatness by itself to itself, hence the addition to it is by vision

“That existence is divided into intellectual and external, else the truth could not be established,

The existent in the intellect is none but the image in congruence with many components.

And the existence is not an additional essence, by means of which the whatness occurs in the eye: rather [it is] the occurrence without an addition or emphasis.

And It, that is Existence: Mere Good, and non-Existence is mere evil by deduction: for there is nothing about which goodness can be said unless it is existent, and there is nothing about which evil can be said unless it is null.

Hence there is no constant opposite of Existence, and no equal to it by this previous proof,

For, the two equals are existent identities, each of them affords/satisfies itself, and the discernible by one of them is so much discernible by the other.

Thus the Word dawned from the letters of KUN of existence caused by the causality of The Cause of Affinity,

[KUN: “be”, and OM in the Hindu philosophy, although OM does not translate to “be” linguistically, but it is the sound of the beginning which still echoes in one’s mind if one listens.

And the word that I translated to “affinity” appears in the text as (المعز), as a correction,

Provided that it is a correction, and that the word traditionally used in Hikmah to point to love and affinity is (محبة), and that 3izz and 3izzah and 3izzaa have been a word of the liberal builders for many centuries: raises eyebrows: was it an attempt by the triumphant one to claim ownership of it, as he did before and was said to be the seal of the messengers?

I would hope that all his attempts, covert and overt, are recognised. He can only triumph in peoples’ dark minds and passions, to precipitate once again with him in physicality, where he is most comfortable]

“And it is, according to what has preceded that existence is not self-sufficient and neither Existential, else there would have been Existence for existence.

Hence it has been the argument that the source of this Existence: there is no equal to it there, since non-existence and whatness are not self-sufficient, and neither existential, and nor equal to It,

So that the discernible, that is earned from Existence/existence is the very one discernible by either one of the two [previous ones].

And thus Its inaccordance with such arguments is realised, while it nullifies none of them.

“And existence is paralleled by objectification, so every time existence truths so does objectification, and behind this too and also its converse.

Since all existence is an object and every object is existent, and existence is not realised without it, and the contender is only denying his mind’s judgement.

Then, how objectification is realised: below Existence, while maintaining perpetual capability to exchange bodies for those souls eternal, that is determined for them originally and eternally, so long as they remain in the sublimeness of their godliness,

Far from those who went and turned upside-down back-to-front, and dwelled in the rock bottom of the darkness of null.

Thus was the nullification of attribution, and the reduction of existence to the absence of discernment of augmentation.

[Perhaps the reason why this was deemed to be opened is because it has been reduced to natural existence. And by opening it this is refuted.

Rests the capability to climb up its mountains: this one remains unrealised, as long as one’s existence is reduced to natural existence in the upside-down world, embellished with intellectual pretention and tribal considerations: which do not constitute an attribution]

“Then, if singularity necessitated affirmation by vision: it would entail impossibilities and absurdities, since potentiality is a mental construct.

As for our Master the Mind, He is above this by a major and transcending highness.

Else, if the Verity: The Contriver, transcends He, needs considered adjectives of His Clear (لطيف) Station, then a partner and an assistant and an opposite would be deemed necessary for this Lord The Unity The Causer, that is by His Attribute of Needlessness.

And that edge was descended, saying that the excuse for not admitting identicalness and inconsistence and the necessary consequentiality: is false,

For, what is split is falsified by the suspicion about it, regarding the realisation of infinite identities within the null, and the nullification of the influence of any influence in both of them [the identities and the null].

And there is no need here to re-descend what the kingdoms of the spiritual worlds descend to the world of the orbits around the circle of the images, since in its re-descent a return is not necessitated, and this will be re-cast later.

Rather, the man in charge and in the case summarised the splitting and the division of the affirmation of the inexistent, and he atomised [] by dividing the case into the caused and everything else, and [by] explaining the inconsistency by it and everything else.

“Then, Existence can be taken as Absoluteness, so a non-existence of the same kind has to mirror it. And they might meet, not by the consideration of mirroring, and they are conceived together.

And let anyone with a heart discern this, and let him lend an ear while witnessing before this Truth, else, the message is to no avail.

“Then We recapitulate and We say of Our Council: and hypothetically Existence can be taken conditionally,

So a non-Existence similar mirrors it, lacking the subject attributed to It, like lacking a property. And the subject is taken as a person or as a kind or as a gender,

Nay, it is simple, having no part or partition, and it multiplies by the multiplication of the subjects, and doubt over its incidentals is said, like this was itemised in the Tablet of The Spiritual Law, and removed from “The Solitary in His Identity” (a Book of Hikmah), by Our Command, for, the lower comprehension cannot grasp it.

And the “Invested Monitor” (a title of our Master the Mind) did add, saying what was inspired to him: since it is not a part of an absolute source, other than him, and objectification is secondary discernibility, not rooted in Existence,

For, absolutely no thing is constant, rather they are projected to [by] the peculiarities of whatnesses,

And nullities might differ, hence the null of a caused thing is referred to the null of the cause and nothing else, and let this too be discerned.

And the existence of conditions nullifies the non-existence thereof, and the presence of an opposite corrects, by assumption and potentiality, the non-existence of the [other] opposite, variably with other nullities.

“Then, non-Existence might be exhibited to itself, so it qualifies for kind and mirroring by two [itself and itself] considerations. And the null of a caused thing is not a cause of the inexistence of a cause outside [it], even if it does cross the mind that it is proof, [as in] “I am” and the converse “why me”.

[One way to conceive this is by this exercise: stand in front of a mirror, and consider your reflection as existence caused by you,

This is the null of you, that has no conceivable cause other than you in this instance,

“Then things, ordered by generality and particularity in existence: are opposed to one another in inexistence, and the share of each of them of need and needlessness is truth.

“So if Existence is lifted or made to be a connection between the lifted and the subject: three substances/faculties are asserted; in their identities are directions/modes of discernment pointing to the strength of the tie and its weakness,

They are: inevitability, impossibility, potentiality, and likewise for non-existence and the inquiry as to its definition as existence.

And inevitability and potentiality and possibility could be considered reflexive/self-sustaining, hence their share of reasonableness is truth, and cannot be turned over.

And the first two [inevitability and potentiality] could be considered by reference to [something] else, for, the separation is a preventer of combining the two, albeit could be turned over, and a preventer of the absence of the three: as a potentiality.

For, potentiality adheres to the possible, while its voidness of the other two is negated.

Because once its cause is present, it becomes inevitable, else it is impossibility,

For, it is conceivable to combine reflexive potentiality with one of the other two.

“Then, inevitability and inexistence share the name/essence of necessity, so of each of them necessity is said, which has the essence of adherence, not the essence of self-evidence, even though they differ by negation and affirmation;

[I hesitate before providing examples, because the generality of these statements dwarfs all the examples below them,

Some believe that the existence of a god is inevitable, and some believe that god is inexistent,

In each case the belief is a necessity, asserted by observations and convictions, which are true in the believer’s perspective,

Even though the two assertions differ by the negation and affirmation of the existence of a god.

“Then things, ordered by generality and particularity in existence: are opposed to one another in inexistence, and the share of each of them of need and needlessness is truth.”

And such "truth values" can be reached using the modern Boolean Algebraic methods and notations,

Hence, by starting those statements: one expresses a need for describing an observed truth.]

“Because inevitability is the necessity of existence, and inexistence is the necessity of negation,

And each of inevitability and inexistence truths [says the truth] about the other if they face one another as predicates.

And potentiality can be considered in the sense of taking necessity away from the two [opposite] ends, so it dominates the other;

[In our example: if one wants to be “open-minded” about the existence of a god, one has to drop all preconceptions, so that such an existence becomes a potentiality, bringing the two perspectives close, for each to dominate the other]

And potentiality is particularity, and can be considered with regard to the future, and inexistence is not set as a condition in the matter, else the two opposites will meet.

[The purpose of this philosophical Discourse of the Highest Order is to free one’s mind from all the fetters of beliefs, preconceptions and intellectual observations, by taking a view of them from above them, so they all fall in the obsolescence,

But if it is read with preconceptions and for the purpose of asserting or negating a concept or a belief ... then the upside-down back-to-front turn is emphasised, as it is the case in all the Discourses]

“Then the three [inevitability, potentiality and inexistence] are considerers of their truthfulness about inexistence and the impossibility of consequentiality [the chain of cause and effect in a linear fashion culminating, in this case, in the occurrence of impossibility].

And if inexistence were affirmable, the potentiality of inexistence is necessitated.

And if potentiality is affirmable, the pre-existence of every potential to its potentiality is necessitated, and the parting from negating potentiality,

[The wording of those statements is meant to put the reader’s mind to the test of self-assuredness and faith in itself,

If the reader is in a belief of irrationality as a basis of faith, the statements as phrased in Arabic become self-contradictory and illogical,

“Then, inevitability comprises reflexivity and else, and so with inexistence, and the exhibit of what is other than by the two [the inevitable and inexistence] is potential.

And there is no potential by other than what has preceded [an incidence] in the true division [between inevitability and inexistence].

“Then the exhibits of potentiality when no consideration is given to existence and inexistence, with regards to the whatness and its cause,

And when the two are considered by regarding them: what is other [than the potentiality] is affirmed, and there is no mutual exclusiveness between potentiality and whatever else.

Upon examination of it, which is usually prompted by the exposure to another concept contradicting it, the examiner has a natural tendency to regard one of the two concepts as true,

But when consideration is given to the causes and the nature of the concept, it is narrowed down to a potentiality, revealing a truth above its existence or negation,

And those cease to be mutually exclusive, but rather coexistent as opposing things which are exhibited from a reality above them.]

“Then, and every potential exhibit is a reflexive potential, and there is no converse.

[Because exhibits are caused by potentials which are not capable of creating existence or inexistence.]

“Then, and if potential intellect observes existence, it demands [to know] the cause, even if it did not envisage anything else; and it might envisage the existence of an incident, but demands not it: and this is the cause.

[Please ponder this. Because an example cannot be envisaged: because every exhibit is such an example!]

“Then incidence is the howness [noun from how] of existence, so it is not a cause of what precedes it by stages.

To him are the Connections of The Lord, when he rounded the light in the cycles, so it was made a determination. And our Lord glorified what has been said by His Beneficence,

Said He: then, incidence is a howness of existence, so it lags behind it by its lagging identity/nature,

Since observation is referred to the subject/doer, and existence to the object/acceptor.

If incidence were the cause of need, the antecedence of a thing over itself by stages becomes a necessity.

Then, the judgement as to the potential’s need to a cause that is caused by itself is necessary, and it [the judgement] envisages not the priority of either side, with respect to itself [the side].

An invocation is not permitted to a servant until the response has been permitted to him.

[The reference is to the Alexander the Two-Horned one, the Connections are to him, and the Peace be him,

Which in previous orbs of existence he rounded, like place is rounded over a sphere, so a moment of time can be seen from either side of the time line,

Special Relativity today theorises that technology should be capable of time travel in the future, but it assumes that the manifest exists per se, and this creates a philosophical and logical dilemma: if the future and the past can be visited from the present, can they be altered? Which would imply that the manifest does not exist per se,

This passage of the Discourse hints to the reality that an event exists prior to its manifestation, without admitting predetermination.

While this is unpalatable for the intellect, which is accustomed to linear time, it can only be experienced in one’s own mind,

This is another branch of the Quintessence, which can be known by training and philosophical and moral development,

Will humanity realise its Humanity, by opening those corridors of the mind which have been closed for millions of years, bogged down by petty causes of hatred and self-righteousness, created by ignorance and uncontrolled passion, fuelled by insane religious and political leaders, who can barely understand the natural causes and their effects ...?? Or will mankind remain just an intelligent animal?

These are questions only people can answer, because their destinies are dictated by the choices they make, which are available to them from the skies and its objects above them, and the physical bodies which host them.

For more on the journey of Alexander please refer to Surah of Al-Kahf (The Cave) of the Qur’an and Alexander under the sub-page of Prophets, in our website circleofbeauty.org]

“Then, priority externally is not saturated by the actualisation of one of the two sides [the potential and the cause] until it has reached the limit of fulfilment,

And here is an example: so if the cause of moving the stone off the ground is ten men, the one man would be an external priority,

Because its [the stone’s] state is not free of being existence of cause of impossibility of absence of movement – by this, it is a cause complete and external to movement – and that its existence is not a cause of impossibility of absence of movement,

And the sun of its proof to clarify its state does rise, in whether the existent potential’s insufficient cause has been measured by the two pans of a balance, which is in need of one penny to tip, while ten pennies are [already] in it.

[This is the Quintessential approach to understanding eventuation, as opposed to the experimental scientific one,

By the latter, the question is about estimating the weight of the stone, to determine how much force is needed to move it,

By the former, the stone cannot be moved until the cause of its movement is satisfied: from the point of view of needing to move it, and from the point of view of the natural forces necessary for moving it, and from every other point possible,

The impossibility of moving it remains present: if the empirical scientific conditions are not identified, and if the force deemed necessary for moving it is not available, amongst other things ...

The presence of the stone is not the cause of this inquest, and the stone could stay there for millennia perhaps unnoticed if no one needs to move it,

The whole is an event from potentiality to eventuation in someone’s observation, the components of which need to be satisfied and balanced, for it to occur,

Such a quintessential approach is needed for solving personal problems and those of governance,

Because the apparent physical causes of things are only an exhibit of an existence,

This cannot be achieved by setting methods and procedures which can be universally applied, as in the case of science, but it is a state of awareness.]

“Hence, there is no escape from culmination to Inevitability, so it makes the potential exist,

And this Inevitability is Inevitability preceding the howness by its Identity, not by time,

Since the Time of Existence of a caused [thing] comes not after the time of its eventuation,

Nay, its eventuation goes side-by-side with its Existence, and follows it, after Existence: another occurrence latent to the actualisation of judgement.

“So it has been summarised that every existent is bordered by two Inevitabilities: a former and a latter.

By those two Inevitabilities the Forerunner and the Follower have been dimensioned, and unto them the Suns of The Throne dawned,

And thus was the diversity of the Godly Attributes, in times and circumstances, and movements and orientations, and Aims and Manifestations, and laws: [mundane and religious].

[Far from mysticism and mythology, these are the dimensions of human thought and faith, as was explained in an essay on this page,

When Faith is invested in the mind and its capability to fathom and understand its existential experience: the intellect takes over to perform the actual tasks of self-discovery, be they abstract or practical, bearing in mind that every abstract has a potential physical presence,

Since the Renaissance in Europe, the human experience has been directed in such a direction,

This had the coming of Hamzah and the Manifestation to all humanity as precursor,

And the human intellect was turned around by the coming of various philosophers, mathematicians, scientists and artists, because the heavens opened those doors wide,

And Europe was freed from religious beliefs and practices, and followed reason and virtue as a guide in every aspect of its journey,

“And potentiality adheres to the howness of the potential, so that this description can disconnect from the potential; else, if its disconnection persists, then upon disconnecting: howness eventuates or recedes, due to the negation of a forth branch [the three being invevitability, potentiality and impossibility]. And the flip is where it was impossible, since the disconnection is impossible

[So here is an example: in the past the verse of the Qur’an which says that only God knows what is in the womb was understood to be saying that it is impossible for mankind to know the sex of the baby before it was born,

And the “three layers of darkness” were understood to be referring to the anatomy of the pregnant mother which prevents the vision from looking inside the womb, and still are,

But the science and the technology did develop, and the sex of the baby can now be known before it is born, and what was once impossibility is now a potentiality.

This example and many others that one can think of: should have prompted the religious authorities to re-visit their understanding of the Books,

And this discourse is not meant to intimidate the people by indiscernible literature, but indeed to open the avenues of their minds which have been sealed off by religious beliefs.]

“And the inevitability of actualities is paralleled by the admission of nullity, and is [the nullity] not adhering to the howness of potentiality,

And the relation of enforcement to potentiality is the relation of completion to incompletion, and since enforcement is related to the strength of the enforcement, and potentiality is also its [the enforcement’s] weakness,

Hence disconnection of the first is not possible, contrary to the second [the inevitability and the nullification thereof].

[So here is an example: we all perceive the rising of the sun as inevitability, and once it has risen, its journey in the sky to sunset is also inevitable,

But this inevitability is potentially nullified by an eclipse, or by other factors that we have not yet identified,

So all inevitable occurrences have nullifying factors, by extrapolation on this example, although such nullifications may not have eventuated in our knowledge,

But their conditions are there in potentiality, and they will cause an occurrence once their presence is actualised.]

“Then, the subjected potentiality, which is the readiness for completion by the actualisation of some conditions and the suspension of some preventers: is subject to strength and weakness.

The closer a thing is to existence, upon the aggregation of most of its conditions, and the suspension of most of its preventers: the stronger is its readiness for potentiality.

So the sperm, where most of the conditions of a human are present – as he moved, by characterisation and excellence, from clay to vegetation, and from vegetation to animal, and from animal to blood and semen, which are all stages preceding the human – the potentiality of its human is stronger.

And the animal, when most of the conditions for it to be human have not aggregated: hence the potentiality of it being human is weaker.

[In accordance with all Discourses, this Discourse also hints to the oneness of life, be it plant, animal or human, and the evolution or devolution from one form to another,

I should hasten to say that this does not imply that humans and animals and plants constantly exchange bodies, as is the belief in some religions,

And at the beginning of a new creation the form of existence is an expression of character and awareness gleaned from previous lives and cycles. This form has to persist throughout the cycle for the experience to be meaningful.]

“This subjected potentiality is nullified as if it was of clay, as it annuls all the conditions of its humanity, and exists as though it has become an animal,

For it has folded some stages, and some conditions of potentiality are existent in it.

And it is unlike subjective potentiality, which is considered by the considerations of [its] very whatness.

So we may notice the potential of the human in his self, and we may notice the potential of the clay and the sperm and the like becoming human.

The first is called subjective potentiality and exists constantly and is not subject to weakness and strength,

Unlike the second which exists and is annulled and is subjected to weakness and strength. And between them are other differences, as it is obvious.

“Then, the existent is of two kinds: the first is the ancient, and the second is the incident.

That is because if the existent is taken unpreceded by other [things] or by inexistence, then it is ancient; and if the existent is not so, but was preceded by other [things] or preceded by inexistence, then it is incident.

And it is known that the ancient: if taken in the sense of unprecedence by other [things], then it is called subjective,

And if taken in the sense of uprecedence by inexistence, then it is called chronological,

[Note that existence is not distinguishable from the human, and as it has been said on this page that the human is the universe and the universe is the human,

Hence the pursuit of knowing what preceded the universe and mankind is to no avail; it is rather precipitation in the dust of the universe, or vanishment in an illusionary god of inexistence.

The Quintessence is the only knowledge that sums the human experience in direct union with Existence, albeit at various degrees and heights, and without separation from incidental existence necessarily.

And although this Discourse also hints to the existence of “two worlds” (ألعالمَين) , the ancient and the incident, or the subjected and the subjective, and although it hints to that the difference can be obvious, it should not be taken as a permission to grade the people according to one’s own observation,

Such grading serves only the egos which would like to take their self-classification as an excuse for their arrogance and their unwillingness to further their knowledge.]

“Then, the forerun and its two mirrorings, that is the follow and the togetherness, are of six divisions:

Because it is either by causality, and this is the forerun of the complete cause, like the precendence of the movement of a finger over that of a ring;

Or by nature, and this is the precedence of [things] other than the complete cause, and these are sundry incomplete causes, such as the precedence of vinegar over rust;

Or by time, and that is the forerun exists in time forerunning the existence of a latter, such as the forerunning of a cause over its effect;

[This one is not to be confused with cause and effect such as the vinegar and the rust. This is consequentiality, such as midday is preceded by morning.]

And it is the rank [observable] by the senses or the mind, such as the qualities and the kinds,

For, the essence precedes the growing body if you start from the essence down, and the growing body precedes the essence if you start from the essence up;

“Then, it should not escape the mind that the exclusiveness between these divisions is deductional, not of mind, and its argument is by validation/doubt.

“Then the addition/following is guarded between the two added/followed, by its kinds, that is the three kinds of verification/doubt: priority, primariness and intensity.

“Then, wherever there is inconsistency between the divisions of forerun and: priority, primariness and intensity, its quality is prevented, and quality is part of truth, and the part in the kinds is one rank:

So the animal is in the man and the horse and the cow is in the same rank, so it is pimariness and priority.

So too the intensity, since the two parts of one howness: one of them cannot be more containing of the howness than the other.

[It would not be an overstatement, if we say that this is the Forerun to Tawheedic (Pantheist) Philosophy,

So that every occurrence is viewed as a materialisation of an existent essence, which in turn is the abstraction of a model,

As for Absoluteness (ألمحض), This is not a subject of discussion in any Discourse, although religious authorities old and new proclaim to have exclusive knowledge of It and ownership,

The Discourses have come one after the other, to speak of the same Truth in their time and circumstances, and by the nature of this world, the truths have to be reflected in the clay,

Hence the gods of causality are deducted from it by validation/doubt, in images, incidences and historical events ...]

Then, let it be known, that both of ancientness and incidence could be taken as truth.

For, the ancient is what is not preceded by other [things], or by what is more precedent chronologically, and this is what has been preceded,

And it [the incidence] can be taken and known as an addition: for, the ancient is the one whose time is more,

So, Zayd who is one hundred years of age is ancient, and Amru who has its half is incident.

“Then, true ancientness and incidence are not considered by reference to time.

So it cannot be said: the ancient is that the existence of a thing is continuous at all times;

And [that] the incidence is that the existence of a thing is preceded by inexistence in time,

Else, if time is considered in them for the purpose of transporting the words in time and that whether it is incident or ancient, and regardless to whether it was incident or ancient: it would be lacking another time.

Because it is required to consider time in every incident and ancient, in it [time], else the matter would roll on forever.

“As for ancientness and incidence and the two additions [the follow and the togetherness], they cannot be actualised without time, and consequentiality does not adhere upon taking the time out of their concept,

Since Time is neither ancient nor incident by this additional metaphorical sense.

[This is meant to open a window in one’s mind to Time that is not linear, above spatiotemporal existence,

Those who have failed to discern this have taken the easy way of precipitation in nature, where the only truth they know is observable by the senses,

Hence they wait for the birth and death of a man and the emergence of objects, contrary to what they were told in the Books in simple plain language,

The meaning of this actualisation is that the potential per se requires not existence and nonexistence, and with respect to the cause it requires one of them, and what is in the identity is affront of what is in the other.

Hence the existence of a potential is preceded without it requiring existence, and this is spontaneous incidence;

Then, the actualisation occurs in the phase of identity after a condition there is no actualisation in it.

[This refers to the entire of the physical world, being existent spontaneously without a Big Bang or anything else preceding it, and without any conditions preceding its actualisation,

And as soon as the Self looked at Her Self there was the Universe, spontaneously and at once.

This state of awareness can be experienced by the practice of yoga techniques and self-hypnosis, which I prefer to call hypno-vigilance, whereby a universe can be visioned upon the barring of all stimuli and focusing one’s mind onto one’s mind. In Far Eastern languages it is called Samadhi, but the word has religious overtones now.]

For, the thing that is not preceded by another or by inexistence: the intellect strips ancientness from it, and from its opposite it strips incidence,

The two are not external, else, consquentiality is required; the two are two mental considerations which cease upon the cessation of the consideration.

“Then it truths about the Existent: the matter veritable separable amongst the two: that is the ancient and the incident.

For, the existent: it is either preceded or not. The first being the incident the second being the ancient.

Their concurrence is not possible, and neither their suspension, and hence does the Verity truth [say the truth]: that is in the Existent.

[Once again this is alluding to Existence that is above the linear progression of time, by means of which incidence and ancientness are conceived and understood mentally.

Indeed this Discourse has been a “hefty say” (قول ثقيل), not unlike every Discourse before it,

They have been taken to emphasize their opposite in the minds which have plunged in the upside-down world,

The verses of transcendence in the Qur’an were taken as a law governing food, war, money and marriage, and the verses of this one have been taken by some to point to their opposite.]

“Then, of the inevitable, there is the spontaneous/per se and the inevitable by another.

Since, the existent is either dependant, which is inevitable by another, or independent per se,

And the two cannot concur as this necessitates the concurrence of two opposites, and neither can they be both lifted as this necessitates the lifting of two opposites.

The first is that inevitability per se can never be said about the compound. Because every compound needs its parts, and every needing thing is a potential.

As for the compound being needy: it is self-evident, since the compound is the parts themselves with a third incidental uniqueness: of action and reaction.

As for the needy being potential: it is lucid, since the needing of other [things] for its existence is not self-sustaining existence. And every time the existence of something is not self-sustaining it has to be potential.

The second is of the properties of the existent per se is that it is not a part of another thing, and that something is a compound of the inevitable and another,

Since a compound is the effect of every part on the other (which is expressed by action and reaction).

Then the effect of the non-inevitable in the inevitable is either by incrementing if or by diminishing it, or by altering a status of it to another status, all of which is impossible.

And the decrease is not an inevitability, else it could not have been nullified,

And the changing [thing] is not inevitable by its past status, else it would not have been supplemented as now, and neither could it be inevitable by its forthcoming status, else it would not have relinquished it beforehand.

And the third is that its existence and the relative existence to the identity (which is expressed by the inevitability) do not increase the inevitable, else it would be potential.

The known existence to us is the general existence, arguable with scepticism, and does not enter in Verity until the knowledge of it is twinned with some Knowledge of Truth, necessitated by the inconsistency of part known truth to its part unknown. As for the existence particular to it, which is the Inevitable, it is not known, as well its Identity is not known.

[All such truths become self-evident and lucid, as this Discourse states, upon one’s self-examination,

And the Discourses, old and new, come as confirmation, as we said at the start in an introduction,

Also the meditation techniques of the Far East are to no avail if the philosophical foundation is on quicksand,

So reading the Discourses, with a belief in the back of one’s mind, and preconceived convictions will serve those beliefs and preconceived convictions and nothing else,

This is the mistake of all religious thought, whether its self-classification is religious or not.

But a person with faith in his/her mind is not afraid of relinquishing beliefs and preconceived convictions: their minds are their guide, in any case,

Hence those of you who feel they are going through a process of transformation should rejoice. This is Forgiveness bestowed on them. Otherwise the darkness and narrowness of the cave offer the familiar comfort, and trigger resentment of any call challenging it.]

“Then, it [the inevitable per se] is not a nature of a [certain] kind, [based] on what has preceded, so upon its projection/manifestation its parts/manifestations differ.

“Then, the influence of the whatness as it is in existence [the inexistent one] is inconceivable, and the lack of the accepter [of such influence] is of obvious absurdity.

“Then, existence is of the mental possibilities, because of the inadmissibility of its needlessness of place and its occurrence in it,

Also, the whatness and the totality and the partiality and the identity and the incidentalness and the the gender/nature and the branch and the kind.

“Then, it is to the mind to consider a pair of opposites, envisaging the existence of something and its absence for example, judging between them externally not mentally,

For, if there was oppositeness between them in the mind they would not convene in it,

And there is no absurdity in envisaging two opposites, since the oppositeness is between the truth of the two opposites, not between their images, of it is known that the existent in the mind is the image disagreeing with many of the adhering [things], else the mind would burn upon imagining fire and so on.

[So no stone is being left unturned, and from whichever angle you look at the manifest in nature: it cannot be Existence,

It does not threaten anyone if the very few uncover it in their minds and to the world,

But throughout the ages there have been those who love their stay in impermanence,

“And similarly, hence, that the mind envisage the inexistence of all things, so it might envisage the inexistence of man, the inexistence of existence, the inexistence of white [colour] and so on, and even the inexistence of itself, and would envisage the inexistence of the mind that is an earned intruder, and can [even] envisage the inexistence of inexistence, that is by imagining the inexistence of itself in the mind, then lifting it, and this is necessary to every observer.

In everything else the mind envisages an image, and in inexistence the mind envisages the sound/word/pronunciation, since there is no image for inexistence.

Then the inexistence absolutely: that the mind envisaged primarily, and it is the [thing] to which it added the null, is constant, because of it being a matter of mind;

Because every envisaged thing is constant, and the matter is of consideration only, and then partner with the constant by another consideration which is the consideration of it being null. And the judgement about it holds from the standpoint of it not being constant, and there is no contradiction.

This is why existence is divided into constant in the mind and inconstant in it, and judgement between them is carried out by protrusion/distinction.

And it does not call upon the identity for each of the two protrusions/distinct [things]; and if identity was presumed for it then its judgement would be that of a constant.

[Indeed there are theories about the inexistence of all things, which would not have been conceived were the existence of those things not conceived/considered,

Both concepts exist in the mind, and one of them does not make the other one vanish,

And here is an example: people have argued for millennia about the existence or the inexistence of a soul. So science has proclaimed it inexistent, and this is constant in the mind of a scientist.

The denial of the existence of a soul is thus by itself a concept about the inexistence of it.

A scientist may see the different theories and descriptions of a soul as inconsistent and variable; although the inexistence of the soul is a constant concept in his/her mind.]

“Then, if the mind judges things external by their own likes, congruence is inevitable in its correctness, else, not.

And its correctness occurs upon consideration of what is in the subject itself, not where untruths are envisaged.

Hence it is necessary that the reference about the ancientness of the world be correct for its congruence with the truthfulness of the minds of the Philosophers and the approval of the wise men of them;

Also, the judgement about the Inevitability of the First Initiation, High is He and Lofty [our Master The Whole Mind] and so on and what has branched from Him in its form and duenes.

[So to those who still believe that the Message was given by instalments, and hence their Book(s) are complete and overriding the previous ones, here is an answer from this Discourse to them,

And if they had thought correctly, the Truth is Whole, and whatever is broken up into instalments or part truth is not truth, rather the precipitation of their minds in the exhibits of nature.]

“Then, inexistence and existence may be potential, and to them possibilities might be connected. And potentiality requires the union of two extremities from one aspect, and the distinction between them from another.

And the distinction requires not that one upholds the other, and neither does it [require] the consideration of the idle one in the upholding if it was called upon [by the distinction].

“Then, the evidence of existence of whatness requires not its pre-existence, and the withdrawal of it from it necessitates not its [the whatness’s] uniqueness and it affirmation,

Rather, [its withdrawal necessitates] its negation, not the confirmation of its inexistence, and its confirmation in the mind, [which] although necessary, it is not a condition.

[All those truths become clearly known, if one invests an effort in trying to reconcile observable things with abstract thought,

Until all the representations are dropped, and there is no thing left, there is only One.

No concept of a god, or a book or a belief can do this on one’s behalf. This is Self-Realisation.]

“Then, the reference of existence to the whatness requires not its [the whatness’s] pre-existence, and stripping it [existence] from it [whatness] does not entail its distinction and constancy,

Rather [it entails] its negation, not the proof of its inexistence, and [it entails] its constancy in the mind, [which is] albeit necessary, but not a condition.

[So humans might witness a natural phenomenon for the first time, without prior knowledge of it, so they witness an existence having no “whatness” in their minds.

On the other hand, if the whatness of something is known, but that thing does not manifest, it does not mean that it does not exist, such as the knowledge of snow to desert people, who have never seen it in their lives.]

“Then, the probability/conception and the actuality/delivery are not of external matters,

Rather, the existent outside is the identity of the actual and the probable only.

The two are hence of the discernible, secondary to the primary discernible, since they are taken in the mind like fatherhood and childhood and their current multiplications, they are hence spoken of with doubt, and discernibleness is not provability,

And because, if they were [probability and actuality] external constancy they would be an incident substituting permanence.

[I can see how this passage might have been taken in its natural sense, hinting to the conception and birth of the supernatural, when in fact it is guiding the mind to rejecting the concept completely as false, so it continues in the following passage discussing its disappearance after manifestation,

All this was delivered to us by the Glorious Pen of Baha’u’Ddeen, the Peace be him, to refute the deification of the personality of al-Mansoor at that time.]

“Then, existence can be of identity, and can be of exhibition. As for existence by wording and expression, it is metaphorical.

“Then, the made inexistent cannot be reinstated, since pointing to it has been suspended. Hence, judgement about it cannot hold true by the correctness of the reinstatement.

And if it was reinstated: inexistence would make its way through between the thing and itself, leaving no difference between it [the inexistence] and the beginning, and the mirrorings say the truth about it simultaneously, and consequentiality of time adheres, also the judgement about the inadmissibility of re-instatement adheres to the whatness.

[“Accidentally” in this context does not mean unintentionally, because any event in this Discourse is spoken of as an incident or an accident].

“Then, as for the self-evident need of the potential for an effect, it is that the judgement about the potential’s need for an effect is a necessity that the mind affirms as soon as the mind envisages that it is the potential that has self-sustaining existence and no inexistence.

And that the discreteness of the trust of the need for an effect: to some [because] of the obscurity of envisagement, does not impinge the judgement about it being necessary.

Then, effectivity is a mental consideration, and the effective makes an effect in the effect: not from the standpoint of it being present, and neither from the standpoint of it being absent,

And its effect is in the whatness, and a following dueness follows it.

And the inexistence of the potential hinges on the inexistence of its cause, as it is known by what preceded [it].

“Then, like a potential needs a cause in its eventuation, it also needs a cause for its perpetuation.

To clarify this: the perpetual potential needs an effect, because the cause of need is potentiality, not the eventuality. And this cause exists. Since the potential after existence remains on what it was on before potentiality.

So if it is said about this: why? ...

The answer: because of the existence of its cause, that is the existence of cause of neediness.

“And if it is said: that the perpetual potential needs no cause, because: the cause either makes an effect in the existence that was a result of it, and this is impossibility, because it is the outcome of the outcome,

Or it makes an effect in a new thing, so that the cause makes an effect in the new not in the remaining.

Its answer: that the effect benefits the perpetuation after eventuation.

[So when people ask: what is the purpose of the universe?

The religious thought old and new dwells in the potential: which is the physical understanding of existence, without it being aware of it,

So for example they say: god wants to test the people in order to reward them and punish them,

All of which is a mental consideration, which is the effect of the existence of the potential universe that has a cause.

And then other arguments arise: that the universe has no cause.

So all those arguments have been fathomed at their highest level of abstraction, which I should say, was interpreted to be dealing with physical images of existence.

And because of existence’s capability of copying and erasing, all the Discourses have been taken to create a belief as their effect.]

“So there are two things: incidence and perpetuation.
For, effect makes an effect in perpetuation, and this is a new matter other than eventuation, and no outcome adheres to it.
“And the closest model [to the eventuation] is an example of effectivity in perpetuation:
If a person envisaged an image in his/her mind, so long as he turns/looks at it, it remains; and if he turns his vision away from it, it disappears.
So the continuation of vision is an effect in the perpetuation, and it is not a new existence, as well it needs continuation, for it has no self-sustaining perpetuation.
“Hence, and according to what was mentioned regarding the perpetual potential’s need for an effect, it is admissible to refer the ancient potential to the incurred/incurring effect, that if the ancient potential is possible/actualised.
To make this dawn and to elucidate it: it is that when it was proven that the potential is needy for an effect on two fronts: occurrence and perpetuation, it is due on it to become the ancient potential – this is by assumption – needing an effect.
For, even if it did not need an effect for occurrence – by the assumption of its ancientness – it needs it for perpetuation – by the assumption of its potentiality.
And this is contrary to saying: that the potential needs no cause for perpetuation.
Because such an ancient potential needs no cause from the beginning: as for eventuation, it is because the assumption is that it is ancient it has no eventuation; as for perpetuation it is because the assumption is the potential needs no cause for perpetuation.

[This is how the intellect falls in self-contradiction immediately when it builds philosophical theories on observable things, where cause and effect overlap in the mind.
The model of a person looking in the mirror is indeed of the highest representation, because it is the model that is constantly being copied and erased.
So when an image is not looked at any more, it should not be substituted by another image, because the logic that has been canvassed in this Discourse will apply to any image.]

“Then, the ancient referenced to a discretionary doer cannot be reasoned, because a willing [thing] acts intentionally, thus the intention precedes the caused [thing], hence it is not ancient.

Rather, the ancient is referenced to the inevitable doer, because the inevitable requires a caused [thing], like parity requires four.

And to this difference between the inevitable and the discretionary Our say has come: and it cannot be referenced to the discretionary.

“Then there is no Ancient except The Lord High is He, since everything else is potential, and every potential requires a cause, and the Cause of what is is the Lord High is He,

He doeth what He willeth, so His object is after the Will, for there is no Ancient in the beginning except He, High is He. And allusions to proof of evidence to miracles will come.

[The allusions to the Inevitable Existence that is the Cause of all the causes, and to The Absolute that is The Cause of the Cause of all the causes: are in all the Discourses,

How religious authorities explain the Discourses to their followers is a different matter.

And while it is undeniable that the masses require such explanations, I should hasten to say that a person who seeks Knowledge should take those explanations only as stepping stones, past which he/she will be able to advance, if he/she is honest in his inquest.

The words “proof” and “miracles” have featured in all the Discourses too. Often they were used by religious authorities, or explained to point to physical manifestations and representations,

But it is to the true faithful to the truth of his/her mind to be certain that physical manifestations and representations are a proof by choice not by reality,

For, everything that is physical is not real, as this Discourse and all the Discourse put it unequivocally.

But the Word of the Messengers has to make its way to all the minds, to inspire an existential experience,

Whether the masses take the Word from the Messengers or from belief systems, or by intellectual reasoning ... is a reflection of their rank of awareness.

So as we have said it on this page and everywhere else, that Knowledge is not referenced to events or physical manifestations, and that it is one’s own reach,

And when one persists on the way to it: it reaches one,

And whether the senses are being used or not ... it makes no difference, because Knowledge reaches vision without a medium. This is Tawheed, as taught in all Discourses.]

“Then, the incident is needy of an interval of time and substance. Since, if potentiality is an existential matter it would have to have substance preceding it, that is by the causality of consequentiality.

“Then, the ancient: inexistence is inadmissible to its existence per se, or by reference to it. What excludes this is that the ancient: is either the causer of Inevitable Existence that is the causer, and this does not admit inexistence due to it being Inevitable per se, where the knowledge of impossibility of turning the inevitable to potential or non-existence [is], by negation or oppositeness;

Or that it is inevitable by another [agent], then: what causes an effect in it cannot be discretionary, and this is the aforementioned discretionary act by intent and will,

Thus the object of the discretionary is preceded by will, and hence [it] is not ancient.

And thus the causer of effect in the ancient is bound to be inevitable, and the doer by initiation: its object cannot separate from it, and wherever is the doer permanent the object is permanent timeless and eternal.

[Such high mountains of abstraction can be climbed by dedication and perseverance, and there are no secrets in them,

And as the next passage states, this is every person’s purpose, so long as he/she doesn’t have a purpose other than the encounter of Truth.]

“Then the return to the lamp of the heart [is] to the whatness and its paraphernalia [to achieve]. And it [the paraphernalia] is what was derived from [what It is] (the square brackets being the Writer’s) while He is/is not in Him, the question is answered by [what It is] (also in this case),

And it is said overwhelmingly/exoterically and inclusively/esoterically about the matter that is an object of action, and the Identity and the Truth are said about it, while the external existence is being considered, and the whole is of the seconds/twos of discernible [things].

“Then the Truth of everything is inconsistent with what it is exposed to of considerations. Else, it would not [say the] truth about what negates it, and whatness alongside with every incident faces it with its opposite. While it, from its own standpoint is none but it.

[And I can see here again how those timeless statements were perhaps taken to point to their opposite, as the last line hints,

This is why it has been Law to open them, as we announced when COB was first opened to open the Books which have been covered by falsehood and dust,

So those whose heart’s lamp has not been put out can return to it. It will glow brighter than it ever did.]

“Then, the truth of everything is inconsistent with what it [the thing] exhibits of/from it of considerations. Else, it would not say truth about what annuls it,

And whatness remains with every exhibit/incidence mirroring its opposite.

While it, from being it, is none but it.

And if it was questioned, by the two extremities of the opposite, the answer is negation to everything before whenness [noun from when], not after it.

[Hence this Discourse and other Discourses annul the exegesis thereof,

And hence all expressed truths, whether by action or inactions, whether covert or overt, whether secret or open ... are mirrorings,

Which begs the question: can any action be totally virtuous? Or equally, can judgement transcend relativity?

And this is the subject of discussion between Arjuna and Krishna since the beginning of this time,

But Krishna’s Answer was swift, any action that is karmic will generate more action, and action that is in full Knowledge of the Whatness of all actions is pure joy and virtue.]

“Then, whatness could be taken stripped from anything excluding it, so that if anything joins it, it would be superfluous, and it [the joining thing] cannot be said about the sum [of the whatness and what was added], which is the whatness, by the condition of negating the thing, and it can only be in the mind.

And it can be taken not by the condition of anything, and this is whole, intrinsic and existent externally, and it is a part of the people [as in their ideologies], and it [the whatness] truths about the sum that is obtained from it and what was added to it.

“Then, the wholeness incidental to the whatnesses [alluding to natural whatnesses with slightly different Arabic spelling] is said to be: a logical wholeness.

And it is said about the compound: mental wholeness and they are both mental.

Thus those are three considerations, they are the intrinsicly whole, the logically whole and the mentally whole; which must be gleaned in/from every discernible whatness.

“Then, of the whatnesses there is the simple which has no parts like essence; and of it is the compound which is what does have parts, like a human, being a compound of the animal and the speaker,

And those two exist by necessity, since the existence of the dense compound is self-evident, and it does not consist except of simple [things].

“And the two adjectives of simplicity and the denseness of compoundedness are by consideration contradictory [to one another], and they might host one another to oppose one another in generality and specificity, by consideration of them by what has preceded.
For, the simplicity of the predicate is more general than the simple truth, and the compound truth is more general than the compound predicate.

[So let’s say that diamond cuts through metal,
Diamond as a simple mental construct is in fact a compounded molecular structure of carbon atoms,
So the simplicity of diamond and the compoundedness of its molecular structure oppose one another,
On the other hand, “cuts through metal” is a general statement applicable in a practical sense,
Such generality is more perceivable than simple truths such as: matter consists of compounded molecular structures.]

“Then, as need is actualised in the denseness: of the compound, so too is the simple,
The two might stand on their own, and might require space/manner.

“Then, the dense compound, as such, it is compounded and made dense by what precedes it in existence and inexistence relatively to the mind and the exterior, and this is the cause of needlessness for a cause, considering that the mind is lucid and the exterior needless.

[The allusion here to the theories of matter and complex material structures being taken as existent per se.]

And it is impossible to push it away from what is intrinsic to it, then three aspects/modes occur, one is self-opposition and two are more general.

[For, if you say that the hardness of diamond is an illusion your mind would not be convinced. So a theory justifying the oppositenss is required, and the mind has to accommodate two concepts now, which have to be generalised on matter: that although it is perceivably real, it is an illusion.]

“Then, there is certain indispensable need of some parts to one another, and it is not possible to comprise it by one consideration.
“Then, they/it may be singular externally and may be singular mentally.
“Then, if the exhibits of the general are considered, also its predicates, they might differ and might intertwine.
“Then, they/it may be taken as substances and might be taken as potentialities,
Hence, kind, branch and matter/origin are exhibited. Then the two [the general and the predicates] make the two one.

[As in regarding diamond and its hardness as one mental perception,
And I suggest that the reader try to find his/her own examples, non-similar to the examples provided, as a mental and philosophical exercise.]

“Then, the kind amongst the two [kind and branch] is like matter, and it is caused, and branch is like image and it is a cause.

“Then, whatever has no kind has no branch.

“Then, every branch that is complete is one, and there can be no two kinds in the one rank of one whatness.

“Then, any mental construct is from those two.

“Then, it must be the case that they are finite.

“Then, they can be mental, natural/characteristical and logical according to their kind.

“Then, of them are lofty and low [things] and in between, so the essence is a lofty kind, and the animate/animal is a low kind, and a growing body and any body are in between kinds, also the branch [as in: in between branches].

Nay, also kind and the particular and the general exhibit [being in between]. And this is included in the Four Knowables. As for the Fifth Knowable that is honourable and high, in It everything is One, remaining and simple, permanent and eternal, where there is no denseness or darkness, but only clarity and simplicity.

[So the question echoes across time and place, what do humans need to know?

The word “ألعلم” which features in the Qur’an and the Hikmah refers to the Khowledge of the Hudood “ألأسماء”, that are the Dimensions of Existence, and metaphorically the Branches, as this Discourse hints,

This structure branches and is reflected in the dense, and this Discourse, like all the Discourses, makes a way for the mind to climb up those branches back to the Origin, on the abstract routes of the Mind.

But the confusion between information and knowledge has been happening since the beginning of this history,

At first it was thought that mythology is knowledge,

And this is no more than fairytales in today’s understanding,

Then recently science was developed,

And this one is about the understanding of the working of nature,

Religious authorities were derisive of it and even thought it was the work of the devil,

Until it became very convincing, and proved that it actually can be beneficial,

Moreover, if taken to a higher degree of abstraction it can even point to the Oneness of everything,

So religious authorities, perhaps in the last fifty years, had no choice but to accept its dominance,

They even went further, to suggest that their Books taught science,

So we now hear of Vedic science, transcendental science, Qur’anic science,

And some Buddhist preachers say that Buddhism is like science,

By making such statements, they believe they can elevate their beliefs to the rank of truth and credibility,

If fact it only shows that their understanding of the Message is wrong,

And some modern philosophers have written about the difference between knowledge and non-knowledge, suggesting that knowledge is beneficial, whereas non-knowledge is useless,

By this they obviously meant to point to the uselessness of religious fallacies and mythology, to tell us that only natural facts and sciences are knowledge,

But they all have missed the Point,

And in the Surah of al-Baqarah of the Qur’an, we have explained the allusion of the verse:” And Adam educated all the Summa, and when He paraded them to the angels said He: inform me of the names of these if you were honest. Said they: Thy Okeanos (سبحانك), we know none but what Thou hast taught us, Thou art the Knower The Wise. Said He: Adam, inform them of their names. And when He informed them of their names, said He: did I not tell you that I know the unseen of the heavens and the earth and what you secret and what you disclose?”

And the Ghita said repeatedly that knowing Ishwara, The Whole Mind is Knowledge, below which every bit of information is to no avail,

And here in this Discourse, it takes the reader who has not lost the light of his/her heart to his/her Beginning, to witness The One in his/her vision, not by hearsay and not by names and adjectives.]

“Then, of the kind there is the Solitary, It is what has no kind above It or below It like the Mind, from It and to It is the beginning and the connection/prayer.

“Then, the two are predicates [the Self and the Word], and they combine upon mirroring.

“Then, kind cannot be taken with reference to the Branch.

“Then, when the two reference [things] to what they are predicated – that is the species – then kind would be more general, and branch is equal.

“Then, personalisation is of the matters of consideration. If it is regarded from the standpoint of it being a mental issue, it is found to be sharing other than it the personalisation in it. And it does not carry on consequentially but ceases upon the cessation of the consideration.

“Then, as for who/what has the personalisation, it could be the Self of whatness, hence it multiplies not. And it may refer to the personalised substance by the peculiar exhibits cast in it.

“Then, personalisation does not occur upon total mental union of its like.

“Then, singularity differs from personalisation, and each of the two is admitted to singularity by the other, and the personalised may not be considered by contribution/partnership, and the whole may be a predicate so it stands out, and personalisation subject to other than it is singular.

“Then personalisation differs from solitariness which consists of Indivisibility.

“Then, it is the versatility of existence, because of its truthfulness about the numericalness from the standpoint of it being numerous, unlike the One and Its consistency.

[Yet another question which never ceases to beg for answers in the human mind, across time and place and all beliefs: is the personalisation of the Dimensions of Existence admissible?

Again all the messages answer by the affirmative, and messengers hinted to this truth or declared it openly,

Hence the dilemma: how can the immutable branches and the very origin take a living form?

And in the Qur’an, they asked: is He The Law (al-7aqq), about Gabriel, in his personalisation as Salman,

And the Messiah said: I am the Truth,

So theories were elaborately written and promulgated to the followers of beliefs old and new,

But it is an awareness of the diversity of existence that one has to reach, to be able to recognise any personalisation,

Some reject it outright, so they introduce the supernatural in order to allow the divine some degree of presence in the world,

Some surrender their minds and take one particular image as a god, and make their belief a condition for salvation,

These are the mental constructs that people have to overcome. It is the Knowledge that was meant to be acquired since the early days of existence, when the Self plunged in the world of darkness and witnessed the apparent chaos, and she and her Brother the Word had curiosity to find order and essence in it, and to help the miserable ones who trapped themselves in it.]

“Then, the two cannot be defined unless the vocabulary is taken into consideration.

[Two in this passage and the previous refer to the abstract duality of existence in distance from the Single Point. Hence viewing them as Self and Word, that is image and animation/expression is perhaps the easiest approach to the intellect in our place and time.

And the number two becomes incidental, upon considering that the two is in fact three. The three vertices of the equilateral triangle become thus a visual representation of Existence in duality. And its reflection in the Helium, that is the Water which was an effusion of the Love of the Self and Her Father, constitutes a six-headed star, representing the necessity of existence of oppositeness.]

“Then, it is the numerousness in the Mind and the Imagination, the tow equal in their being each more knowledgeable than its companion in the divisibility.

“Then, unity is not a matter of sight, it is rather of seconds/twos of discernible [things], also numerousness.

“Then, it mirrors the two for the purpose of adding causality [as in cause and effect], and measure and measurability, not because of essential mirroring between the two.

[Hence the concepts of natural existence are modelled according to this: distance, space, time, size, comparability ... this is the repository of mathematics and physics in its highest abstract model and indeed the repository of religious mythology.]

“Then, the exhibit of the two could be one; so it has two facets by necessity. The facet of unity [is so] if it heads not the facet of numerousness and obstructs/exhibits it not.

For unity is incidental, and if it obstructs/exhibits it would be of subjects and probabilities incidental to one subject, or conversely, formed [hence] a unity of kind or species or branch, and it [the subject] might diversify.

“So the subject of the absoluteness of the indivisibility and nothing else, is a unity personalised by a said word, else [it is] a point if it has an additional concept having a subject, or differing if it had no subject.

“So, this, if it does not admit divisibility, else, it is a measurement, or a mass simple or compound.

“Then, some of these are more worthy than each other of unity.

[Hence the unity as a mental construct is none but a mental construct. This is the egg from which the gods of monotheism hatch, because the concepts in which it was conceived deliver a variety of them.]

“Then, the He [the third person], it is in accordance with that [what has been said].

“Then, the unit as an adjective incidentally and reflexively: its names differ by the difference of the predicates.

“Then union is impossibility; for the He is it, requiring two sides of difference and union, by what has preceded.

“Then, unit is the beginning of numeration that is based on it, and nothing else.

“Then, if its like is added to it the twoship/twoness occurs, and is a kind of number.

Then infinite kinds occur by the addition of one by one, of different truths, it is the kinds of numbers.

“Then, each one of them is a matter of consideration, the mind makes judgement about it according to the truths, if some joined others: it is in the mind that the joining is accordingly.

“Then, unit might obstruct/exhibit to itself and its mirroring, and ceases upon the cessation of the consideration.

“Then, partnership might also obstruct/exhibit to it, so it is privileged by exposure, and so too the mirroring.

“Then, it is added to its subject by two considerations, and to its mirroring by a third one, and so too the mirroring.

“Then, let us get into the wick of the lamp/light, in search for mirroring and its four kinds.

“Then, [every] multi-kind [thing] is [so] by its four kinds, that is the mirroring negatively and positively, and it is referred to the verb/say and the tie/connection, and to the null and the prevalence, and it is the first: taken by the consideration of a certain peculiarity, and the mirroring of two opposites, and they are both existential.

[The allusion is to the self-recognition of Existence in the mirroring, which we represented by the equilateral triangle, with the He being to top vertex,

Then the verb/say “be” [kun or om] is initiated giving each image the liberty, while the connection is never severed, and this is the positive mirroring in this Discourse,

As for the null, as was said on COB, this is the mirroring of the Self in darkness, created by necessity in the distance, lit by reflection of her light, so that essence is bestowed on it, and this is compassion, and it is the prevalence of the light over darkness.

And there is no opposite to the Mind. From the Mind the Self and the Word are begun, then they are mirrored in the darkness, where they face the challenges of activity in existence.

This is indeed the wick of the lamp.]

“And He/It is reflected, and it [is a reflection of] what is in front of it by realisation and exposure and the mirroring of hospitability.

“Then, under it kind is employed by an incidental consideration.

“Then, Its argument about it is by doubt, and in its strongest it is dismissal.

“Then, it is said to the First: contradiction, and it is actualised in the judgements/matters by eight conditions [being: the status, the time, the movement/expression, the direction, the aim, the manifestation, the law, the divine references, as has come in The Solitary in His Identity].

As for the exclusive ones, a ninth is set as a condition, which is the difference in it by the quantum,

For, the two wholes are untrue, and the partial ones are true.

And in the directors is a tenth, and it is the difference in the direction too, so the two are impossible to concur truthfully or untruthfully.

[This is a reference to the cycles of the human existence, from the view of awareness, belief and activity, which are the drivers of human civilisation,

And the phrase “it is said to the First: contradiction” is hinting to the fact that only in awareness of the First that contradiction can be observed in all human philosophical and practical activity,

And this say is actualised by the eight Judgements as mentioned,

Then a reference is made to the two opposites, which can take a partly true argument.

The two opposites cannot concur, neither ideologically and nor in any other way, and an example of this is to look at something through two different lenses which each cannot deliver the entire image,

The two images conveyed by them are different existentially.]

“Then, if the null is fettered by the Prevalence [reference to the previous passage] with respect to the judgements/matters they are called vindicated, which is the mirroring of existentiality truthfully not untruthfully to the potentiality of the negation of the subject [being the incidental presence in matter and events], so that the mirroring of the two is true.

“Then, the subject might necessitate one of the very two opposites, and it might not necessitate anything from the two: upon reposing in the adjective of a median/middle way.

[I hope this can inspire some calmness in the minds which seek reasonable exit from the quagmires of politics and conflict. But the awareness of the First has to be first, for the opposites to be recognised as such, as this Discourse puts in no uncertain terms at the highest level of abstraction.]

“Then, it is not discernible for the One to have two opposites. Because the opposites, even if many, the purpose of difference is envisaged by two of them only. By this the image of weirdest [things] emerged, as well as the new ones of black and white, and the hot white and the cold black.

[Hence the middle way cannot be a choice between the many opposites, although as hinted that the subject might necessitate one of the two.

So if it is found that this is too difficult to understand, let alone practise, no one has ever said that it is easy,

Ever since the beginning this has been humanity’s struggle in the distance in darkness,

But now people can see skies, mountains, animals, trees ...

All this has been value added to the null. That’s why the Qur’an keeps reminding the people to be thankful for everything that they take for granted, such as day and night, and solid earth to walk on, and rivers and oceans ... and skies above them ...

Dark matter without the light has nothing but suffering.]

“Then, let it be known that oppositeness is devoid of kinds, so there are no opposites amongst the kinds, and they are subject/condition to the species by the union of the kind [with the species], and that is by the pair of opposites being of two kinds employed under a close kind, like blackness and whiteness which are employed under colour which is their close kind.
“Hence, this requires lifting oppositeness from its origin, and this is why it was said: and it is subject/condition to the species by their union with the kind, and making the kind and the branch one.
“Then, that the vision in the eye be returned twice: once in the eye of the Cause, and once in the eye of the caused, else the vision is turned back disappointed and lamenting.
And that it [the vision] be sheltering from Sovereignty by the Sovereignty. For, everything issued from It is a command of either independence or re-union, for it is a cause of this command and is caused by it, and such is effectiveness and materialisation and illustration and intention.

[The experience of Union (Tawheed) cannot be described by any expression,
But the Discourses have hinted to it, only to confirm to those who have witnessed it that It is True.
And those who have not experienced it: in their minds the words are reduced to their natural causes, and different beliefs and ideologies hence emerge from them,
And Tawheed is not a matter of species, this is why it is said it is subject/condition to the species by their union with the kind,
And the people of the Book and the Hikmah can claim exclusiveness of Tawheed to their species, and can document their births and their beliefs for their own convenience, but the true records are by the Law, hence it is said that they should shelter from the Sovereignty by the Sovereignty in this Discourse, and to shelter in God (إتقوا الله) in the Qur’an, and to take refuge in the Truth from the distractions of the low world, in the Ghita and the Dharma,
Because independence, whether intentional or otherwise, is only an illusion which will be shattered by the Sovereignty.]

“Then, the doer is the principle of effect, because effect issues from him, not from the intention and the materialisation and the illustration.
“And when [it is] existent by all the directions of effect by being satisfying/summing all the conditions, then the existence of the caused/effect become due.
“Then, it is not admissible that the complete cause be comparable to the absence of the effect/caused, because the doer by obligation is accompanied with the effect/caused, so the cause does not precede its caused, and the ancient refers not to the due effect.

[Hence all the people of beliefs, old and new, cannot claim that their belief is their assured connection which will be fulfilled in place in time of their understanding,
And anyone who has witnessed the eye of the Truth is aware of this reality, while the people of beliefs are competing with one another over parts.
However, who are in the best position to progress are those who have opened their eyes and ears to the Word of Truth across time and place, present and past.]

“Then, it is no admissible that the caused is perpetuated without the cause, because the cause of need is potentiality, and the caused past existence is potential, hence it needs the cause.
“And if there was an objection that we see the builder dead while the structure still stands up, so how come the caused has been perpetuated while the cause has gone? I answer: the structure is calculated, as for the provider of the image It is our Lord The Beginner Manifest, hence the perpetuation of the caused is admitted while the cause has gone in the calculation, that is the image provided by our Lord The Beginner remains after the annihilation of the calculator. Because the calculator is not the cause of the image really.

[And this very model was presented by COB in an essay by the title "أين توجد الكلمات", to demonstrate this very truth, as an answer to why the Dimensions of Existence can exist in spatiotemporal bodies, oblivious of every phenomenon and every activity in the cosmos, and without having to intervene consciously in anything except the events of their spatiotemporal lives.
And as we read this for the first time we write it in English as quickly as it is read, and the vision goes only one word at a time, except if the grammar requires a pre-reading. This is proof that this is from the Guarded Tablet that it is read and written, and it has existed in non-verbal form since the beginning, despite our coming and going many times over.]

“Then, with its uniqueness the caused [thing] unites/combines by considering the multiplicity of the additions and His Dawning: that one thing is issued from The Beginner of the world that is the Primary Caused – the Master – and to this Master [the Whole Mind] there is unreal multiplicity. Because the Primary Caused, with regards to Himself, potential, and with regards to His Cause: Inevitable, and He is conscious of himself and is conscious of his multiplicity, that is to other than that: of the directions/facets of considered multiplicity. Hence a caused [thing] is issued from Him upon considering every direction.
“Then, this judgement is self-reflective, so with the uniqueness of the caused the cause unites/combines, so no two causes can concur over one caused, also no two caused [things] can be issued from one cause. And in the uniqueness of kind there is no converse.

[So an example of uniqueness is that the essence of sunrise is one cause, but no two sunrises are alike.]

“Then the two references are of the seconds/twos of discernibles.

“Then, between them is the mirroring of hospitability. And they might concur in one thing, thus it becomes cause and caused, but with reference to two matters, like Zayd who is cause of his son Omar, and is caused by his father Abraham, and they do not oppose one another in the two [cause and caused].

“Then, the exhibits of the two do not integrate in an infinite sequence, because each one of them ceases to occur without an enforcing cause. But whatever is due by other [things] is also of a ceasing occurrence; for, there should be a self-enforcing cause, [and] it is a party [in the occurrence]; also for mapping/corresponding between a finite totality from which some units have been separated, and another from which nothing was separated.

And because the mapping/correspondence is by consideration of two references, so that each one of them multiplies by consideration of the two: by the inevitability of their finiteness due to the superlativeness of one of the two references over the other from the standpoint of precedence;

And because the effect in the total, if it was some of its parts then the thing becomes effective in itself and its causes;

And because the total has a complete cause, and each [individual] part is not a complete cause, since the entirety is not enforced by it, and how can it enforce the entirety, it is [only] a thing needing the entirety infinitely.

“And the two references equal on the extremities of the contrary, for in this is the reference to the causation and causality. So every time fire is actualised burning is actualised, and every time burning is actualised fire is actualised, and every time the absence of fire is actualised the absence of burning is actualised, and every time the absence of burning is actualised the absence of fire is actualised. And this is in the completeness of the dawning of clarity needing no proof.

[This is not stating the most obvious. But as this passage started, it is the mirroring of hospitability of cause and effect of one another, so that an event is seen in the mind as one complete cycle, rather than the linear occurrence. Because in the end everything is observed in the mind where clarity needs no proof, and the sensory information is only a physical actualisation.]

“Then, acceptance and action are mutually contradictory. For there cannot be a single matter relative to a single thing accepting and acting upon the union of reference, which is the reference of acceptance and action, that is because of the mutual negation of what adheres to the two of them.

[None of these statements refer to supernatural phenomena or religious mythology, as I can see might have been interpreted by some interpreters. It is the examination of the content of one’s mind. Whatever is in one’s mind is exposed by the Word of Truth, because from it everything is projected, and only those who can climb up those high mountains of abstraction can reach the Summum.

And an example of the previous statement is a lake and a river. What adheres to the river is the flow which ends up in the lake, and what adheres to the lake is the stillness within its contour.]

“Then, there ought to be difference made between the cause and the caused, if the caused were needing for itself for that cause, else not.

[So in the previous example the lake needs the river as its cause. But if the lake is replenished by rain water and other sources, the river ceases being its cause.]

“Then, the truth of one of the two references [acceptance and action] is not due over the companion.

[So the truth of acceptance in the lake is not due over what accompanies it of exhibits, hence the lake can seem totally independent of the river]

“Then, the person of all the elements is not a self-causing [thing] for another person, from the two of them the persons have not disintegrated/sprawled out,

And because of his needlessness of him by another, and because of his lack of superiority [over him], and because of their evenness, and because of the perpetuation of one of them while his companion has gone.

[This is another approach to viewing existence as not being caused by sequential events, a whole view in which the universe and the man are one, not caused by one another or occurring sequentially: randomly or by the will of a god.]

“Then, action from us is needing of partial envisagement for the action to personalise by it, then longing, then will, then motion from the muscles for the action to be carried out.

[The hint which stands out is in the mention of longing. As once said on COB that in fact nothing can be done without passion. It is the fuel which fuels every activity or inertia. Hence cursing passion altogether does not progress one on the road to self-realisation, and the pretentious abandoning of passion is by itself a form of passion. When people become aware of this passion can be used for the good purposes of their present constantly.]

“Then, voluntary motion to the place of tracking some will accordingly, and the parts of such a motion follows the imaginations of partial will, the forerunner of such imaginations is a cause for the forerunner of this plan for the actualisation of imaginations as well as other [forms of] will, so that the will connect in the self and in the motions along the distance until its end.

[If one can remember the early days of childhood when one learns to coordinate imagination, will and motion, and the early days of walking,
Or if one has had moments of hypno-vigilence, whereby one dreams while wakeful, and tries to control one’s movement in the space and time of the “dream”,
This last passage becomes lucid.]

“Then, the subject is the condition for the truth of the effect [ that is if the target of the motion is achieved].

“Then, disintegration is subject to interval, provision and intensity, by the consideration of which: disintegration and its negation, specific to the effect: truth [that is actualised].
Because the forcible one differs by the difference of the acceptor, and upon the union of the beginning by the unevenness of its mirroring.
And the natural differs by the difference of the doer, due to the equality between the major and the minor in the acceptance; so if they move upon the union of the beginning, then disintegration exhibits [itself].

[So in the first instance, the disintegration is forced, in the second it is “natural”, done by the subject itself that is disintegrating, which has in it by the laws of nature equal forces of perpetuation and self-annihilation, although they coexist seemingly unequal. If those forces unite by the unity of the beginning of the subject, then disintegration occurs,
Which, effectively means that disintegration is inevitability for every subject.]

“Then, the projection/place formed by the dweller/projector of it is accepter of it, and is substance for the compound [of the dweller and the dwelling], and its acceptance is inherent, and closeness and remoteness might occur by the propensities which it earns by consideration of the dweller.
“Then, this dweller is an image of the compound, and an active part in its projection/place and it is one []

[Far from alluding to the dwelling of a god in a physical body, this is about the illustration/figuration of any existent thing, and any existent thing can have an image, and this image can be personalisation by that statement.
And this was clearly expounded at the start of this Discourse and that the Absolute is the Cause above the Cause of the causes. Otherwise the cosmos would fall apart, from having The Cause of its Cause being subjected to causality.
But people’s beliefs have to evolve in their own minds. The Qur’an came to correct the belief that god was born and died on a cross. And although the Power of its Word was strong, many did not believe and still do not. Then philosophy in the West refuted the concept and freed those who believed it from surrendering their minds to irrational belief, but reasoning cannot counter beliefs all the time, and many still take that concept as the basis of their belief.
Although any image is a projection of Truth, and it is stated in the Qur’an and the Ghita that wherever you turn your faces there is God’s Countenance, the concept of god being born in a physical body goes beyond that,
This is a knife’s edge that people have to walk without falling on either side of it, and words can go only so far.
Hence the two schools of thought have emerged: the god being born as a human, and the god who is unknowable except by a Book.
There is no essential difference between the two schools of thought, and most importantly there is no essential difference between the different schools of thought born on one side of this divide,
Hence, whether it is this man or that man, and whether it is this book or that book: the concept essentially does not change. The journey in abstraction, as expounded in this Discourse of the highest order, takes one to Tawheed (Union), like all the Discourses do, where the Truth can be witnessed without a medium,
So that ultimately the Summum is reached, and the body hosting this highest rank of awareness is then the Human (al-naasoot) that is the God in the human.]

“Then, the aim is a cause by its whatnesses [plural is added in order to reflect the Arabic word which has a spelling pointing to natural “whatness”] for the causation of the cause that is the actual, caused in its existence by the caused [aim], and it is constant, as whatnesses for every aiming [person].
As for the animate/animal power which is the locomotive, its purpose is to reach the ultimate, and it could be an aim of longing as well, and it could be not. If this does not eventuate, the motion is false. Else, it is either providence, or a habit or an essential aim or absurdity and hazard.
“And they [scholars] have proven that there are purposes for the [study] of natural [sciences], and the same for the systems [of any art or mathematical or scientific discipline].

[It has been mentioned in the Ghita that every activity can be a yoga, if done selflessly for the purpose of knowledge, and it has been mentioned in COB that any activity is aimed at union with its law, until the conscious person is one with it, and called it Perseverance (ألجد) as a Dimension of Existenece,
Perseverance manifests itself in every activity people undertake, the ultimate purpose of which is the aim of the person performing it. Hence people can excel in arts and sciences and can set out on a journey of self-knowledge and discovery in every pursuit they undertake,
And indeed activity can be wrong, aimless and hazardous ...]

“Then, the cause, absolutely, could be simple and could be compound, also potential or actual, and total or partial, and self-sustaining or accidental, and general or particular, and near or far, and common or private.
“Then, the negation of an incidence is of the incidental principles, and the doer on either side is one [that is the law of the incidence], and the subject is like substance.

“Then, the shortage of effect is indeed in one of its extremities, and the causes of whatness are other than the causes of existence. And non-existence is bound to have a cause also in the motion.

[So an example is the effect of the sun which is reduced at the extremities of the day, although the existence or the whatness of a source of light is not the cause of occurrence of the sun and the phenomenon of day and night in the physical existence.

These can cease to exist, if their causes of cessation materialise in the physical world that is constantly moving.

But this discourse goes to the highest degree of abstraction, so that what is perceived in the world by the senses culminates in awareness of its essence. Hence the title “Privileged Quintessence”, because the quintessence of any existent thing is of the highest rank of awareness.]

“And of the pre-conceived causes are those which lead to a model or a defect or an opposite.

And the pre-conception: some of it is near, like very hot water, pre-conceived to accept an aerial figure, and some of it is far, like lukewarm water.

[So the “pre-conceived” causes are those which are innate to the existence of something.

Although these were not designed or conceived by humans, they were at an earlier stage of human existence.

And the human mind today would find the dreams and memories that the entire manifest being the outcome of innumerable cycles of human existence: outlandish, and dismisses it outright.

Hence, how close one is to Existence materialises in one being able to communicate with Existence, so that remembrance and foresight become possible, albeit unprovable to all other fellow humans,

Therefore water can turn to steam if it has reached its boiling point, otherwise it stays in its liquid form. And the word of Truth and the longing for it are like the fire which elevates its temperature, so it reaches the boiling point.

Mind you, religious and political beliefs do flare up emotions with the fire of passion ... but this one is passion for perishable glory and unreal existence, it is false passion.]

“And of the incidental cause: is that which is preconceived, and it is as though it is the adherer to the inherent cause, and that is what is called incidental cause, as a cause preconceived, bringing the inherent cause to the caused [thing].”

[So the incidental causes have been rounded over their caused things, so that a complete isolation can be perceived.

Thus the manifest appears to have its own incidental causes, seemingly independently of any presumed power beyond them,

And hence the ideologies of Divine Intervention: as in a god intervening in a self-ruling universe; and the ideologies of materialism: as in the universe and the life in it occurring accidentally, dismissing the existence of consciousness at all levels.

And thus the double quotes have been closed, marking the end of the Discourse.

And many readers of it have probably wondered, why it wasn’t ended with a statement or a summary of conclusion,

But the summary and conclusion were provided right at the beginning of it.

So two appendices were added some time later, under the title of “The Essences and the Incidences” (ألجواهر و الأعراض),

With the author’s intent to confirm a belief,

Because the Discourse has been impossible to understand by the religious authorities who assumed ownership of it,

The two appendices use complex sentences, grand words and a poetic style,

Most importantly they are fairly easy to read, although intentionally shrouded with mystery,

And this is has been the complex of religious interpreters and explicators:

How can the Books sound so grand and mysterious and informative ...

But neither of the linguistic and poetic qualities of the Books were deliberately planned,

They are inherent in their inspiration, and they adhere to it,

It is that certain things cannot be expressed in any other way,

So when those qualities are mimicked, the outcome impresses the reader who hasn’t witnessed the Truth of the Books,

And although they have an inspiration that can go only so far: they can never take one all the way,

Hence the Qur’an and the Hikmah call them: zukhruf, meaning decoration,

Because they are like the decoration which ornaments the walls and the ceilings of buildings,

While the truth is in the causes which keep the building standing up,

Decorations have been added and appended to all the Books without an exception,

And until the believer in a particular Book become aware of this fact: the decorations will be seen by him/her as truth,

The second one of those appendices starts with the use of the word "عز",

A word which was previously inserted in the text, as a correction as previously mentioned,

This word has been one of the identifiers of the liberal builders for millennia, although they might have adopted a new one now,

And although the Books have repeatedly refuted names and adjectives as identifiers of truth, the author attempts to bypass all the Books by his introduction,

To declare that a person and certain events were truth,

Not by a true approach,

Because the Discourse has alluded by true approach to Existence and inexistence,

Rather, by listing the theories and definitions of divine manifestation in a human image,

With the pretence of rejection,

But with the intent of acceptance,

Not by a true approach,

Because the Discourse has alluded by true approach to Existence and inexistence,

Rather by inspiring a state of surrender of mind,

Not unlike all religious beliefs,

So that a god is happy with those who accept him in an image or a book of their choosing,

Hence there was no point in keeping such a text closed,

Except to affirm that belief requires no study and no investigation,

Because indeed belief does not require any of those things,

But had the authorities known any truth, they would have recognised the futility of secrecy, in as far as the truth can reach the minds of people who accept it, and spread from them,

Because the truth does reach and spread without human intervention,

The truth exists, and its existence cannot be overridden or abolished by human decisions and discretion,

And this is proof to them, before the doors are truly closed at the end of time of this cycle, when no acknowledgement of truth is accepted from those who have rejected it all the way, and no union is possible for them, as said in all the Books.

Secrecy of books serves only as a protection from logical and philosophical scrutiny,

And allows the authorities to preach anything they wish to their followers, empowered by secrecy,

And there was a time when the profession of transcribing the Books was a monopoly of the liberal builders,

Since biblical times,

And the campaign of John the Baptist against the Pharisees and the Scribes, who copied the Books and kept them secret to specific tribes ... was mainly aimed at them,

They have left their insignia and vocabulary in every Book, to claim ownership of it, and to tell their followers that Al3izz is the author of all of them,

And now many await for his coming back, to salvage them,

But he will only come back to shed more blood,

This is the destiny of those who worshipped him in different names and forms that they cannot evade,

In one name and image they worship him, and in another they curse him and stone him,

He has provided them with two pairs of opposites to affirm his name and image in their minds,

Unless there is truth in their minds and compassion in their hearts,

And the worlds are not run by anarchy, except for those who believe only in them.]