The Niche for Lights

«Praise to ALLAH! who poureth forth light; and giveth sight; and, from His mysteries’ height, removes the veils of night!» — la doxología con que abre el tratado, en la traducción rimada de Gairdner: Allah derrama la luz, da la vista y retira los velos de la noche.

«And Prayer for MUHAMMED)! of all lights the Light; Sire of them that do the right; Beloved of The Sovereign of Might; Evangelist of the forgiven in his sight; to Him devoted quite; to sinner and to infidel the Arm that knows to fight and smite!» — la plegaria por Mahoma que sigue a la doxología, con el Profeta llamado Luz de todas las luces; el paréntesis de cierre tras el nombre es basura del escaneo.

«You have asked me, dear brother—and may Allah decree for you the quest of man’s chiefest bliss, make you candidate for the Ascent to the highest height anoint your vision with the light of Reality, and purge your inward parts from all that is not the Real!» — el tratado se dirige a un solo destinatario, llamado hermano, con la bendición con que le desea el Ascenso a la altura más alta y la purga de cuanto no es lo Real.

«You have asked me, | say, to communicate to you the mysteries of the Lights Divine, together with the allusions behind the literal meaning of certain texts in the Koran and certain sayings in the Traditions.» — el encargo tal como el tratado lo enuncia: comunicar los misterios de las Luces Divinas y las alusiones tras el sentido literal de ciertos textos del Corán y ciertos dichos de las Tradiciones; el troceo imprime una barra donde va la I.

«“Allah is the Light of the Heavens and of the Earth. The similitude of His Light is as it were a Niche wherein is a Lamp: the Lamp within a Glass: the Glass as it were a pearly Star. From a Tree right blessed is it lit, an Olive-tree neither of the East nor of the West, the Oil whereof were well-nigh luminous though Fire touched it not: Light upon Light!» — el Versículo de la Luz, que el tratado cita entero como su primer objeto y que la nota de Gairdner sitúa en la sura 24, 35: el nicho, la lámpara, el vidrio como estrella perlada, el olivo ni de Oriente ni de Occidente y el aceite casi luminoso sin que lo toque el fuego.

«“But as for the Infidels, their deeds are as it were massed Darkness upon some fathomless sea, the which is overwhelmed with billow topped by billow topped by cloud: Darkness on Darkness piled! so that when a man putteth forth his hand he well-nigh can see it not. Yea, the man for whom Allah doth not cause light, no light at all hath he.”» — el Versículo de la Tiniebla, que el tratado añade al anterior: las obras de los infieles como tiniebla amontonada sobre un mar sin fondo, ola sobre ola y nube encima, de modo que quien tiende la mano apenas la ve.

«What is the significance of His comparison of LIGHT with Niche, and Glass, and Lamp, and Oil, and Tree?» — la pregunta que el tratado se plantea a sí mismo: qué significa la comparación de la Luz con nicho, vidrio, lámpara, aceite y árbol.

«Such is your request. But in making it you have assayed to climb an arduous ascent, so high that the height thereof cannot be so much as gauged by mortal eyes [p. 3]. You have knocked at a locked door which is only opened to those who know and “are established in knowledge.”» — el tratado califica el encargo de ascenso arduo y de puerta cerrada que solo se abre a los que saben y están establecidos en el conocimiento.

«Moreover, not every mystery is to be laid bare or made plain,» — la reserva que el tratado pone por delante de toda su exposición: no todo misterio se descubre ni se explana.

«“Noble hearts seal mysteries like the tomb.”» — el primero de los tres dichos con que el tratado sostiene esa reserva, citado como verso.

«Or, as one of those who Know has said — “To divulge the secret of the Godhead is to deny God.”» — el segundo dicho, atribuido por el tratado a uno de los que Saben: divulgar el secreto de la Divinidad es negar a Dios.

«Or, as the Prophet has said — “There is a knowledge like the form of a hidden thing, known to none save those who know God.”» — el tercer dicho, atribuido al Profeta: hay un conocimiento con forma de cosa escondida que solo conocen los que conocen a Dios.

«If then these speak of that secret, only the Children of Ignorance will contradict them. And howsoever many these Ignorants be, the Mysteries must from the gaze of sinners be kept inviolate.» — el tratado cierra la reserva: contra esos dichos solo objetan los Hijos de la Ignorancia, y los misterios se guardan de la mirada de los pecadores.

«But I believe that your heart has been opened by the Light and your consciousness purged of the darkness of Ignorance.» — la razón por la que el tratado accede pese a la reserva: el corazón del destinatario está abierto por la Luz y su conciencia purgada de la tiniebla de la Ignorancia.

«not be so niggardly as to deny you direction to these glorious truths in all their fineness and all their divineness; for the wrong done in keeping Wisdom from her Children is not less than that of yielding her to those who are Strangers to her.» — la regla que el tratado enuncia sobre a quién se transmite: negar la Sabiduría a sus Hijos no es menos injusto que entregarla a los extraños.

«“He who bestoweth Knowledge on fools loseth it, And he who keepeth the deserving from her doeth a wrong.”» — los versos con que el tratado remata esa regla: quien da Conocimiento a necios lo pierde y quien lo niega a quien lo merece comete agravio.

«You must, however, be content with a very summarized explanation of the subject; for the full demonstration of my theme would demand a treatment of both its principles and its parts for which my time is at present insufficient, and for which neither my mind nor my energies are free.» — el límite que el tratado se pone: la explicación va resumida porque la demostración plena de principios y partes exigiría un tiempo y una libertad de ánimo que declara no tener.

«The keys of all hearts are in the hands of Allah: He opens them when He pleases, as He pleases, and with what He pleases.» — la fórmula con que el tratado atribuye a Allah la apertura de los corazones, con las tres cláusulas de arbitrio.

«At this time, then, it shall suffice to open up to you three chapters or parts, whereof the first is as hereunder follows.» — el tratado anuncia su partición en tres capítulos o partes.

«The Real Light is Allah; and the name “light” is otherwise only predicated metaphorically and conveys no real meaning.» — la tesis de la Parte I, apartado 1: la Luz Real es Allah, y el nombre *luz* aplicado a otra cosa es metafórico y sin sentido real.

«you must know that the word light is employed with a threefold signification: the first [p. 4] by the Many, the second by the Few, the third by the Fewest of the Few.» — el reparto que el tratado hace de los tres sentidos de *luz* entre los Muchos, los Pocos y los Poquísimos.

«Then you must know the various grades of light that relate to the two latter classes, and the degrees of the reality appertaining to these grades, in order that it may be disclosed to you, as these grades become clear, that ALLAH is the highest and the ultimate Light: and further, as the reality appertaining to each grade is revealed, that Allah alone is the Real, the True Light, and beside Him there is no light at all.» — el plan del apartado: recorrer los grados de luz de las dos últimas clases hasta que se vea que Allah es la Luz última y que fuera de Él no hay luz alguna.

«Take now the first signification. Here the word light indicates a phenomenon. Now a phenomenon, or appearance, is a relative term, for a thing necessarily appears to, or is concealed from, something other than itself; and thus its appearance and its non-appearance are both relative.» — el primer sentido de *luz*: un fenómeno, y por tanto término relativo, porque una cosa aparece a algo distinto de sí o se le oculta.

«Further, its appearance and its nonappearance are relative to perceptive faculties; and of these the most powerful and the most conspicuous, in the opinion of the Many, are the senses, one of which is the sense of sight.» — el tratado liga la aparición a las facultades perceptivas y da los sentidos por las más conspicuas en opinión de los Muchos.

«Further, things in relation to this sense of sight fall under these categories: (1) that which by itself is not visible, as dark bodies; (2) that which is by itself visible, but cannot make visible anything else, such as luminaries like the stars, and fire before it blazes up; (3) that which is by itself visible, and also makes visible, like the sun and the moon, and fire when it blazes up, and lamps.» — las tres categorías de cosas respecto de la vista: las que no son visibles por sí, las visibles por sí que no hacen visible nada más, y las visibles que además hacen visible.

«Now it is in regard to this third category that the name “light” is given: sometimes to that which is effused from these luminaries and falls on the exterior of opaque bodies, as when we say “The earth is lighted up”, or “The light of the sun falls on the earth”, or “The lamp-light falls on wall or on garment”; and sometimes to the luminaries themselves, because they are self-luminous.» — el tratado adjudica el nombre *luz* a la tercera categoría, ya a lo que se difunde de los luminares sobre los cuerpos opacos, ya a los luminares mismos por ser luminosos por sí.

«We have seen that the very essence of light is appearance to a percipient; and that perception depends on the existence of two things—light and a seeing eye.» — el paso siguiente: la esencia de la luz es la aparición a un percipiente, y la percepción pide dos cosas, luz y ojo que ve.

«For, though light is that which appears and causes-to-appear, it neither appears nor causes-to-appear to the blind.» — el argumento del tratado: la luz no aparece ni hace aparecer al ciego.

«Thus percipient spirit is as important as perceptible light qua necessary element of perception; nay, ‘tis the more important, in that it is the percipient spirit which apprehends and through which apprehension takes place; whereas light is not apprehensive, neither does apprehension takes place through it, but merely when it is present.» — la inversión que el tratado propone: el espíritu percipiente importa más que la luz perceptible, porque es él quien aprehende y la luz no es aprehensiva.

«By the word light, in fact, is more properly understood that visualizing light which we call the eye.» — el segundo sentido de *luz*: la luz visualizadora que se llama ojo.

«Thus men apply the word light to the light of the eye, and say of the weaksighted that “the light of his eye is weak”, and of the blear-eyed that “the light of his vision is impaired,” and of the blind that “his light is quenched.”» — los tres usos del habla que el tratado alega para ese sentido: la luz débil del corto de vista, la impedida del legañoso y la apagada del ciego. El troceo parte *weak-sighted* al fin de renglón y la herramienta lo devuelve unido; la restitución es lectura propuesta, no letra de la fuente.

«Similarly of the pupil of the eye it is said that it concentrates “the light of vision, and strengthens it, the eye-lashes being given by the divine wisdom a black colour, and made to compass the eye every way round about, in order to concentrate its “light.”» — el tratado atribuye a la sabiduría divina el color negro de las pestañas y su disposición en torno al ojo, para concentrar su luz.

«And of the white of the eye it is said that it disperses the “light of the eye” and weakens it, so that to look long at a bright white surface, or still more at the sun’s light, dazzles “the light of the eye” and effaces it, just as the weak are effaced by the side of the strong.» — el reverso: el blanco del ojo dispersa su luz, y mirar mucho una superficie blanca o el sol la deslumbra y la borra, como los débiles quedan borrados junto a los fuertes.

«You understand, then, that percipient spirit is called light; and why it is so called; and why it is more properly so called. And this is the second signification, that employed by the Few.» — el tratado cierra el segundo sentido y lo adjudica a los Pocos.

«You must know, further, that the light of physical sight [p. 6] is marked by several kinds of defects. It sees others but not itself. Again, it does not see what is very distant, nor what is very near, nor what is behind a veil. It sees the exterior of things only, not their interior; the parts, not the whole; things finite, not things infinite. It makes many mistakes in its seeing, for what is large appears to its vision small; what is far, near; what is at rest, at motion; what is in motion, at rest.» — los defectos que el tratado imputa a la vista física: no se ve a sí misma, no ve lo muy lejano ni lo muy cercano ni lo velado, ve el exterior y no el interior, las partes y no el todo, lo finito y no lo infinito, y yerra tomando lo grande por pequeño y lo quieto por móvil.

«And this Tradition “Allah hath Seventy Thousand Veils of Light and Darkness: were He to withdraw their curtain, then would the splendours of His Aspect[1] surely consume everyone who apprehended Him with his sight.”» — la Tradición de los Velos, segundo objeto del tratado: setenta mil velos de luz y tiniebla cuya cortina, retirada, consumiría a todo el que lo aprehendiera con su vista. El *[1]* es llamada de nota que el escaneo pega a la palabra.

«In sum, then, light is an expression for that which is by» — la definición del primer sentido de *luz*, que el cambio de plana parte a mitad.

«itself visible [p. 5] and makes other things visible, like the sun. This is the definition of, and the reality concerning, light, according to its first signification.» — la continuación de la definición ya en la plana siguiente: lo visible por sí que hace visibles las demás cosas. El *[p. 5]* intercalado es la referencia a la página árabe que el aparato inserta en el cuerpo.

«If, then, there be such an Eye as is free from all these physical defects, would not it, I ask, more properly be given the name of light?» — el tratado pregunta si no merecería más el nombre de luz un Ojo libre de los siete defectos físicos; el arranque —*physical eye*— queda del otro lado del cambio de plana.

«Know, then, that there is in the mind of man an eye, characterized by just this perfection—that which is variously called Intelligence, Spirit, Human Soul.» — la respuesta: hay en la mente del hombre un ojo con esa perfección, llamado de varios modos Inteligencia, Espíritu y Alma Humana.

«But we pass over these terms, for the multiplicity of the terms deludes the man of small intelligence into imagining a corresponding multiplicity of ideas.» — la advertencia del tratado sobre la sinonimia: la multiplicidad de términos hace imaginar al poco inteligente una multiplicidad de ideas.

«We mean simply that by which the rational man is distinguished from the infant in arms, from the brute beast, and from the lunatic. Let us call it the Intelligence, following the current terminology.» — la definición mínima que el tratado adopta: aquello por lo que el hombre racional se distingue del niño de brazos, de la bestia y del lunático.

«So, then, the intelligence is more properly called Light than is the eye, just because in capacity it transcends these seven defects,» — la conclusión del apartado: la inteligencia merece el nombre de Luz más que el ojo porque en capacidad trasciende los siete defectos.

«Take the first. The eye does not behold itself, but the intelligence does perceive itself as well as others; and it perceives itself as endowed with knowledge, power, etc., and perceives its own knowledge and perceives its knowledge of its own knowledge, and its know, ledge of its knowledge of its own knowledge, and so on ad infinitum.» — el primer defecto vencido: la inteligencia se percibe a sí misma y percibe su conocimiento de su conocimiento, y así al infinito. El troceo parte *knowledge* con una coma a media palabra.

«Now, this is a property which cannot conceivably be attributed to anything which perceives by means of a physical instrument like the eye.» — el argumento del tratado: esa propiedad no cabe atribuirla a lo que percibe por un instrumento físico.

«Take, now, the second defect: the eye does not see what is very near to it nor what is very far away from it; but to the intelligence near and far are indifferent. In the twinkling of an eye it ascends to the highest heaven above, in another instant to the confines of earth beneath.» — el segundo defecto vencido: a la inteligencia le son indiferentes lo cercano y lo lejano, y en un parpadeo sube al cielo más alto y baja a los confines de la tierra.

«Nay, when the facts are realized, intelligence is revealed as transcending the very idea of “far” and “near,” which occur between material bodies; these compass not the precincts of its holiness, for it is a pattern or sample of the attributes of Allah.» — el tratado sostiene que la inteligencia trasciende la idea misma de lejos y cerca, propia de los cuerpos materiales, por ser muestra de los atributos de Allah.

«Now the sample must be commensurate with the original, even though it does not rise to the degree of equality» — la regla que el tratado enuncia, con su límite dentro: la muestra ha de ser conmensurable con el original aunque no llegue a la igualdad.

«And this may move you to set your mind to work upon the true meaning of the tradition: “Allah created Adam after His own likeness.” But I do not think fit at the present time to go more deeply into the same.» — el tratado remite la tradición de que Allah creó a Adán a su semejanza y se niega a ahondar en ella: es uno de los lugares donde declara el misterio y se retira.

«The third defect: the eye does not perceive what is behind the veil, but the intelligence moves freely about the Throne, the Sedile, and everything beyond the veil of the Heavens, and likewise about the Host Supernal, and the Realm Celestial, just as much as about its own world, and its propinquate, (that is its own) kingdom.» — el tercer defecto vencido: la inteligencia se mueve libremente por el Trono, el Sedile y cuanto hay tras el velo de los Cielos, y por la Hueste Supernal y el Reino Celeste como por su propio mundo.

«The realities of things stand unveiled to the intelligence. Its only veil is one which it assumes of its own sake, which resembles the veil that the eye assumes of its own accord in the closing of its eyelids.» — el único velo que el tratado le reconoce a la inteligencia: el que ella misma se pone, como el ojo al cerrar los párpados.

«The fourth defect: the eye perceives only the exterior surfaces of things, but not their interior; may, the mere moulds and forms, not the realities; while intelligence breaks through into the inwardness of things and into their secrets; apprehends the reality of things and their essential spirits [p. 8]; elicits their causes and laws—from what they had origin, how they were created, of how many ideal forms they are composed, what rank of Being they occupy, what is their several relation to all other created things, and much else, the exposition of which would take very long; wherein I think good to be brief.» — el cuarto defecto vencido: la inteligencia rompe hacia la interioridad de las cosas, aprehende su realidad y sus espíritus esenciales, y saca sus causas y sus leyes; el troceo imprime *may* por nay.

«The fifth: the eye sees only a fraction of what exists, for all concepts, and many percepts, are beyond its vision; neither does it apprehend sounds, nor yet smells, nor tastes, nor sensations of hot and cold, nor the percipient faculties, by which I mean the faculties of hearing, of smelling, of tasting. nay, all the inner psychical qualities are unseen to it, joy, pleasure, displeasure, grief, pain, delight, love, lust, power, will, knowledge, and innumerable other existences.» — el quinto defecto: el ojo no aprehende conceptos, ni sonidos, olores, sabores ni las cualidades psíquicas internas —gozo, dolor, amor, voluntad, conocimiento—.

«Thus it is narrow in its scope, limited in its field of action, unable to pass the confines of the world of colour and form, which are the grossest of all entities; for natural bodies are in themselves the grossest of the categories of being, and colour and form are the grossest of their properties.» — el tratado clasifica por grosor: los cuerpos naturales son lo más grosero de las categorías del ser, y el color y la forma lo más grosero de sus propiedades.

«But the domain of intelligence is the entirety of existence, for it both apprehends the entities we have enumerated, and has free course among all others beside (and they are the major part), passing upon them judgments that are both certain and true. To it, therefore, are the inward secrets of things manifest, and the hidden forms of things clear.» — el reverso: el dominio de la inteligencia es la existencia entera, con juicios ciertos y verdaderos, y a ella quedan manifiestos los secretos internos de las cosas.

«Sight is but one of the spies of Intelligence [p. 9] who sets it to watch the grossest of his treasures, namely, the treasury of colours and forms; bids it carry reports about the same to its Lord, who then judges thereof in accordance with the dictates of his penetration and his judgment.» — la figura política con que el tratado ordena las facultades: la vista es espía de la Inteligencia, puesta a vigilar el tesoro de los colores y las formas y a llevarle informes a su Señor.

«Likewise are all the other faculties but Intelligence’s spies—imagination, phantasy, thought, memory, recollection; and behind them are servitors and retainers, constrained to his service in this present world of his. These, I say, he constrains, and among these he moves at will, as freely as monarch constrains his vassals to his service, yea, and more freely still.» — la misma figura extendida: imaginación, fantasía, pensamiento, memoria y recuerdo son espías, y tras ellos servidores y criados que la Inteligencia constriñe como un monarca a sus vasallos.

«But to expound this would take us long, and we have already treated of it in the book of my Ihya’ al- ‘Ulam, entitled “The Marvels of the Mind”.» — el tratado remite a su propio *Ihya' al-'Ulum*, al libro titulado las Maravillas de la Mente; el troceo imprime *Ihya' al-'Ulam*.

«The sixth: the eye does not see what is infinite. What it sees is the attributes of known bodies, and these can only be conceived as finite. But the intelligence apprehends concepts, and concepts cannot be conceived as finite. True, in respect of the knowledge which has actually been attained, the content actually presented to the intelligence is no more than finite, but potentially it does apprehend that which is infinite.» — el sexto defecto vencido, con la acotación dentro: en acto el contenido de la inteligencia es finito, y en potencia aprehende lo infinito.

«It would take too long to explain this fully, but if you desire an example, here is one from arithmetic. In this science the intelligence apprehends the series of integers, which series is infinite; further, it apprehends the coefficients of two, three, and all the other integers, and to these also no limit can be conceived; and it apprehends all the different relations between numbers, and to these also no limit can be conceived; and finally it apprehends its own knowledge of a thing, and its knowledge of its knowledge of its knowledge of that thing; and so on, potentially, to infinity.» — el ejemplo aritmético que el tratado da para esa potencia: la serie de los enteros, los coeficientes, las relaciones entre números y el conocimiento del propio conocimiento, todos sin límite concebible.

«The seventh: the eye apprehends the large as small. It sees the sun the size of a bowl, and the stars like silver-pieces scattered upon a carpet of azure. But intelligence apprehends that the stars and the sun are larger, times upon times, than the earth.» — el séptimo defecto: el ojo ve el sol del tamaño de un tazón y las estrellas como monedas de plata sobre una alfombra de azur, y la inteligencia las sabe muchas veces mayores que la tierra.

«As the Prophet said to Gabriel, asking: “Has the sun moved?” And Gabriel. answered: “No—Yes.” “How so?” asked he; and the other replied: “Between my saying No and Yes it has moved a distance equal to five hundred years.”» — el diálogo del Profeta con Gabriel que el tratado cita como testimonio del movimiento imperceptible: entre el No y el Sí el sol recorrió una distancia de quinientos años.

«Perhaps you will say, we see those who are Possessed of intelligence making mistakes nevertheless, I reply, their imaginative and phantastic faculties often pass judgments and form convictions which they think are the judgments of the intelligence.» — la objeción que el tratado se pone a sí mismo y su respuesta: los errores son de las facultades imaginativa y fantástica, que se hacen pasar por juicios de la inteligencia.

«See my account of all these faculties in my Mi ar al-‘Ilm and Mahakk al-Nazar. But when the intelligence is separated from the deceptions of the phantasy and the imagination, error on its part is inconceivable; it sees things as they are.» — el tratado remite a dos obras propias, el *Mi'ar al-'Ilm* y el *Mahakk al-Nazar*, y sostiene que separada de esos engaños la inteligencia no puede errar.

«This separation is, however, difficult, and only attains perfection after death. Then is error unveiled, and then are mysteries brought to light, and each one meets the weal or the woe which he has already laid up for himself, and “beholds a Book, which reckons each venial and each mortal sin, without omitting a single one”.» — la reserva escatológica del tratado: esa separación solo se perfecciona tras la muerte, cuando el error queda descubierto y cada quien halla el Libro que cuenta todo pecado.

«In that hour it shall be said unto him: “We have stripped from thee the Veil that covered thee and thy vision this day is iron.”» — la cita coránica del velo retirado y la vista vuelta de hierro; la nota del traductor da las suras, corrompidas por el escaneo.

«Now that covering Veil is even that of the imagination and the phantasy; and therefore the man who has been deluded by his own fancies, his false beliefs, and his vain imaginations, replies: “Our Lord! We have seen Thee and heard Thee! O send us back and we will do good.[3] Verily now we have certain knowledge!”» — la identificación que hace el tratado: el Velo que cubre es el de la imaginación y la fantasía, y el iluso pide desde ahí que lo devuelvan al mundo para obrar el bien.

«From all which you understand that the eye may more justly be called Light than the light (so called) which is apprehended by sense; and further that the intelligence should more properly be called Light than the eye.» — el recapitulativo del apartado: el ojo merece el nombre de Luz más que la luz de los sentidos, y la inteligencia más que el ojo.

«Further you must notice here, that while the intelligence of men does truly see, the things it sees are not all upon the same plane.» — apertura del apartado 2 de la Parte I: lo que la inteligencia ve no está todo en el mismo plano.

«Its knowledge is in some cases, so to speak, given, that is, present in the intelligence, as in the case of axiomatic truths, e.g. that the same thing cannot be both with and without an origin; or existent and non-existent; or that the same proposition cannot be both true and false; or that the judgment which is true of one thing is true of an identically similar thing; or that, granted the existence of the particular, the existence of the universal must necessarily follow.» — el primer plano: el conocimiento dado o presente, el de las verdades axiomáticas —que una cosa no puede tener y no tener origen, ni ser y no ser, ni una proposición ser verdadera y falsa—.

«For example, granted the existence of black, the existence of “colour” follows; and the same with “man” and “animal”; but the converse does not present itself to the intelligence as necessarily true; for “colour” does not involve “black”, nor does “animal” involve “man”. And there are many other true propositions, some necessary, some contingent, and some impossible.» — el ejemplo con que el tratado acota la implicación en un solo sentido: de lo negro se sigue el color y del hombre el animal, y no al revés.

«Other propositions, again, do not find the intelligence invariably with them, when they recur to it, but have to shake it up, arouse it, strike flint on steel, in order to elicit its spark.» — el segundo plano: proposiciones que hay que sacudir y golpear como pedernal contra acero para arrancarles la chispa.

«Instances of such propositions are the theorems of speculation, to apprehend which the intelligence has to be aroused by the dialectic (kalam) of the philosophers. Thus it is when the light of philosophy dawns that man sees actually, after having before seen potentially.» — los teoremas de la especulación, que piden la dialéctica —*kalam*— de los filósofos para despertar a la inteligencia; con la luz de la filosofía el hombre ve en acto lo que antes veía en potencia.

«Now the greatest of philosophies is the word (kalam) of Allah in general, and the Koran in particular.» — el paso que el tratado da jugando con la doble acepción de *kalam*: la mayor de las filosofías es la palabra de Allah y en particular el Corán.

«Therefore the verses of the Koran, in relation to intelligence, have the value of sunlight in relation to the eyesight, to wit, it is by this sunlight that the act of seeing is accomplished. And therefore the Koran is most properly of all called Light, just as the light of the sun is called light.» — la analogía central del apartado: los versículos del Corán son a la inteligencia lo que la luz del sol a la vista, y por eso al Corán le toca con toda propiedad el nombre de Luz.

«Then tell me by what right the physical eye is given equality» — la pregunta con que el tratado niega la igualdad del ojo físico con la inteligencia; el cambio de plana la parte a mitad.

«with the intelligence in claiming the name of Light? No verily! it is only relatively light; but in relation to the intelligence it is darkness.» — la continuación en la plana siguiente: el ojo es luz solo relativamente y, respecto de la inteligencia, es tiniebla.

«To the eye the stars seem to be standing still, and the boy to be getting no taller. But the intelligence sees the boy moving constantly as he grows; the shadow lengthening constantly; and the stars moving every instant, through» — el segundo ejemplo del séptimo defecto: el ojo ve quietas las estrellas y sin crecer al muchacho, y la inteligencia ve el crecimiento y el movimiento constantes; la frase sigue en la plana siguiente.

«It would be even true to say that between these» — el tratado va más lejos y mide la diferencia de valor entre ojo e inteligencia; el cambio de plana parte la frase.

«two there exists so great a difference in value, that we may, nay we must, consider only the INTELLIGENCE as deserving the name Light at all.» — la continuación: la diferencia obliga a tener solo a la INTELIGENCIA por merecedora del nombre de Luz.

«The Koran, then, is represented to us by the sun, and the intelligence by the Light of the Eye, and hereby we understand the meaning of the verse,» — la correspondencia que el tratado fija: el Corán por el sol y la inteligencia por la Luz del Ojo; el tramo se corta antes del versículo, que arrastra el folio impreso al pie de la plana.

«Prophet, and the Light which We caused to descend;» — el versículo coránico que el tratado lee con esa correspondencia, ya en la plana siguiente: creed en Allah, en su Profeta y en la Luz que hicimos descender.

«“There hath come a sure proof from your Lord, and We have caused a clear Light to descend.”» — el segundo versículo que el tratado alega para el Corán como Luz descendida.

«You have now realized that there are two kinds of eye, an external and an internal; that the former belongs to one world, the World of Sense, and that internal vision belongs to another world altogether, the World of the Realm Celestial; and that each of these two eyes has a sun and a light whereby its seeing is perfected; and that one of these suns is external, the other internal, the former belonging to the seen world, viz. the sun, which is an object of sense. perception, and the other internal, belonging to the world of the Realm Celestial, viz. the Koran, and other inspired books of Allah.» — la tesis del apartado 3 de la Parte I: dos ojos, externo e interno, cada uno con su mundo y con su sol —el sol sensible para uno, el Corán y los libros inspirados para el otro—.

«If, then, this has been disclosed to you thoroughly and entirely, then one of the doors of this Realm Celestial has been opened unto you. In that world there are marvels, in comparison with which this world of sight is utterly condemned.» — el tratado presenta el resultado como apertura de una puerta del Reino Celeste, con maravillas ante las cuales condena este mundo de la vista.

«He who never fares to that world, but allows the limitations of life in this lower world of sense to settle upon him, is still a ( brute beast, an excommunicate from that which constitutes us men; gone astray is he more than any brute beast, for to the brute are not vouched the wings of flight, on which to fly away unto that invisible world.» — el juicio del tratado sobre quien no viaja a ese mundo: queda bruto y excomulgado de lo que constituye al hombre, más extraviado que la bestia, que al menos no tiene alas que no usa. El paréntesis suelto es basura del escaneo.

«“Such men,” the Koran says, “are cattle, nay, are yet further astray!”» — la cita coránica con que el tratado remata ese juicio; la nota del traductor la sitúa en la sura 7, 178.

«As the rind is to the fruit; as the mould or the form in relation to the spirit, as darkness in relation to light; as infernal to supernal; so is this World of Sense in relation to the world of the Realm Celestial. For this reason the latter is called the World Supernal or the World of Spirit, or the World of Light, in contrast with the World Beneath, the World of Matter and of Darkness.» — la serie de proporciones con que el tratado sitúa el Mundo del Sentido frente al del Reino Celeste: corteza a fruto, molde a espíritu, tiniebla a luz, infernal a supernal.

«But do not imagine that I mean by the World Supernal the World of the [Seven] Heavens, though they are “above” in respect of part of our world of sense-perception. These heavens are equally present to our apprehension, and that of the lower animals.» — la reserva que el tratado pone a su propio término: el Mundo Supernal no es el de los Siete Cielos, que están igualmente presentes a los animales inferiores.

«doors of the Realm Celestial closed to him, neither does he become of or belonging to that Realm unless “this earth to him be changed into that which is not earth, and likewise the heavens” [2]; unless, in short, all that comes within the ken of his sense and his imagination, including the visible heavens, cause to be his earth, and his heaven come to be all that transcends his sense.» — la condición del acceso: que cuanto cae bajo el sentido y la imaginación, incluidos los cielos visibles, pase a ser su tierra, y su cielo sea cuanto trasciende su sentido; el arranque de la frase queda en la plana anterior.

«This is the first Ascension for every Pilgrim, who has set out on his Progress to approach the Presence Dominical. Thus mankind was consigned back to the lowest of the low, and must thence rise to the world of highest height.» — el tratado llama a ese paso la primera Ascensión de todo Peregrino, y sitúa al género humano devuelto a lo más bajo, desde donde ha de subir.

«Not so is it with the Angels; for they are part of the World of the Realm Celestial, floating ever in the Presence of the Transcendence, whence, they gaze down upon our World Inferior.» — la excepción de los ángeles: pertenecen al Reino Celeste, flotan en la Presencia de la Trascendencia y miran desde ahí el Mundo Inferior.

«Thereof spoke the Prophet in the Tradition: “Allah created the creation in darkness, then sent an effusion of His light upon it,” and “Allah hath Angels, beings who know the works often better than they know them themselves.”» — los dos dichos del Profeta que el tratado alega: la creación hecha en tiniebla y luego bañada de luz, y los ángeles que conocen las obras mejor que quienes las hacen.

«Now the Prophets, when their ascents reached unto the World of the Realm Celestial, attained the uttermost goal, and from thence looked down upon a totality of the World Invisible; for he who is in the World of the Realm Celestial is with Allah, and hath the keys of the Unseen.» — lo que el tratado atribuye a los profetas: alcanzado el Reino Celeste, miran desde ahí la totalidad del Mundo Invisible, porque quien está ahí está con Allah y tiene las llaves de lo Oculto.

«I mean that from where he is the causes of existing things descend into the World of Sense; for the world of sense is one of the effects of yonder world of cause, resulting from it just as the shadow results from a body, or as fruit from that which fructuates, or as the effect from a cause.» — la doctrina causal del tratado: el mundo del sentido es efecto de aquel mundo de causas, como la sombra del cuerpo o el fruto de lo que fructifica.

«Now the key to this knowledge of the effect is sought and found in the cause. And for this reason the World of Sense is a type of the World of the Realm Celestial, as will appear when we explain the NICHE, the LAMP, and the TREE.» — el principio metodológico: la llave del efecto se busca en la causa, y por eso el Mundo del Sentido es tipo del Reino Celeste, cosa que el tratado anuncia explicar con el Nicho, la Lámpara y el Árbol.

«For the thine, compared is in some sort parallel, and bears resemblance, to the thing compared therewith, whether that resemblance be remote or near: a matter, again, which is unfathomably deep, so that whoever has scanned its inner meaning had revealed to him the verities of the types in the Koran by an easy way.» — la regla de la semejanza entre tipo y antitipo, declarada de hondura insondable; el troceo imprime *thine* por *thing*.

«I said that everything that sees self and not-self deserves more properly the name of Light, while that which adds to these two functions the function of making the not-self visible, still more properly deserves the name of Light than that which has no effect whatever beyond itself.» — el tratado recapitula su escala: más merece el nombre de Luz lo que además de verse y ver hace visible lo que no es él.

«This is the light which merits the name of “Lamp Illuminant”,[1] because its light is effused upon the not-self. Now this is the property of the transcendental prophetic spirit, for through its means are effused the illuminations of the sciences upon the created world.» — el tratado adjudica el nombre de Lámpara Iluminante al espíritu profético trascendental, por el que se derraman las iluminaciones de las ciencias sobre el mundo creado.

«Thus is explained the name given by Allah to Mohammed, “Illuminant.”[2] Now all the Prophets are Lamps, and so are the Learned-but the difference between them is incalculable.» — el tratado explica con eso el nombre coránico de Mahoma, y a la vez llama Lámparas a todos los profetas y a los Doctos, con diferencia incalculable entre ellos.

«If it is proper to call that from which the light of vision emanates a “Lamp Illuminant”, then.that from which the Lamp is itself lit may meetly be symbolized by Fire.» — apertura del apartado 4 de la Parte I: aquello de que la Lámpara se enciende queda simbolizado por el Fuego.

«Now all these Lamps Terrestrial were originally lit from the Light Supernal alone; and of the transcendental Spirit of prophecy it is written that “Its oil were well-nigh luminous though fire touched it not”; but becomes “very light upon light” when touched by that Fire.» — el tratado hace venir todas las Lámparas Terrestres de la Luz Supernal y aplica al espíritu profético el aceite del Versículo de la Luz, casi luminoso sin fuego y luz sobre luz al tocarlo.

«Assuredly, then, the kindling source of those Spirits Terrestrial is the divine Spirits Supernal, described by Ali and Ibn Abbas, when they said that “Allah hath an Angel with countenances seventy thousand, to each countenance seventy thousand mouths, in each mouth seventy thousand tongues wherewith he laudeth God most High”.» — la fuente de encendido según el tratado, con los dos nombres que le atribuyen el dicho: Alí e Ibn Abbas, y el ángel de setenta mil rostros, setenta mil bocas y setenta mil lenguas.

«These Spirits Celestial, then, if they be considered as the kindlingsource of the Lamps Terrestrial, can be compared alone with “Fire’”.» — el tratado reserva la comparación con el Fuego para los Espíritus Celestes en cuanto fuente de encendido de las Lámparas Terrestres. El troceo parte *kindling-source* al fin de renglón y la herramienta lo devuelve unido; la restitución es lectura propuesta, no letra de la fuente.

«And that kindling is not perceived save “on the Mountain’s side”» — la acotación del tratado sobre dónde se percibe ese encendido, con la fórmula coránica del costado del Monte.

«Let us now take these Lights Celestial from which are lit the Lamps Terrestrial, and let us rank them in the order in which they themselves are kindled, the one from the other. Then the nearest to the fountain-head will be of all others the worthiest of the name of Light for he is the highest in order and rank.» — el tratado ordena las Luces Celestes por el orden en que se encienden unas de otras, y da al más cercano a la fuente el título más digno de Luz.

«Now the analogy for this graded order in the world of sense can only be seized by one who sees the light of the moon coming through the window of a house, falling on a mirror fixed upon a wall, which reflects that light on to another wall, whence it in turn is reflected on the floor, so that the floor becomes illuminated therefrom. The light upon the floor is owed to that upon the wall, and the light on the wail to that in the mirror, and the light in the mirror to that from the moon, and the light in the moon to that from the sun, for it is the sun that radiates its light upon the moon.» — la analogía de los cuatro reflejos con que el tratado ilustra ese orden: suelo, pared, espejo, luna y sol, cada luz debida a la anterior; el troceo imprime *wail* por wall.

«Thus these four lights are ranged one above the other, each one more perfect than the other; and each one has a certain rank and a proper degree which it never passes beyond.» — la regla que el tratado saca de la analogía: cada luz tiene rango y grado propios que nunca rebasa.

«I would have you know, then, that it has been revealed to the men of Insight that even so are the Lights of the Realm Celestial ranged in an order; and that the highest is the one who is nearest to the Ultimate Light.» — el tratado traslada el orden a las Luces del Reino Celeste y lo acredita en lo revelado a los hombres de Intuición.

«It may well be, then, that the rank of Seraphiel is above the rank of Gabriel; and that among them is that Nighest to Allah, he whose rank comes nighest to the Presence Dominical which is the Fountain-head of all these lights;» — la conjetura que el tratado deja marcada como tal: que el rango de Serafiel esté sobre el de Gabriel, y que entre ellos haya un Cercanísimo a Allah.

«and that among these is a Nighest to Man, and that between these two are grades innumerable, whereof all that is known is that they are many, and that they are ordered in rank and grade, and that as they have described themselves, so they are indeed—” Not one of us but has his determined place and standing,”[1] and “We are verily the ranked ones; we are they in whose mouth is Praise.”» — el tratado consigna grados innumerables entre esos dos extremos y cierra con los versículos en que los ángeles se describen a sí mismos con lugar determinado.

«The next thing I would have you know is that these degrees of light do not ascend in an infinite series, but rise to a final Fountain-head who is Light in and by Himself, upon Whom comes no light from any external source, and from Whom every light is effused according to, its order and grade.» — la tesis del apartado 5 de la Parte I: los grados de luz no suben en serie infinita sino a una Fuente última que es Luz en y por sí misma.

«Ask yourself, now whether the name Light is more due to that which is illumined and borrows its light from an external source; or that which in itself is luminous, illuminating all else beside? I do not believe that you can fail to see the true answer, and thus conclude that the name light is most of all due to this LIGHT SUPERNAL, above Whom there is no light at all, and from Whom light descends upon all other things.» — el tratado plantea la pregunta y la resuelve adjudicando el nombre de Luz a la LUZ SUPERNAL, sobre la cual no hay luz alguna.

«Nay, I do not hesitate to say boldly that the term “light” as applied to aught else than this primary light is purely metaphorical; for all others, if considered in themselves, have, in themselves and by themselves, no light at all.» — el tratado declara metafórico todo uso de *luz* fuera de esa Luz primera, porque las demás, consideradas en sí mismas, no tienen luz ninguna.

«Their light is borrowed from a foreign source; which borrowed illumination has not any support in itself, only in something not-itself. But to call the borrower by the same name as the lender is mere metaphor.» — el argumento del préstamo: la iluminación prestada no se apoya en sí misma, y llamar al prestatario con el nombre del prestamista es metáfora.

«Think you that the man who borrows riding-habit, saddle, horse, or other riding beast, and mounts the same when and as the lender appoints, is actually, or only metaphorically, rich? Or is it the lender who alone is rich? The latter, assuredly! The borrower remains in himself as poor as ever, and only of him who made the loan and exacts its return can richness be predicated—him who gave and can take away.» — el símil del jinete que monta prestado: rico es el prestamista, y el prestatario queda tan pobre como estaba.

«Therefore, the Real Light is He in Whose hand lies creation and its destinies; He who first gives the light and afterwards sustains it.» — la conclusión del apartado: la Luz Real es aquel en cuya mano está la creación y sus destinos, que da la luz y luego la sostiene.

«He shares with no other the reality of this name, nor the full title to the same; save in so far as He calls some other by that name, deigns to call him by it in the same way as a Liege-Lord deigns to give his vassal a fief, and therewith bestows on him the title of lord.» — el tratado niega que comparta con otro la realidad de ese nombre, salvo como un señor da un feudo a su vasallo y con él el título.

«Now when that vassal realizes the truth, he understands that both he and his are the property of his Liege, and of Him alone, a property shared by Him with no partner in the world.» — el remate del símil feudal: entendida la verdad, el vasallo sabe que él y lo suyo son propiedad de su Señor y de nadie más.

«You now know that Light is summed up in appearing and manifesting, and you have ascertained the various gradations of the same. You must further know that there is no darkness so intense as the darkness of No-being.» — el paso siguiente del tratado: no hay tiniebla tan intensa como la del No-ser.

«in the words: “On the day whereon THE SPIRIT ariseth and the Angels, rank on rank.”» — el versículo con que el tratado contrasta a ese ser con la hueste angélica entera. Gairdner reproduce el mismo pasaje en su Introducción con *On that day* en vez de *On the day*: la divergencia queda consignada sin armonizar, y el ancla se toma del cuerpo para que la plana sea la del tratado y no la de la Introducción.

«But that which has no existence for others nor for itself is assuredly the very extreme of darkness.» — el tratado fija el extremo de la tiniebla en lo que no existe ni para otros ni para sí.

«In contrast with it is Being, which is, therefore, Light; for unless a thing is manifest in itself, it is not manifest to others.» — el reverso: el Ser es Luz, porque lo que no se manifiesta en sí no se manifiesta a otros.

«Moreover, Being is itself divided into that which has being in itself, and that which derives its being from not-itself. That being of this latter is borrowed, having no existence by itself. Nay, if it is regarded in and by itself, it is pure not-being. Whatever being it has is due to its relation to a not-itself; and this is not real being at all, as you learned from my parable of the Rich and the Borrowed Garment.» — la partición del ser en el tratado: el que se tiene en sí y el prestado, que mirado en sí mismo es puro no ser. Gairdner cita este mismo pasaje en su Introducción con *being-in-itself* con guiones y *a not-itself* sin artículo: la divergencia entre las dos transcripciones queda consignada sin armonizar.

«Therefore, Real Being is Allah most High, even as Real Light is likewise Allah.» — la conclusión del apartado 5: el Ser Real es Allah, como lo es la Luz Real.

«It is from this starting-point that Allah’s gnostics rise from metaphors to realities, as one climbs from the lowlands to the mountains;» — apertura del apartado 6 de la Parte I, *The Mystic Verity of Verities*: los gnósticos de Allah suben de las metáforas a las realidades como de los llanos a los montes.

«and at the end of their Ascent see, as with the direct sight of eye-witnesses, that there is nothing in existence save Allah alone, and that “everything perisheth except His Countenance, His Aspect” [1] (wajh); not that[2] it perisheth at some particular moment, but rather it is sempiternally a perishing thing, since it cannot be conceived except as perishing.» — lo que el tratado dice que ven al fin del Ascenso: que nada existe salvo Allah, y que todo perece salvo su Rostro, no en un momento dado sino sempiternamente.

«For each several thing other than Allah is, when considered in and by itself, pure not-being; and if considered from the “aspect” (wajh) to which existence flows from the Prime Reality, it is viewed as existing, but not in itself, solely from the “aspect” which accompanies Him Who gives it existence.» — la doctrina de los dos aspectos: toda cosa fuera de Allah, mirada en sí, es puro no ser, y mirada desde el aspecto por el que le fluye la existencia, se ve existente.

«Therefore, the God-aspect is the sole thing in existence. For everything has two aspects, an aspect to itself and an aspect to its Lord: in respect of the first, it is Not-being; but in respect of the God» — la formulación central del apartado: cada cosa tiene un aspecto hacia sí, que es No-ser, y un aspecto hacia su Señor, que es Ser; la frase se corta en el cambio de plana.

«These gnostics, therefore, have no need await the arising of the Last Uprising in order to hear the Creator proclaim, “To whom is the power this day? To ALLAH! the One, the Not-to-be-withstood” [3]; for that summons is.. pealing in their ears always and for ever.» — el tratado dice a esos gnósticos dispensados de esperar el Último Levantamiento, porque la proclama del poder de Allah les resuena siempre en los oídos.

«Neither do they understand by the cry “Allah is most great” (Allahu akbar) that He is only “greater” than others. God forbid! For in. all existence there is beside Him none for Him. to exceed in greatness. No other attains so much as to the degree of co-existence, or of sequent existence, nay of existence at all, except from the Aspect that accompanies Him.» — la lectura que el tratado da del *Allahu akbar*: no que Allah sea mayor que otros, porque ningún otro alcanza siquiera la coexistencia.

«All existence is, exclusively, His Aspect. Now it is impossible that He should be “greater’’ than His own Aspect. The meaning is rather that he is too absolutely Great to be called Greater, or Most Great, by way of relation or comparison» — el tratado niega que Allah pueda ser mayor que su propio Aspecto: es demasiado absolutamente Grande para llamarse Mayor por relación o comparación.

«too Great for anyone, whether Prophet or Angel, to grasp the real nature of His Greatness. For none knows Allah with a real knowledge but He Himself; for every, known falls necessarily under the sway and within the province of the Knower; a state: which is the very negation of all Majesty, all “Greatness”.» — el argumento del tratado contra el conocimiento de Allah: todo conocido cae bajo el dominio del Conocedor, y eso niega toda Majestad; solo Él se conoce con conocimiento real.

«The full proof whereof I have given in my al-Magsad al-Asna fi ma‘ani Wd asma’i llahi-| Husna.» — el tratado remite la prueba plena a otra obra propia sobre los nombres hermosos de Allah; el troceo imprime *al-Magsad* y deja una barra por la elle.

«These gnostics, on their return from their Ascent into the heaven of Reality, confess with one voice that they saw nought existent there save the One Real. Some of them, however, arrived at this scientifically, and others experimentally and subjectively.» — el tratado distingue dos vías hacia la misma confesión: unos llegan científicamente y otros experimental y subjetivamente.

«From these last the plurality of things fell away in its entirety. They were drowned in the absolute Unitude, and their intelligences were lost in Its abyss. Therein became they as dumbfounded things. No capacity remained within them save to recall ALLAH; yea, not so much as the capacity to recall their own selves. So there remained nothing with them save ALLAH.» — lo que el tratado atribuye a los segundos: la pluralidad de las cosas cae entera, las inteligencias se pierden en el abismo de la Unidad y no queda capacidad ni de recordarse a sí mismos.

«so that one[1] exclaimed, “I am The ONE REAL!” and another, “Glory be to ME! How great is MY glory!” and another, “Within this robe is nought but Allah!”» — los tres gritos que el tratado cita de ese estado; las notas de Gairdner los adjudican a al-Hallaj el primero y a Abu Yazid al-Bistami el segundo, y el troceo imprime *Abt Yazid*.

«But the words of Lovers Passionate in their intoxication and ecstasy must be hidden away and not spoken of» — la reserva con que el tratado corta la serie: las palabras de los Amantes en su embriaguez han de esconderse y no hablarse.

«Then when that drunkenness abated and they came again under the sway of the intelligence, which is Allah’s balance-scale upon earth, they knew that that had not been actual Identity, but only something resembling Identity;» — la enmienda que el tratado pone a esos gritos: vueltos al dominio de la inteligencia, balanza de Allah en la tierra, saben que aquello no fue Identidad actual sino algo semejante a la Identidad.

«“Tam He whom I love and He whom I love is I; We are two spirits immanent in one body.”» — los versos que el tratado cita para el amante en la cima de su pasión, adjudicados por nota de Gairdner a al-Hallaj; el troceo pega *Tam* por *I am*.

«For it is possible for a man who has never seen a mirror in his life, to be confronted suddenly by a mirror, to look into it, and to think that the form which he sees in the mirror is the form of the mirror itself, “identical” with it. Another might see wine in a glass, and think that the wine is just the stain of the glass.» — los dos símiles con que el tratado explica el error: quien no vio nunca un espejo cree que la forma es del espejo, y quien ve vino en un vaso lo toma por mancha del vidrio.

«And if that thought becomes with him use and wont, like a fixed idea with him, it absorbs him wholly, so that he sings:» — el tratado explica cómo esa idea fija absorbe al que la tiene hasta hacerlo cantar.

«“The glass is thin, the wine is clear! The twain are alike, the matter is perplexed: For ‘tis as though there were wine and no wineglass there, Or as though mere were wine-glass and nought of wine!”» — los versos del vidrio y el vino tal como los imprime el tratado; Gairdner los reproduce en su Introducción con puntuación distinta y con *Or as though there were wine-glass*, donde el cuerpo imprime *Or as though mere were wine-glass*: la divergencia se consigna sin armonizar.

«He there is a difference between saying, “The wine is the wine-glass,” and saying, “tis as though it were the wine-glass.”» — la distinción que el tratado enuncia: no es lo mismo decir que el vino es la copa que decir que es como si lo fuera; el troceo imprime *He* por *Here*.

«for it becomes unconscious of itself and unconscious of its own unconsciousness, since, were it conscious of its own unconsciousness, it would be conscious of itself.» — el argumento con que el tratado sostiene la segunda extinción: ser consciente de la propia inconsciencia sería ser consciente de sí.

«In relation to the man immersed in this state, the state is called, in the language of metaphor, “Identity”; in the language of reality, “Unification.” And beneath these verities also lie mysteries which we are not at liberty to discuss.» — el tratado reparte los dos nombres —Identidad en lenguaje de metáfora, Unificación en lenguaje de realidad— y vuelve a declarar misterios que no está en libertad de discutir.

«It may be that you desire greatly to know the aspect (wajh) whereby Allah’s light is related to the heavens and the earth, or rather the aspect whereby He is in Himself the Light of heavens and earth.» — apertura del apartado 7 de la Parte I: la pregunta por el aspecto en que la luz de Allah se relaciona con los cielos y la tierra.

«And this shall assuredly not be denied you, now that you know that Allah is Light, and that beside Him there is no light. and that He is every light, and that He is the universal light: since light is an expression for that by which things are revealed; or., higher still, that by and for which they are revealed; yea, and higher still, that by, for, and from which they are revealed: and now that, you know, too that, of everything called light, only that by, for, and from which things are revealed is real—that Light beyond which there is no light to kindle and feed its flame, for It is kindled and fed in itself, from Itself, and for Itself, and from no other source at all.» — la escala de definiciones con que el tratado responde: luz es aquello por lo que las cosas se revelan, luego aquello por y para lo cual, luego aquello por, para y desde lo cual; y solo esto último es real.

«Such a conception, such a description, you are now assured, can be applied to the Great Primary, alone.» — el tratado reserva esa descripción para el Gran Primario.

«You are also assured that the heavens and the earth are filled with light appertaining to those two fundamental lightplanes, our Sight and our Insight; by which I mean our senses and our intelligence.» — los dos planos de luz que el tratado distingue: la Vista y la Intuición, es decir los sentidos y la inteligencia. El troceo parte *light-planes* al fin de renglón y la herramienta lo devuelve unido; la restitución es lectura propuesta, no letra de la fuente.

«The first kind of light is what we see in the heavens—sun and moon and stars; and what we see in earth—that is, the rays which are poured over the whole face of the earth, making visible all the different colours and hues, especially in the season of spring; and over all animals and plants and things, in all their states: for without these rays no colour would appear or even exist.» — el primer plano: sol, luna y estrellas en el cielo, y en la tierra los rayos que hacen aparecer los colores, sobre todo en primavera.

«Moreover, every shape and size which is visible to perception is apprehended in consequence of colour, and it is impossible to conceive of apprehending them without colour.» — el tratado hace depender del color toda aprehensión de figura y tamaño.

«The order of the World Inferior is manifested by means of this inferior human light; while the order of the World Supernal is manifested by means of that angelical light.» — el reparto de órdenes: el Mundo Inferior se manifiesta por la luz humana y el Supernal por la angélica.

«This is the order alluded to in the passage in the Koran, “He it is Who has formed you from the earth, and hath peopled it with you, that He might call you Successors upon the earth” ... and “Maketh you Successors on the earth,” and “Verily I have set in the earth a Successor” (Khalifa).» — los versículos del *Khalifa* que el tratado alega para ese orden.

«Thus you see that the whole world is all filled with the external lights of perception, and the internal lights of intelligence; also that the lower lights are effused or emanate the one from the other, as light emanates or is effused from a lamp; while the Lamp itself is the transcendental Light of Prophecy; and that, the transcendental Spirits of Prophesy are lit from the Spirit Supernal, as the lamp is lit from fire;» — la cadena de encendido que el tratado enuncia: las luces inferiores emanan unas de otras como de una lámpara, la Lámpara es la Luz trascendental de la Profecía, y los Espíritus de Profecía se encienden del Espíritu Supernal.

«and that the Supernals are lit the one from the other; and that their order is one of ascending grades: further, that these all rise to the Light of Lights, the Origin and Fountainhead of lights, and that is ALLAH, only and alone; and that all other lights are borrowed from Him, and that His alone is real light; and that everything is from His light, nay, He is everything, nay, HE IS THAT HE is, none but He has ipseity or heity at all, save by metaphor.» — el remate de la cadena: todas suben a la Luz de las Luces, que es Allah, y todas las demás son prestadas; la fórmula extrema del tratado dice que Él es todo y que ninguno sino Él tiene ipseidad ni heidad salvo por metáfora.

«Therefore there is no light but He, while all other lights are only lights from the Aspect which accompanies Him, not from themselves. Thus the aspect and face of everything faces to Him and turns in His direction; and “whithersoever they turn themselves there is the Face of Allah.”» — el tratado enlaza su doctrina del Aspecto con el versículo de que adondequiera que se vuelvan está el Rostro de Allah.

«So, then, there is no divinity but HE; for “divinity” is an expression by which is connoted that towards which all faces are directed”[2] in worship and in confession—that He is Deity; but which I mean the faces of the hearts of men, for they verily are lights and spirits.» — la lectura que el tratado da de *divinidad*: aquello hacia lo que se dirigen todos los rostros, y por rostros entiende los corazones de los hombres, que llama luces y espíritus.

«Nay, more, just as “there is no deity but He,” so there is no heity but He, for “he” is an expression for something which one can indicate; but in every and any case we can but indicate Him.» — el paso que el tratado da de la fórmula corriente a la suya: no hay ello sino Él, porque toda indicación es indicación de Él.

«Therefore “There is no deity but ALLAH” is the Many’s declaration of Unity: that of the Few is “There is no he but HE”; the former is more general, but the latter is more particular, more comprehensive, more exact, and more apt to give him who declares it entrance into the pure and absolute Oneness and Onliness.» — el tratado reparte las dos declaraciones de Unidad: la de los Muchos y la de los Pocos, esta más particular y más apta para dar entrada a la Unidad absoluta.

«God-aspect, and therefore all things are perishing except the God-aspect from and to all eternity.» — la continuación del pasaje de los dos aspectos ya en la plana siguiente: todas las cosas perecen salvo el aspecto-de-Dios, de eternidad a eternidad.

«They became drunken with a drunkenness» — el tratado nombra embriaguez el estado de los gnósticos; el cambio de plana parte la frase antes del folio impreso.

«wherein the sway of their own intelligence disappeared;» — la continuación en la plana siguiente: en esa embriaguez desaparece el dominio de la propia inteligencia.

«Now, when this state prevails, it is called in relation to him who experiences it, Extinction, nay, Extinction of Extinction,» — el nombre que el tratado da a ese estado, Extinción y aun Extinción de la Extinción; el tramo se corta antes del folio impreso al pie de la plana.

«has become extinct to itself, extinct to its own extinction;» — la continuación en la plana siguiente: el alma se extingue a sí misma y a su propia extinción.

«ideal, intelligential Lights, the World Supernal is filled with them— to wit, the angelic substance; and the World Inferior is also full of them — to wit, animal life and human life successively.» — el segundo plano de luz: el Mundo Supernal lleno de la sustancia angélica y el Inferior de vida animal y humana; el arranque *As for the other* queda en la plana anterior, antes del folio impreso.

«Every time you indicate anything, your indication» — el tratado sostiene que toda indicación es indicación de Él; el tramo se corta antes del folio impreso al pie de la plana.

«is in reality, to Him, even though through your ignorance of the truth of truths which we have mentioned you -know it not. Just as one cannot point to, indicate, sunlight but only the sun, so the relation of the sum of things to Allah is, in the visible -analogue, as the relation of light to the sun.» — la continuación en la plana siguiente, con el símil de la luz solar que no puede señalarse aparte del sol; el troceo imprime *sum* por *sum of things* y deja guiones sueltos.

«ultimate point of mortals’ Ascent: there is no ascending stage beyond it; for “ascending” involves plurality, being a sort of relatively involving two stages, an ascent from and an ascent to.» — el tratado fija en la Unidad el punto último del Ascenso de los mortales, porque ascender supone pluralidad; el arranque *This kingdom of the One-and-Onliness is the* queda en la plana anterior.

«But when Plurality has been eliminated, Unity is established, relation is effaced, all indication from “here” to “there” falls away, and there remains neither height nor depth, nor anyone to fare up or down.» — lo que el tratado dice que ocurre eliminada la pluralidad: la relación se borra, la indicación de aquí a allá desaparece y no queda altura ni hondura ni quien suba o baje.

«The upward Progress, the Ascent of the soul, then becomes impossible, for there is no height beyond the Highest, no plurality alongside of the One, and, now that plurality has terminated, no Ascent for the soul.» — la consecuencia: no hay altura sobre lo Altísimo ni pluralidad junto al Uno, y con ello se acaba el Ascenso del alma.

«If there be, indeed, any change, it is by way of the “Descent into the Lowest Heaven”, the radiation from above downwards; for the Highest, though It may have mo higher, has a lower.» — el único cambio que el tratado admite ahí: el Descenso al Cielo más bajo, la radiación de arriba abajo; el troceo imprime *mo* por *no*.

«This is the goal of goals, the last object of spiritual search, known of him who knows it, denied by him who is ignorant of it.» — el tratado llama a eso meta de metas y lo reparte entre quien lo conoce y quien lo niega por ignorarlo.

«It belongs to that knowledge which is according to the form of the hidden thing, and which no one knoweth save the Learned[3] is Allah. If, therefore, they utter it, it is only denied by the Ignorant of Him.» — el tratado devuelve el asunto a la categoría del conocimiento con forma de cosa escondida que anunció al principio.

«Gh.’s piece of amateur etymology here, by which he appears to derive the root ‘lh (“god”) from the root wty (“turn”), is about as absurd as my attempt to suggest it in the English.» — nota de Gairdner, en su propia voz, sobre la etimología con que el tratado deriva *ilah* de *wala*: la llama de aficionado y tan absurda como su propio intento de reproducirla en inglés.

«There is no improbability in the explanation given by these Learned to this “Descent into the Lowest Heaven”, namely, that it is the descent of an Angel;» — el tratado da por probable la explicación corriente del Descenso al Cielo más bajo: el descenso de un ángel.

«though one of those Gnostics[1] has, indeed, fancied a less probable explanation. He, immersed as he was in the divine One-and-Onliness, said that Allah has “a descent into the lowest heaven”, and that this descent is His descent, in order to use physical senses, and to set in motion bodily limbs;» — el tratado consigna una explicación que llama menos probable, de un gnóstico que la nota de Gairdner identifica con al-Hallaj: que el descenso sea el de Allah mismo para usar sentidos y mover miembros.

«and that He is the one indicated in the Tradition in which the Prophet says, “I have become His hearing whereby He heareth, His vision whereby He seeth, His tongue wherewith He speaketh.”» — el hadiz que ese gnóstico alega: el Profeta vuelto oído, vista y lengua de Allah; la nota de Gairdner lo atribuye a Ibn Adham.

«Now if the Prophet was Allah’s hearing and vision and tongue, then Allah and He alone is the Hearer, the Seer, the Speaker; and He is the one indicated in His own word to Moses, “I was sick, and thou visitedst Me not.”» — el paso siguiente de esa lectura: solo Allah oye, ve y habla, y suya es la palabra a Moisés de que estuvo enfermo y no fue visitado. La nota de Gairdner remite a Mateo XXV.

«According to this, the bodily movements of this Confessor of the divine Unity are from the lowest heaven; his sensation from a heaven next above; and his intelligence from the heaven next above that. From that heaven of the intelligence he fares upward to the limit of the Ascension of created things, the kingdom of the One-and-Onliness, a sevenfold way;» — el esquema de los cielos que el tratado atribuye a esa lectura: los movimientos corporales del confesor vienen del cielo más bajo, la sensación del siguiente y la inteligencia del que sigue, y de ahí sube por vía séptuple.

«thereafter “settleth he himself on the throne” of the divine Unity, and therefrom “taketh command” [4] throughout his storied heavens.» — el remate de esa lectura: el confesor se asienta en el trono de la Unidad divina y desde ahí toma el mando por sus cielos escalonados. Es el pasaje sobre el que Gairdner monta su hipótesis del Vicegerente.

«Well might one, in looking upon such an one, apply to him the saying, “Allah created Adam after the image of the Merciful One”;» — la tradición que el tratado aplica a ese hombre: Allah creó a Adán a imagen del Misericordioso.

«until, after contemplating that word more deeply, he becomes aware that it has an interpretation like those other words, “I am the ONE REAL,” “Glory be to ME!” [5] or those sayings of the Prophet, that Allah said, “I was sick and thou visitedst Me not,” and “I am His hearing, and His vision; and His tongue”.» — el tratado enlaza esa tradición con los gritos de los ebrios y con los dichos del Profeta, sin decir cuál es la interpretación.

«But I see fit now to draw rein in this exposition, for I think that you cannot hear more of this sort than the amount which I have now communicated.» — el tratado corta la exposición ahí, midiendo lo que el destinatario puede oír; es el gesto que Gairdner objeta en su apartado II.

«It may well be that you will not rise to the height of these words, for all your pains; it may be that for all your pains you will come short of it after all. Here, then, is something that lies nearer your understanding, and nearer your weakness.» — apertura del apartado 8 de la Parte I: el tratado ofrece una explicación más llana por si la anterior queda alta.

«The meaning of the doctrine that Allah is the Light of Heavens and Earth may be understood in relation to phenomenal, visible light.» — el método del apartado: entender la doctrina por la luz fenoménica visible.

«When you see hues of spring-the tender green, for example-in the full light of day, you entertain no doubt but that you are looking on colours, and very likely you suppose that you are looking on nothing else alongside of them. As though you should say, “I see nothing alongside of the green.”» — el ejemplo del verde tierno de la primavera: al verlo en plena luz se cree estar viendo solo colores.

«Many have in fact, obstinately maintained this. They have asserted that light is a meaningless term, and that there is nothing but colour with the colours.» — el tratado consigna la posición que niega la luz y tiene el término por vacío, dejando solo color.

«Thus they denied the existence of the light, although it was the most manifest of all things—how should it not be so, considering that through it alone all things become manifest?, for it is the thing that is itself visible and makes visible, as we said before.» — la objeción del tratado: negaron lo más manifiesto de todo, aquello por lo que todas las cosas se manifiestan.

«But, when the sun sank, and heaven’s lamp disappeared from sight, and night’s shadow fell, then apprehended these men the existence of an essential difference between inherent shadow and inherent light; and they confessed that light is a form that lies behind all colour, and is apprehended with colour, insomuch that, so to speak, through its intense union with the colours it is not apprehended, and through its intense obviousness it is invisible.» — el argumento por la noche: caída la sombra reconocieron la diferencia entre sombra y luz inherentes, y que la luz es una forma tras todo color, invisible de puro obvia.

«And it may be that this very intensity is the direct cause of its invisibility, for things that go beyond one extreme pass over to the extreme opposite.» — la regla que el tratado saca del ejemplo, con reserva por delante: lo que rebasa un extremo pasa al extremo opuesto.

«If this is clear to you, you must further know that those endowed with this Insight never saw a single object without seeing Allah along with it.» — lo que el tratado atribuye a los dotados de Intuición: no vieron nunca un solo objeto sin ver a Allah con él.

«said, “I have never seen a single object, but I first saw Allah”; for some of, them only see objects through and in Allah, while others first see objects and then see Allah in and through those objects.» — el tratado distingue dos clases: los que solo ven los objetos por y en Allah y los que ven primero los objetos y luego a Allah en ellos.

«It is to the first class that the Koran alludes to in the words, “Doth it not suffice that My Lord seeth all?”[1] and to the second in the words, “We shall shew them our signs in all the world and in themselves.”» — los dos versículos con que el tratado adjudica a cada clase su lugar.

«For the first class have the direct intuition of Allah, and the second infer Him from His works. The former is the rank of the Saint-Friends of God, the latter of the Learned “who are established in knowledge” .[2] After these two grades there remains nothing except that of the careless, on whose faces is the veil.» — el tratado gradúa las dos clases —los Santos Amigos de Dios y los Doctos establecidos en el conocimiento— y pone tras ellas solo a los descuidados con el velo en el rostro.

«Thus you see that just as everything is manifest to man’s Sight by means of light, so everything is manifest to man’s Insight by means of Allah; for He is with everything every moment and by Him does everything appear.» — la analogía central del apartado: la luz es a la Vista lo que Allah a la Intuición.

«But here the analogy ceases, and we have a radical difference; namely, that phenomenal light can be conceived of as disappearing with the sinking of the sun, and as assuming a veil in order that shadow may appear: while the divine light, which is the condition of all appearance, cannot be conceived as disappearing. That sun can never set!» — el límite que el tratado pone a su propia analogía: la luz fenoménica puede concebirse desapareciendo con el sol, y la luz divina no.

«Thus the method of difference (as a method for the demonstration of the Existence of God from His works) is not at our disposal.» — la consecuencia metodológica que el tratado saca: el método de la diferencia no está disponible para demostrar la existencia de Dios por sus obras.

«Were the appearance of Allah conceivable, heaven and earth would fall to ruin, and thence, through difference, would be apprehended an effect which would simultaneously compel the recognition of the Cause whereby all things appeared.» — el argumento contrafáctico: si la aparición de Allah fuera concebible, cielo y tierra se arruinarían y de ahí se inferiría la Causa.

«But, as it is, all Nature remains the same and invariable to our sight because of the unity of its Creator, for “all things are singing His praise’[1] (not some things) at all times (not sometimes); and thus the method of difference is eliminated, and the way to the knowledge of God is obscured.» — la razón por la que el tratado declara obstruido ese camino: la naturaleza queda invariable por la unidad de su Creador, y todas las cosas cantan su alabanza en todo tiempo.

«In this case its obscureness results from its very obviousness, and its elusiveness from the very radiance of its brightness. Then glory to Him who hides Himself from His own creation by His utter manifestness, and is veiled from their gaze through the very effulgence of His own light!» — la paradoja con que el tratado cierra: Allah se esconde de su creación por su misma manifestación y queda velado por el fulgor de su propia luz.

«But it may be that not even this teaching is intelligible to some limited intelligences, who from our statement (that “Allah is with, everything”, as the light is with everything) will understand that He is in every place. Too high. and holy is He to be related to place!» — el tratado se adelanta a un malentendido y lo niega: que Allah esté con todo no quiere decir que esté en todo lugar.

«So far from starting this vein imagining, we assert to you that He is prior to everything, and above everything, and that He makes everything manifest.» — la enmienda del tratado: Allah es anterior a todo, sobre todo, y hace manifiesto todo.

«Now manifester is inseparable from, manifested, subjectively, in the cognition of the thinker; and this is what we mean by saying. that Allah accompanies or is “with” everything.» — el sentido que el tratado da a que Allah acompañe a todo: la inseparabilidad de manifestante y manifestado en la cognición del que piensa.

«Or, consider, how in the world of sense, which is the highest to which your knowledge can rise, the motion of your hands goes “with” the motion of its shadow, and yet is prior to it as well.» — el símil de la mano y su sombra, que van juntas y a la vez una es anterior a la otra.

«And whoever has not wit enough to see this, ought to abandon these researches altogether; for “To every science its own people; And each man finds easy that for which he has been created apt.”» — el tratado despide al que no alcanza ese punto con dos versos sobre que cada ciencia tiene su gente.

«The exposition of this symbolism involves, first of all, two cardinal considerations, which afford limitless scope for investigation, but to. which I shall merely allude very briefly here.» — apertura de la Parte II: el tratado anuncia dos consideraciones cardinales de alcance ilimitado a las que solo va a aludir.

«First, the science and method of symbolism; the way in which the spirit of the ideal form[1] is captured by the mould of the symbol; the mutual relationship of the two; the inner nature of this correspondence between the world of Sense (which supplies the clay of the moulds, the material of the symbolism) and the world of the Realm Supernal from which the Ideas descend.» — la primera consideración: cómo el molde del símbolo captura el espíritu de la forma ideal, y la correspondencia entre el mundo del Sentido, que da la arcilla, y el Reino Supernal, de donde bajan las Ideas.

«Or Idea = in practically the Platonic sense.» — nota de Gairdner que acerca la forma ideal del tratado a la idea platónica; el signo de igual es suyo.

«(By Ghazzali.) In this Light-Verse, in Ibn Mas’tid’s reading, the words “in the heart of the believer, “follow the words “of His light”. And Ubayy b. Ka’b’s instead of “the similitude of His light”, has “the similitude of the light of the heart of him who believes is like” etc.» — nota que el troceo marca expresamente como del propio Ghazzali: dos lecturas variantes del Versículo de la Luz, la de Ibn Mas'ud y la de Ubayy b. Ka'b, que añaden el corazón del creyente.

«Second, the gradations of the several spirits of our mortal clay, and the degree of light possessed by each. For we treat of this latter symbolism in order to explain the former.» — la segunda consideración: las gradaciones de los espíritus de nuestro barro mortal, que el tratado estudia para explicar la primera.

«The world is Two Worlds, spiritual and material, or, if you will, a World Sensual and a World Intelligential; or again, if you will, a World Supernal and a World Inferior.» — apertura del apartado (i) de la Parte II: las tres parejas de nombres con que el tratado divide el mundo.

«All these expressions are near each other, and the difference between them is merely one of viewpoint. If you regard the two worlds in themselves, you use the first expression; if in respect of the organ which apprehends them, the second; if in respect of their mutual relationship, the third.» — el tratado declara que las tres parejas difieren solo por el punto de vista: las cosas en sí, el órgano que las aprehende, o su relación mutua.

«For the most manifest way to the knowledge of things is by their contraries: the thing that possesses no contrary and no opposite,» — la regla que el tratado enuncia: las cosas se conocen sobre todo por sus contrarias; el tramo se corta antes del folio impreso al pie de la plana.

«You know, further, that manifester is prior to, and above, manifested, though He be “with” it; but he is “with” it from one aspect,» — el tratado reparte los dos aspectos para deshacer la aparente contradicción; el tramo se corta antes de un guillemet que el escaneo mete a media frase, en *it»from another*.

«You are not to suppose, therefore, that there is here any contradiction.» — el cierre de esa distinción: el tratado niega que haya contradicción entre el *con* y el *sobre*.

«were no marvel if the students of the realities underlying the terminology were puzzled by the multiplicity of these terms, and imagined a corresponding multiplicity of ideas.» — el tratado vuelve sobre el riesgo de la sinonimia: los términos múltiples hacen imaginar ideas múltiples; el arranque *It* queda en la plana anterior.

«But he to whom the realities beneath the terms are disclosed makes the ideas primary and the terms secondary: while inferior minds take the opposite course. To them the term is the source from which the reality proceeds.» — el criterio que el tratado fija para distinguir a unos de otros: el que ve las realidades hace primarias las ideas, y las mentes inferiores hacen del término la fuente de la realidad.

«We have an allusion to these two types of mind in the Koran, “Whether is the more rightly guided, he who walks with his face bent down, or he who walks in a straight Way, erect?”» — el versículo que el tratado alega para esos dos tipos de mente.

«Such is the idea of the Two Worlds. And the next thing for you to know is, that the supernal world of “the Realm” is a world invisible to the majority of men; and the world of our senses is the world of perception, because it is perceived of all.» — apertura del apartado 1 de la Parte II: el mundo supernal del Reino es invisible a la mayoría y el de los sentidos es el de la percepción.

«This World Sensual is the point from which we ascend to the world Intelligential: and, but for this connexion between the two, and their reciprocal relationship, the way upward to the higher sphere would be barred.» — la función que el tratado da al mundo sensible: punto de partida del ascenso, cuya conexión y relación recíproca con el otro es lo que deja abierta la vía.

«For no man shall approach near unto Allah, unless his foot stand at the very centre of the Fold of the Divine Holiness. Now by this World of the “Divine Holiness” we mean the world that transcends the apprehension of the senses and the imagination.» — la condición que el tratado pone para el acercamiento: el pie en el centro del Redil de la Santidad Divina, mundo que trasciende sentidos e imaginación.

«And it is in respect of the law of that world—the law that the soul which is a stranger to it neither goeth out therefrom, nor entereth therein—that we call it the Fold of the Divine Holiness and Transcendence.» — la ley de la que el tratado deriva el nombre de Redil: el alma extraña a ese mundo ni sale de él ni entra en él.

«And the human spirit, which is the channel of the manifestations of the Transcendence, may be perhaps called “the Holy Valley”.» — el nombre que el tratado propone, con reserva, para el espíritu humano: el Valle Santo, canal de las manifestaciones de la Trascendencia.

«Again, this Fold comprises lesser folds, some of which penetrate more deeply than others into the ideas of the Divine Holiness.» — el tratado gradúa el Redil en rediles menores, unos más hondos que otros.

«But the term Fold embraces all the gradations of the lesser ones; for you must not suppose that these terms are enigmas, unintelligible to men of Insight.» — el tratado niega que esos términos sean enigmas para los hombres de Intuición.

«But I cannot pursue the subject further, for I see that my preoccupation with citing and explaining all this terminology is turning me from my theme. It is for you to apply yourself now to the study of the terms.» — otra de las interrupciones que el tratado se impone: la terminología lo aparta de su tema y devuelve el estudio al lector.

«To return to the subject we were discussing: the visible world is, as we said, the point of departure up to We world of the Realm Supernal; and the “Pilgrim’s Progress of the Straight Way” [1] is an expression for that upward course, which may also be expressed by “The Faith,” “the Mansions of Right Guidance.”» — el tratado nombra el ascenso con las fórmulas del Camino Recto, la Fe y las Mansiones de la Recta Guía; el troceo imprime *We* por *the*.

«Were there no relation between the two worlds, no inter-connexion at all, then all upward progress would be inconceivable from one to the other. Therefore, the divine mercy gave to the World Visible a correspondence with the World of the Realm Supernal, and for this reason there is not a single thing in this world of sense that is not a symbol of something in yonder one.» — la tesis simbólica central: la misericordia divina dio al Mundo Visible correspondencia con el Reino Supernal, de modo que no hay cosa sensible que no simbolice algo de allá.

«It may well hap that some one thing in this world may symbolize several things in the World of the Realm Supernal, and equally well that some one thing in the latter may have several symbols in the World Visible.» — el tratado admite correspondencias de uno a varios en los dos sentidos.

«We call a thing typical or symbolic when it resembles and corresponds to its antitype under some aspect.» — la definición de símbolo que el tratado da, con la acotación de que la semejanza es bajo algún aspecto.

«A complete enumeration of these symbols would involve our exhausting the whole of the existing things in both of the Two Worlds! Such a task our mortal powers can never fulfil; or human faculties have not sufficed to comprehend it in the past; and with our little lives we cannot expound it fully in the present.» — el límite que el tratado se pone: enumerar todos los símbolos exigiría agotar cuanto existe en los dos mundos.

«The utmost I can do is to explain to you a single example. The greater may then be inferred from the less; for the door of research into the mysteries of this knowledge will then lie open to you.» — el método que el tratado adopta en su lugar: un solo ejemplo del que se infiera lo mayor.

«Listen now. If the World of the Realm Supernal contains Lightsubstances, high and lofty, called “Angels”, from which substances the various lights are effused upon the various mortal spirits, and by reason of which these angels are called “lords,” then is Allah “Lord of lords,” and these lords will have differing, grades of luminousness.» — apertura del apartado 2 de la Parte II: las sustancias de Luz llamadas Ángeles, llamadas señores por derramar luz sobre los espíritus mortales, con Allah por Señor de los señores. El troceo parte *Light-substances* al fin de renglón y la herramienta lo devuelve unido; la restitución es lectura propuesta, no letra de la fuente.

«The symbols, then, of these in the visible world will be, preeminently, the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars.» — los símbolos que el tratado adjudica a esos grados en el mundo visible.

«And the Pilgrim of the Way rises first of all to a degree corresponding to that of a star. The effulgence of that star’s light appears to him., It is disclosed to him that the entire world beneath adores its influence and the effulgence of its light. And so, because of the very beauty and superbness of the thing, he is made aware of something which cries aloud saying, “This is my Lord?”» — el primer grado del Peregrino en la lectura que el tratado hace de la historia de Abraham: el que corresponde a una estrella, ante la cual algo clama que ese es su Señor.

«He passes on; and as he be. comes conscious of the light-degree next above. it, namely, that symbolized by the moon, lo! in the aerial canopy he beholds that star set, to wit, in comparison with its superior; and he saith, “Nought that setteth do I adore!”» — el segundo grado: visto el de la luna, la estrella se le pone y declara no adorar nada que se ponga; el troceo parte *becomes* con un punto a media palabra.

«And so he rises till he arrives at last at the degree symbolized by the sun. This, again, he sees is greater and higher than the former, but nevertheless admits of comparison therewith, in, virtue of a relationship between the two. But to bear relationship to what is imperfect carries with it imperfection-the “setting” of our allegory.» — el tercer grado, con el argumento del tratado: el sol admite comparación con lo anterior, y llevar relación con lo imperfecto acarrea imperfección, que es el ponerse de la alegoría.

«And by reason thereof he saith: “I have turned my face unto That Who made the heavens and the earth! Iam a true believer, and, not of those who associate other gods with Allah!”» — la declaración final de Abraham según el tratado; el troceo pega *Iam* por *I am*.

«Now what is meant to be conveyed by this “THAT WHO?” is the vaguest kind of indication, destitute of all relation or comparison. For, were anyone to ask, “What is the symbol comparable with or corresponding to this That?’ no answer to the question could be conceived.» — la lectura del tratado sobre esa fórmula: indicación vaguísima, sin relación ni comparación, para la que no cabe símbolo correspondiente.

«Now He Who transcends all relations is ALLAH, the ONE REALITY. Thus, when certain Arabs once asked the Apostle of God, “To what may we relate Allah?’ this reply was revealed, “Say, He, Allah is one! His days are neither ended nor begun; neither is He a father nor a son; and none is like unto Him, no not one[2]; the meaning of which verse is simply that He transcends relation.» — el tratado alega la sura del Uno para su tesis de que Allah trasciende toda relación, y la presenta como respuesta revelada a unos árabes que preguntaron con qué relacionarlo.

«But Pharaoh said to his courtiers, “Ha! marked ye that!” as though objecting to Moses’ evasion of his demand to be told Allah’s essential nature. Then Moses said, “Your Lord, and your first fathers’ Lord.” Pharaoh then set him down as insane. He had demanded an analogue, for the description of the divine Essence, and Moses replied to him from His works. And so Pharaoh said, “Your prophet who has been sent you is insane.”» — el desenlace del ejemplo: Faraón objeta la evasión, Moisés repite por las obras y Faraón lo tiene por loco.

«Let us now return to the pattern we selected for illustrating the symbolic method. The science of the Interpretation of Visions determines for us the value of each kind of symbol; for “Vision is a part of Prophecy.”» — apertura del apartado 3 de la Parte II: el tratado toma la ciencia de la Interpretación de las Visiones como medida del valor de cada símbolo, y la acredita en el dicho de que la visión es parte de la profecía.

«It is clear, is it not, that the sun, when seen in a vision, must be interpreted by a Sovereign Monarch, because of their mutual resemblance and their share in a common spiritual idea, to wit, sovereignty over all, and the emanation or effusion of influence and light on to all.» — la primera correspondencia onírica del tratado: el sol por el Monarca Soberano, por la idea espiritual común de soberanía y efusión sobre todos.

«The antitype of the moon will be that Sovereign’s Minister; for it is through the moon that the sun sheds his light on the world in its own absence; and even so, it is through his own Minister that the Sovereign makes his influence felt by subjects who never beheld the royal person.» — la segunda correspondencia: la luna por el Ministro del Soberano, porque por ella alumbra el sol en su ausencia. Es el pasaje que Gairdner alega en su Introducción para identificar al Vicegerente.

«Again, the dreamer who sees himself with a ring on his finger with which he seals the mouths of men and the secrets of women, is told that the sign means the early Call to Prayer in the month of Ramadan.» — la tercera correspondencia: el anillo que sella bocas y secretos, interpretado como la Llamada a la Oración del alba en Ramadán; la nota de Gairdner explica que tras el *idhan* se ayuna de comida y de trato sexual.

«Again, for one who sees himself pouring olive oil into an olive-tree the interpretation is that the slavegirl he has wedded is his mother, unrecognized by him.» — la cuarta correspondencia, que el tratado da sin glosarla: verter aceite de oliva en un olivo por la esclava desposada que es su madre sin que él lo sepa. El troceo parte *slave-girl* al fin de renglón y la herramienta lo devuelve unido; la restitución es lectura propuesta, no letra de la fuente.

«impossible to exhaust the different ways by which symbols of this description may be interpreted, and I cannot set myself the task of enumerating them. I can merely say that just as certain beings of the Spirit-World Supernal are symbolized by Sun, Moon and Stars, others may be typified by different symbols. when the Point of connexion is some characteristic other than light.» — el tratado declara inagotable la lista y abre la puerta a símbolos cuyo punto de conexión no sea la luz; el arranque *But it is* queda en la plana anterior.

«For example, if among those beings of that Spirit-World there be something that is fixed and unchangeable; great and never diminishing; from which the waters of knowledge, the excellencies of revelations, issue into the heart, even as waters well out into a valley; It would be symbolized by the Mountain.» — el ejemplo del Monte: lo fijo e inmutable de donde manan las aguas del conocimiento y las excelencias de las revelaciones.

«Further, if the beings that are the recipients of those excellencies are of diverse grades, they would be symbolized by the Valley; and if those excellencies, on reaching the hearts of men, pass from heart to heart, these hearts are also symbolized by Valleys.» — la contraparte: los receptores de diversos grados simbolizados por el Valle, y también los corazones por los que esas excelencias pasan.

«The head of the Valley will represent the hearts of Prophet, Saint, and Doctor, followed by those who come after them. So, then, if these valleys are lower than the first one, and are watered from it, then that first one will certainly be the “Right” Valley,[3] because of its signal rightness[4] and superiority. And finally will come the lowest valley which receives its water from the last and lowest level of that “Right” Valley, and is accordingly watered from “the margin of the Right Valley”,» — el escalonamiento que el tratado traza: la cabeza del Valle por los corazones de Profeta, Santo y Doctor, el Valle Recto por su rectitud, y el valle más bajo regado desde el margen y no desde el centro.

«Ghazzali here plays on the word ayman, the root of which means dexter or felix.» — nota de Gairdner sobre el juego de palabras del tratado con *ayman*, cuya raíz vale por diestro o feliz.

«But if the spirit of a prophet is typified by a lighted Lamp, lit by means of Inspiration (“We have inspired thee with [a] Spirit from Our power”),[1] then the symbol of the source of that kindling is Fire.» — el tratado adjudica al espíritu del profeta la Lámpara encendida y al origen del encendido el Fuego, con el versículo de la inspiración.

«If some of those who derive knowledge from the prophets live by a merely traditional acceptance of what they are told, and others by a gift of insight, then the symbol for the former, who investigate nothing, is a Fire-brand or a Torch or a Meteor; while the man of spiritual experience, who has therefore something in some sort common with the prophets, is accordingly symbolized by the Warming of Fire, for a man is not warmed by hearing about fire but by being close to it.» — la distinción que el tratado traza entre los que reciben por tradición —Tizón, Antorcha o Meteoro— y el hombre de experiencia espiritual, simbolizado por el Calentarse al Fuego, porque de oír hablar del fuego nadie se calienta.

«If the first stage of prophets is their translation into the World of Holy Transcendence away from the disturbances of senses and imagination, that stage is symbolized by “the Holy Valley”.» — el tratado adjudica al Valle Santo la primera etapa de los profetas: el traslado al Mundo de la Santa Trascendencia, lejos de las perturbaciones de sentidos e imaginación.

«Again, when Pharaoh said to Moses: “What, pray, is the» — el segundo ejemplo, de la historia de Moisés: la pregunta de Faraón por el Señor del Universo; el tramo se corta antes del folio impreso al pie de la plana.

«Lord of the Universe?” as though demanding to know His essence, Moses, in his reply, merely indicated His works, because these were clearer to the mind of his interrogator; and answered, “The Lord of the heavens and the earth.”» — la continuación en la plana siguiente: Faraón pide la esencia y Moisés responde por las obras, porque le eran más claras a quien preguntaba.

«Worlds (that is, this world and the world beyond) and the soul’s turning of her face towards the One Real (for this world and the world beyond are co-relatives and both are accidentia of the human light-substance, and can be doffed at one time and donned at another), then the symbol of the putting-off of these Two Worlds is the doffing of his two sandals by the pilgrim to Mekka,[2] what time he changes his worldly garments for the pilgrim’s robe and faces towards the holy Kaaba.» — el tratado interpreta el descalzarse de Moisés: el despojo de los Dos Mundos, simbolizado por las dos sandalias que el peregrino se quita camino de la Meca al cambiar de vestido.

«Nay, but let us now translate ourselves to the Presence Dominical once more, and speak of its symbols. If that Presence hath something whereby the several divine sciences are engraven on the tablets of hearts susceptible to them, that something will be symbolized by the Pen.» — el tratado pasa a los símbolos de la Presencia Dominical y adjudica la Pluma a aquello con que las ciencias divinas se graban en las tablas de los corazones.

«If the Presence which embraces Hand and Tablet, Pen and Book, is constituted according to a definite order, It will be typified by the Form or Image.» — el tratado adjudica la Forma o Imagen a la Presencia que abraza Mano, Tabla, Pluma y Libro por estar constituida según un orden definido.

«And if the human form has its definite order, after that likeness, then is it created “in the Image, the Form, of the Merciful One”. Now there is a difference between saying, “In the image of the Merciful One,” and, “In the image of Allah.”» — el paso que el tratado da a la creación del hombre, y la distinción que subraya entre a imagen del Misericordioso y a imagen de Allah.

«For it was the Divine Mercy that caused the image of the Divine Presence to be in that “Image.” And then Allah, out of His grace and mercy, gave to Adam a summary “image” or “form,” embracing every genus and species in the whole world, inasmuch that it was as if Adam were all that was in the world, or were the summarized copy of the world.» — el argumento del tratado: la Misericordia dio a Adán una imagen sumaria que abraza todo género y especie, como si fuera copia resumida del mundo.

«Now, but for this mercy, every son of Adam would have been powerless to know his Sovereign-Lord; for “only he who knows himself knows his Lord.”» — la consecuencia que el tratado saca: sin esa misericordia ningún hijo de Adán podría conocer a su Señor, porque solo quien se conoce a sí mismo lo conoce.

«This, then, being an effect of the divine mercy, it was “in the image of the Merciful One,” not “in the image of Allah,” that Adam was created.» — el tratado cierra la distinción: Adán fue creado a imagen del Misericordioso y no a imagen de Allah.

«So, then, the Presence of the Godhead is not the same as the Presence of The Merciful One, nor as the Presence of The Kingship, nor as the Presence of the Sovereign-Lordship; for which reason He commanded us to invoke the protection of all these Presences severally.» — el tratado separa las Presencias —Divinidad, Misericordioso, Realeza, Señorío— y funda en esa separación el mandato de invocar a cada una por su lado.

«“Say, I invoke the protection of the Lord of mankind, the King of mankind, the Deity of mankind!”» — el versículo con que el tratado apoya esa invocación por separado.

«If this idea did not underlie the expression [p. 35] “Allah created man in the image of the Merciful,” the words would be linguistically incorrect; they should then have run, “after His image.”’ But the words, according to Bokhari, run, “After the image of the Merciful.”» — el argumento gramatical del tratado y su apoyo textual: sin esa idea la frase sería incorrecta, y la lectura que acredita en Bokhari dice a imagen del Misericordioso y no a su imagen.

«But as the distinction between the Presence of the Kingship and the Presence of the Lordship call for a long expression, we must pass on, and be content with the foregoing specimen of the symbolic method. For indeed it is a shoreless sea.» — el tratado corta ahí el método simbólico llamándolo mar sin orillas.

«But if you are conscious of a certain repulsion from this symbolism, you may comfort yourself by the text, “He sent down from heaven rain, and it flowed in the valleys, according to their capacity;”[1] for the commentaries on this text tell us that the Water here is knowledge, and the Valleys are the hearts of men.» — el tratado atiende la repugnancia del lector con el versículo de la lluvia que corre por los valles según su capacidad, leído por los comentarios como el conocimiento y los corazones.

«Pray do not assume from this specimen of symbolism and its method that you have any licence from me to ignore the outward and, visible form, or to believe that it has been annulled; as though, for example, I had asserted that Moses had not really shoes on, did not, really hear himself addressed by the words, “Put thy shoes from off thy feet.”» — apertura del apartado 4 de la Parte II, y la reserva capital del tratado: el símbolo no anula la forma externa, y Moisés llevaba sandalias de verdad y de verdad oyó el mandato.

«God forbid!—The annulment of the outward and visible sign is the tenet of the Spiritualists (Batiniyya), who, looked, utterly one-sidedly, at one world, the, Unseen, and were grossly ignorant of the balance that exists between it and the Seen. This aspect they wholly failed to understand.» — el tratado adjudica a los Espiritualistas —los *Batiniyya*— la anulación del signo externo, y les imputa haber mirado un solo mundo ignorando el equilibrio entre los dos.

«Similarly annulment of the inward and invisible meaning in the opinion of the Materialists. (Hashawiyya).» — el reverso: la anulación del sentido interno, adjudicada a los Materialistas, los *Hashawiyya*.

«In other words, whoever abstracts and isolates the outward from the whole is a Materialist, and whoever abstracts. the inward is a Spiritualist, while he who joins the two together is catholic, perfect.» — la regla que el tratado saca: materialista quien aísla lo externo, espiritualista quien aísla lo interno, y perfecto quien junta los dos.

«I assert, on the contrary, that ‘Moses understood from the command “Put off thy shoes” the Doffing of the Two Worlds, and obeyed the command literally by putting off his two sandals, and spiritually by putting off the Two Worlds. Here you just have this cross-relation between the two, the crossing over from one to the other, from outward word to inward idea.» — la lectura que el tratado propone en su lugar: Moisés obedeció el mandato a la letra quitándose las sandalias y en espíritu despojándose de los Dos Mundos.

«The difference between the true and false positions may be thus illustrated. One man hears the word of the Prophet, “The angels of Allah enter not a house wherein is a dog or a picture,” and yet keeps a dog in the house, because, he says, “The outward sense is not what was meant; but the Prophet only meant, ‘Turn the dog of Wrath out of the house of the Heart, because Wrath hinders the knowledge which comes from the Lights Angelical; for anger is the demon of the heart.”» — el primer término de la comparación: quien oye el dicho de los ángeles que no entran donde hay perro o imagen y guarda el perro, alegando que solo se quiso decir echar el perro de la Ira.

«While the other first carries out the command literally; and then says, “Dog is not dog because of his visible form, but because of the inner idea of dog— ferocity, ravenousness. If my house, which is the abode of my person, of my body, must be kept clear of doggishness in concrete form, how much more must the house of my heart, which is the abode of man’s true and proper essence, be kept clear of doggishness in spiritual idea!”» — el segundo término, que el tratado prefiere: quien cumple primero a la letra y luego argumenta desde la idea interna del perro, la ferocidad y la voracidad.

«The man, in fact, who combines the two things, he is the perfect man; which is what is meant when it is said, “The perfect man is the one who does not let the light of his knowledge quench the light of his reverence.”» — la definición de hombre perfecto que el tratado adopta: el que no deja que la luz de su conocimiento apague la de su reverencia.

«In the same way he is never seen permitting himself to ignore one single ordinance of religion, for all the perfection of his spiritual Insight.» — la consecuencia práctica: no se le ve desatender una sola ordenanza de la religión por perfecta que sea su Intuición.

«Such a thing is grievous error; an example of which is the evil which befell some mystics, who called it lawful to put by _ literal prescriptions of the Shariat as you roll up and put-by a carpet; insomuch that one of them perhaps went so far as to give up the ordinance of prayer, saying, forsooth, that he was always at prayer in his heart!» — el error que el tratado consigna entre los místicos: tener por lícito enrollar las prescripciones de la *shariat* como una alfombra, hasta abandonar la oración alegando orar siempre en el corazón.

«These last, verily, are the follies of fools; but, as for the first-named error, it reminds one of the stumble of a high-bred horse, the error of a mystic whom the devil has diverted from the way and “drawn him with delusion as with cords”» — el tratado gradúa los dos errores: el de los Antinomianos lo llama necedad, y el de los místicos, tropiezo de caballo de raza.

«To return to our discussion of “the Putting-off of the Shoes.” The outward word wakens one to the inward signification, the Putting-off of the Two Worlds. The outward symbol is a real thing, and its application to the inward meaning is a real truth. Every real thing has its corresponding real truth.» — el tratado vuelve al despojo de las sandalias y enuncia la regla: el símbolo externo es cosa real y su aplicación al sentido interno es verdad real.

«Those who have realized this are the souls who have attained the degree of the Transparent Glass (we shall see the meaning of this presently). For the Imagination, which supplies, so to speak, the clay from which the symbol is formed, is hard and gross; it conceals the secret meanings; it is interposed between you and the unseen lights.» — el tratado nombra el grado del Vidrio Transparente y describe la Imaginación en bruto: dura, tosca, escondedora de los sentidos secretos e interpuesta ante las luces.

«But once let it be clarified, and it becomes like transparent glass, and no longer keeps out the light, but on the contrary becomes a light-conductor. nay, that which keeps that light from being put out.» — el reverso: clarificada, la imaginación se vuelve conductora de luz y la resguarda de apagarse.

«By gusts of wind. The story of the Transparent Glass, however, is coming; meanwhile, remember that the gross lower world of the imagination became to the Prophets of God like a transparent “glass” shade and “a niche for lights”; a strainer, filtering clear the divine secrets; a stepping-stone to the World Supernal.» — el tratado aplica esa figura a los profetas: el mundo bajo de la imaginación vuelto pantalla de vidrio, nicho para luces y colador de los secretos divinos; el troceo deja *By gusts of wind* como frase suelta al empezar la plana.

«Whereby we may know that the visible symbol is real: and behind it lies a mystery. The same holds good with the symbols of “the Mountain,” “the Fire,” and the rest.» — el tratado extiende la regla a los demás símbolos del Monte y del Fuego.

«When the Prophet said, “I saw Abdul-Rahman enter Paradise crawling,” you are not to suppose that he did not see him thus with» — apertura del apartado 5 de la Parte II: el dicho de haber visto a Abdul-Rahman entrar al Paraíso gateando, que el tratado pide no tomar por figura; la frase se corta en el cambio de plana.

«his own eyes. No, awake he saw him, as a sleeper might see him in a dream, even though the person of Abdul-Rahman b. ‘Awf was at the time asleep in his house.» — la continuación: lo vio despierto como un durmiente vería en sueños, aunque el hombre estuviera entonces dormido en su casa.

«The only effect of sleep in this and similar visions is to suppress the authority of the senses over the soul, which is the inward light divine; for the senses preoccupy the soul, drag it back to the -Sense-world, and turn a man’s face away from the world of the Invisible and of the Realm Supernal.» — el papel que el tratado da al sueño: suprimir la autoridad de los sentidos sobre el alma, que arrastran al mundo del Sentido.

«But, with the suppression of sense, some of the lights prophetical may become clarified and prevail, inasmuch as the senses are no longer dragging the soul back to their own world, nor occupying their whole attention. And so it sees in waking what others see in sleep.» — la consecuencia: suprimido el sentido, las luces proféticas prevalecen y se ve despierto lo que otros ven dormidos.

«But if it has attained absolute perfection, it is not limited to apprehending the visible form merely; it passes direct from that to the ‘inner idea, and it is disclosed to such an one that faith is drawing the soul of an Abdul-Rahman to the World Above (described by the word “Paradise”), while wealth and riches are drawing it down to this present life, the World Below.» — el grado siguiente: alcanzada la perfección absoluta, el alma pasa de la forma visible a la idea interna, y ve la fe tirando hacia arriba y la riqueza hacia abajo.

«If the influences which draw it to the preoccupations of this world are more stubborn than those which draw it to the other world, the soul is wholly turned away from its journey to Paradise. But if the attraction of faith is stronger, the soul is merely occasioned difficulty, or retarded, in its course, and the symbol for this in the world of sense is a crawl.» — el tratado explica el gateo como símbolo del retardo: la fe tira más fuerte pero la riqueza estorba la marcha.

«It is thus that mysteries are shown forth from behind the crystal transparencies of the imagination.» — la fórmula con que el tratado cierra el ejemplo: los misterios se muestran tras las transparencias cristalinas de la imaginación.

«Nor is this limited to the Prophet’s judgment about Abdul Rahman only, though it was only him he saw at that time. He passess judgment therein on; every man whose spiritual vision is strong, whose faith is firm, but whose wealth has so much multiplied that it threatens to crowd out his faith, only failing to do so because the power of that faith more than counterbalances it.» — el tratado generaliza el juicio a todo hombre de visión firme cuya riqueza crece hasta amenazar su fe sin llegar a vencerla; el troceo imprime *passess* con dos eses.

«That Within those hearts whereon those things are engraved will be typified by the Tablet,» — los símbolos de lo grabado en esos corazones: Tabla, y en la misma frase Libro y Rollo; el tramo se corta ante las llamadas de nota que el escaneo pega a las palabras.

«If there be, above the pen that writes, something which constrains it to service,» — el tratado pasa a lo que constriñe a la Pluma a su servicio; la frase cruza el cambio de plana y el tramo se corta ahí.

«And Adam’s_ form—this summarized “image” — was inscribed in the handwriting of Allah, so that Adam is the Divine handwriting» — el tratado llama a Adán escritura divina, inscrita de mano de Allah; el troceo mete un guion bajo dentro de *Adam's_ form*.

«which is not the characters of letters (for His Handwriting transcends both characters and letters, even as His Word transcends sound and syllables, and His Pen transcends Reed and Steel, and His Hand transcends flesh and bone» — la serie con que el tratado desliga cada término de su materia: la Escritura de los caracteres, la Palabra del sonido y las sílabas, la Pluma de la caña y el acero, la Mano de la carne y el hueso.

«For this reason the Prophet said, “The Koran has an outward and an» — el dicho de que el Corán tiene un fuera y un dentro; el tramo se corta antes del folio impreso al pie de la plana.

«inward, an ending and a beginning” (a Tradition which is, however, possibly, traceable to ‘Ali, as its pedigree stops short at his name).» — la continuación y la acotación que el propio tratado pone: la cadena de transmisión de ese dicho se detiene en Alí.

«But this is different from the error of those fools of Antinomians (Ibahiyya) who trifle with sophisms, like the saying of one, “Allah has no need of our works”; or of another, “The heart is» — el tratado distingue el error de los místicos del de los Antinomianos, los *Ibahiyya*, que juegan con sofismas sobre que Allah no necesita nuestras obras; la frase sigue en la plana siguiente.

«full of vices from which it cannot possibly be cleansed,” and did not even desire to eradicate anger and lust, because he believes he is [not] (?) commanded to eradicate them.» — la continuación en la plana siguiente: el corazón declarado imposible de limpiar, y el que ni siquiera quiso erradicar ira y lujuria. El corchete y el signo de interrogación son enmienda de Gairdner dentro del texto.

«illustrates to you the way in, which prophets used to see concrete objects, and have immediate vision of the spiritual, ideas behind them. Most frequently the idea, is presented to their direct inward vision first, and then looks down from thence on to the imaginative spirit and receives the imprint of some concrete object, analogous to the idea. What is conferred by inspiration in sleeping vision or dreams needs interpretation.» — el tratado describe el modo profético de ver: la idea se presenta primero a la visión interna y desde ahí recibe la impronta de un objeto concreto análogo; el arranque *This example* queda en la plana anterior.

«(Note by Ghazzali.) The proportion borne by dreams to the other characteristics of prophethood is as one to forty-six. That borne by waking vision has a greater ratio-as one to three, I believe, for it has been revealed to us that the prophetic characteristics fall definitely into three categories, and of these three one is waking vision.» — nota que el troceo rotula expresamente como del propio Ghazzali: la proporción de los sueños respecto de las demás notas de la profecía es de uno a cuarenta y seis, y la de la visión en vigilia, de uno a tres.

«The gradations of human Spirits Luminous; in knowing which we may know the symbolism of the Light-Verse in Koran.» — apertura del apartado (ii) de la Parte II: las gradaciones de los Espíritus Luminosos humanos como llave del simbolismo del Versículo de la Luz.

«The first of these is the sensory spirit. This is the recipient of the information brought in by the senses; for it is the root and origin of ‘the animal spirit, and constitutes the differentia, of the animal genus. It is sound in the infant at the breast.» — el primer espíritu: el sensorio, raíz del espíritu animal y diferencia del género animal, ya sano en el niño de pecho.

«The second is the imaginative spirit. This is the recorder of the information conveyed by the senses. It keeps that information filed and ready to hand, so as to present it to the intelligential spirit above it, when the information is called for.» — el segundo espíritu: el imaginativo, archivo de lo que traen los sentidos, que lo presenta al espíritu intelectual cuando se le pide.

«It is not found in the infant at the beginning of its evolution. This is why an infant wants to get hold of a thing when he sees it, while he forgets about it when it is out of his sight. No conflict of desire arises in his soul for something out of sight until he gets a little older, when he begins to cry for it and asks to have it, because its image is still with him, preserved in his imagination,» — el argumento del tratado por el desarrollo del niño: primero olvida lo que no ve, y solo más tarde llora por ello porque la imagen le queda.

«This faculty is possessed by some, but not all animals. It is not found, for example, in the moth which perishes in the flame. The moth makes for the flame, because of its desire for the sunlight, and, thinking that the flame is a window opening to the sunlight, it hurries on to the flame, and injures itself.» — el ejemplo contrario: la polilla que se lanza a la llama tomándola por ventana a la luz del sol.

«Yet, if it flies on into the dark, back it comes again, time after time. Now had it the mnemonic spirit, which gives permanence to the sensation of pain that is conveyed by the tactile sense, it would not return to the flame after being hurt once by it. On the other hand, the dog that has received one whipping runs away whenever it sees the stick again.» — el remate del ejemplo: sin el espíritu mnemónico la polilla vuelve una y otra vez, mientras el perro apaleado huye del palo.

«Third, the intelligential spirit. This apprehends ideas beyond the spheres of sense and imagination. It is the specifically human faculty. It is not found in the lower animals, nor yet in children.» — el tercer espíritu: el intelectual, facultad específicamente humana que aprehende ideas fuera del alcance del sentido y la imaginación.

«The objects of its apprehension are axioms of necessary and_ universal application, as we mentioned in the section in which the light of intelligence was given precedence over that of the eye.» — los objetos de ese espíritu según el tratado: axiomas de aplicación necesaria y universal.

«Fourth, the discursive spirit. This takes the data of pure reason and combines them, arranges them as premises, and deduces from them informing knowledge. Then it takes, for example, two conclusions thus learned, combines them again, and learns a fresh conclusion; and so goes on multiplying itself ad infinitum.» — el cuarto espíritu: el discursivo, que ordena los datos de la razón pura en premisas, deduce conclusiones y las vuelve a combinar sin término.

«Fifth, the transcendental prophetic spirit. This is the property of prophets and some saints. By it the unseen tables and statutes of the Law are revealed from the other world, together with several of the sciences of the Realms Celestial and Terrestrial, and pre-eminently theology, the science of Deity, which the intelligential and discursive spirit cannot compass.» — el quinto espíritu: el profético trascendental, propio de profetas y de algunos santos, por el que se revelan las tablas no vistas de la Ley y sobre todo la ciencia de la Deidad, que los otros dos no abarcan.

«It is this that is alluded to in the text, “Thus did We inspire thee with a spirit from Our power. Thou didst not know what is the Book, nor what is Faith, but we made that spirit a light wherewith we guide whom We will of our vassals. And thou, verily, dost guide into a straight way.”» — el versículo con que el tratado acredita ese quinto espíritu.

«And here, a word to thee, thou recluse in thy rational world of the intelligence! Why should it be impossible that beyond reason there should be a further plane, on which appear things which do not appear on the plane of the intelligence, just as it is possible for the intelligence itself to be a plane above the discriminating faculty and the senses; and for relations of wonders and marvels to be made to it that were beyond the reach of the senses and the discriminative faculty?» — la objeción que el tratado dirige al que se encierra en la inteligencia: por qué habría de ser imposible un plano más allá de la razón, como la razón lo es respecto de los sentidos.

«Beware of making the ultimate perfection stop at thyself! Consider the intuitive faculty of poetry, if thou wilt have an example of everyday experience, taken from those special gifts which particularize some men.» — la advertencia del tratado y el ejemplo cotidiano que propone: la facultad intuitiva de la poesía.

«Behold how this gift, which is a sort of perceptive faculty, is the exclusive possession of some; while it is so completely denied to others that they cannot even distinguish the scansion of a typical measure from that of its several variations.» — el argumento del don desigual: a algunos les falta hasta para distinguir la escansión de una medida de la de sus variantes.

«Now these effects only occur strongly in one who has this original, intuitive sense. A person destitute of it hears the sounds just as much as the other, but the emotional effects are by him only very faintly experienced, and he exhibits surprise at those whom they send into raptures or swoons.» — la acotación: quien carece de ese sentido oye los mismos sonidos y apenas siente el efecto, y se extraña de los que se arroban.

«And even were all the professors of music in the world to call a conference with a view of making him understand the meaning of this musical sense, they would be quite powerless to do so.» — el remate: ni todos los profesores de música juntos podrían hacerle entender ese sentido.

«Here, then, is an example taken from the gross phenomena which are easiest for you to understand. Apply this now to this peculiar prophetical sense.» — el traslado que el tratado propone: de la analogía musical al sentido profético.

«And strive earnestly to become one of those who experience mystically something of the prophetic spirit; for saints have a specially large portion thereof. If thou canst not compass this, then try, by the discipline of the syllogisms and analogies set forth or alluded to in a previous page, to be one of those ‘who have knowledge of it scientifically.» — la escala de acceso que el tratado ofrece: primero la experiencia mística, en la que los santos tienen parte grande, y si no, la disciplina de los silogismos y las analogías.

«But if this, too, is beyond thy powers, then the least thou canst do is to become one of those who simply have faith in it (“Allah exalts those that have faith among you, and those who acquire knowledge in their several ranks”).» — el tercer grado: la fe simple, con el versículo que gradúa a los creyentes y a los que adquieren conocimiento.

«Scientific knowledge is above faith, and mystic experience is above knowledge. The province of mystic experience is feeling; of knowledge, ratiocination, and of faith, bare acceptance of the creed of one’s fathers, together with an unsuspicious attitude towards the two superior classes.» — la jerarquía que el tratado fija: el conocimiento científico sobre la fe y la experiencia mística sobre el conocimiento, con su reparto de provincias —sentir, raciocinar y aceptar—.

«You now know the five human spirits. So we proceed: they are all of them Lights, for it is through their agency that every sort of existing thing is manifested, including objects of sense and imagination.» — el tratado recapitula los cinco espíritus y los declara a todos Luces, porque por ellos se manifiesta cuanto existe.

«For though it is true that the lower animals also perceive these said objects, mankind possesses a different, more refined, and higher species of those two faculties they having been created in man for a different, higher, and more noble end.» — la diferencia que el tratado marca entre las facultades del animal y las del hombre: no el género sino el fin.

«But in mankind they were created to be a net to chase a noble quarry through all the present world; to wit, the first principles of the religious sciences.» — el fin en el hombre, con la figura de la red que caza una presa noble: los primeros principios de las ciencias religiosas.

«For example, a man may, in perceiving with his, visual sense a certain individual, apprehend, through his intelligence, a universal and absolute idea, as we saw in our example of Abdul Rahman the son of ‘Awf.» — el ejemplo que enlaza con el apartado anterior: del individuo percibido por la vista la inteligencia saca una idea universal y absoluta.

«We now come to what the symbolism of this Verse actually signifies. The full exposition of the parallelism between these five classes of Spirit, and the fivefold Niche; Glass, Lamp, Tree, and Oil, could be indefinitely prolonged. But we must be content with shortly indicating the method of the symbolism.» — apertura de la Parte III: el tratado declara indefinidamente prolongable el paralelismo entre los cinco Espíritus y el Nicho, el Vidrio, la Lámpara, el Árbol y el Aceite, y se limita a indicar el método.

«1. Consider the sensory spirit. Its lights, you observe, come through several apertures, the eyes, ears, nostrils, etc. Now the aptest symbol for this, in our world of experience, is the Niche tor a lamp in a wall» — la primera correspondencia: el espíritu sensorio por el Nicho, porque sus luces entran por varias aberturas —ojos, oídos, narices—; el troceo imprime *tor* por *for*.

«2. Take next the imaginative spirit. It has three peculiarities: first, that it is of the stuff that this gross lower world is made of, for its objects have definite and limited size, and shape, and dimension, and are definitely related to the subject in respect of distance. Further, one of the properties of a gross substance whereof corporal attributes are predicated is to be opaque to the light of pure intelligence, which transcends these categories of direction, quantity, and distance.» — la primera peculiaridad del espíritu imaginativo: es de la materia de este mundo bajo, con tamaño, forma, dimensión y distancia, y por eso opaco a la luz de la inteligencia pura.

«But, secondly, if that substance is clarified, refined, disciplined, and controlled, it attains to a correspondence with and a similarity to the ideas of the intelligence, and becomes transparent to light from them.» — la segunda peculiaridad: clarificada y disciplinada, esa sustancia se vuelve transparente a la luz de las ideas.

«Thirdly, the imagination is at first very much needed, in order that intelligential knowledge may be controlled by it, so that that knowledge be not disturbed, unsettled, and dissipated, and so get out of hand. The images supplied by the imagination hold together the knowledge supplied by the intellect.» — la tercera peculiaridad: la imaginación sujeta el conocimiento intelectual para que no se disipe, porque las imágenes lo mantienen unido.

«Now, in the world of everyday experience the sole object in which you will find these three peculiarities, in relation to physical lights, is Glass. For glass also is originally an opaque substance, but is clarified and refined until it becomes transparent to the light of a lamp, which indeed it transmits unaltered.» — la correspondencia que el tratado saca de esas tres peculiaridades: el Vidrio, opaco en origen y clarificado hasta transmitir sin alterar la luz de la lámpara.

«3. The intelligential spirit, which gives cognizance of the divine ideas. The point of the symbolism must be obvious to you. You know it already from our preceding explanation of the doctrine that the prophets are a “Light-giving lamp.”» — la tercera correspondencia: el espíritu intelectual por la Lámpara, remitiendo a lo ya dicho de los profetas.

«4. The ratiocinative spirit. Its peculiarity is to begin from one proposition, then to branch out into two, which two become four and so on, until by this process of logical division they become very numerous. It leads, finally, to conclusions which in their turn become germs producing like conclusions, these latter being also susceptible of continuation, each with each.» — la cuarta correspondencia y su razón: el espíritu raciocinante se ramifica de una proposición en dos, de dos en cuatro, y cada conclusión es germen de otras.

«The symbol which our world yields for this is a Tree. And when further we consider that the fruit of the discursive reason is material for this multiplying, establishing, and fixing of all knowledge, it will naturally not be typified by trees like quince, apple, pomegranate, nor, in brief, by any other tree whatever, except the Olive. For the quintessence of the fruit of the olive is its oil, which is the material which feeds the lamps, and has this peculiarity, as against all other oils, that it increases radiance.» — el Árbol, y la razón por la que el tratado lo restringe al Olivo: su fruto da el aceite que alimenta las lámparas y que, a diferencia de los demás, acrecienta el resplandor.

«Again, if people give the adjective “blessed” to specially fruitful trees, surely the tree the fruitfulness whereof is absolutely infinite should be named Blessed!» — el argumento del tratado para el epíteto de bendito del versículo: infinita fecundidad.

«Finally, if the ramifications of those pure, intellectual propositions do not admit of relation to direction and to distance, then may the antitypical tree will be said to be “Neither from the East nor from the West.”» — la última pieza de la correspondencia: las proposiciones puras no admiten dirección ni distancia, y por eso el árbol no es de Oriente ni de Occidente.

«5. The transcendental prophetic spirit, which is possessed by saints as well as prophets if it is absolutely luminous and clear. For the thought-spirit is divided into that which needs be instructed, advised, and supplied from without, if the acquisition of knowledge is to be continuous; while a portion of it is absolutely, clear, as though it were self-luminous, and had. no external source of supply.» — la quinta correspondencia: el espíritu profético trascendental, partido entre el que necesita instrucción de fuera y el que es absolutamente claro, como si fuera luminoso por sí.

«Mark how extraordinary is this intuitive faculty in some others, insomuch that they produce» — el segundo tramo del ejemplo de la música: unos producen lo que otros ni distinguen; el tramo se corta antes del folio impreso al pie de la plana.

«music and melodies, and all the various grief-, delight-, slumber-, weeping-, madness-, murder-, and swoon-producing modes!» — la continuación en la plana siguiente: los modos que causan pena, deleite, sueño, llanto, locura, muerte y desmayo.

«In the lower animals they were only created as an instrument for acquiring food, and for» — el fin de esas facultades en los animales inferiores; el tramo se corta antes del folio impreso.

«subjecting them to mankind. But in mankind they were created to be a net to chase a noble quarry through all the present world; to wit, the first principles of the religious sciences.» — la continuación en la plana siguiente: en el hombre esas facultades son red para cazar una presa noble, los primeros principios de las ciencias religiosas.

«lamp from being put out by a draught or violent jerking. By what, then, could possibly the imagination be more aptly symbolized?» — el cuarto rasgo de la correspondencia del Vidrio: guarda la lámpara de la corriente y de la sacudida. El arranque *Again, glass keeps the* queda en la plana anterior, antes del folio impreso.

«Applying these, considerations, we see how justly this clear, strong natural faculty is described by the words, “Whose Oil were well-nigh luminant, though Fire touched it not,”» — el tratado aplica al espíritu profético claro la fórmula del versículo sobre el aceite casi luminoso sin que lo toque el fuego.

«for there be Saints whose light shines so bright that it is “well-nigh”’ independent of that» — la escala que el tratado monta sobre el *casi*: hay santos cuya luz es casi independiente de la de los profetas; la frase sigue en la plana siguiente.

«which Prophets supply, while there be Prophets whose light is “well-nigh” independent of that which Angels ‘supply. Such is the symbolism, and aptly does zit typify this class.» — la continuación: hay profetas cuya luz es casi independiente de la de los ángeles; el troceo imprime *zit* por *it*.

«And inasmuch as the lights of the human spirit are graded rank on rank, then that of Sense comes first, the foundation and preparation for the Imagination (for the latter can only be conceived as superimposed after Sense); those of the Intelligence and Discursive Reason come thereafter.» — el orden que el tratado fija entre las luces del espíritu humano: el Sentido primero, como cimiento de la Imaginación, y después la Inteligencia y la Razón Discursiva.

«All which explains why the Glass is, as it were, the place for the Lamp’s immanence; and the Niche, for the Glass: that is to say, the Lamp is within the Glass, and the Glass within the Niche.» — la razón del encaje de los símbolos: la Lámpara dentro del Vidrio y el Vidrio dentro del Nicho.

«Finally, the existence, as we have seen, of a graded succession of Lights explains the words of the text “Light upon Light.”» — el tratado cierra la exposición del versículo con la sucesión graduada de Luces que explica *Luz sobre Luz*.

«But this symbolism holds only for the ‘hearts of true believers, or of prophets and saints, but not for the hearts of misbelievers; ‘for the term “light” is expressive of right-guidance alone.» — el límite que el tratado pone a todo el simbolismo anterior: vale para los corazones de creyentes, profetas y santos, y no para los de los descreídos, porque *luz* solo expresa recta guía.

«But as for the man who is turned from the path of guidance, he is false, he is darkness; nay, he is darker than darkness.» — el tratado sitúa al apartado del camino más allá de la tiniebla.

«For darkness is natural; it leads one neither one way nor the other; but the minds of misbelievers, and the whole of their perceptions, are perverse, and support each other mutually in the actual deluding of their owners.» — el argumento: la tiniebla natural no lleva a ninguna parte, y las percepciones de los descreídos se sostienen unas a otras engañando a sus dueños.

«They are like a man “in some fathomless sea, overwhelmed by billow topped by billow topped by cloud; darkness on darkness piled!”» — el Versículo de la Tiniebla vuelto a citar como figura de esa condición.

«Now that fathomless sea is the World, this world of mortal dangers, of evil chances, of blinding trouble.» — la primera pieza de la interpretación: el mar sin fondo es el Mundo, con sus peligros y sus azares.

«The first “billow” is the wave of lust, whereby souls acquire the bestial attributes,[2] and are occupied with sensual pleasures, and the satisfaction of worldly ambitions, so that “they eat and luxuriate like cattle. Hell shall be their place of entertainment!”» — la segunda pieza: la primera ola es la de la lujuria, por la que las almas toman los atributos bestiales.

«Well does this wave represent darkness, therefore; since love for the creature makes the soul both blind and deaf.» — la razón que el tratado da para esa ola: el amor a la criatura ciega y ensordece el alma.

«The second “billow” is the wave of the ferocious attributes, which impel. the soul to wrath, enmity, hatred, prejudice, envy, boastfulness, ostentation, pride. Well is this, too, the symbol of darkness, for wrath is the demon of man’s intelligence;» — la tercera pieza: la segunda ola es la de los atributos feroces —ira, enemistad, odio, prejuicio, envidia, jactancia, ostentación, soberbia—, con la ira por demonio de la inteligencia.

«Finally, “the cloud” is rank beliefs, and lying heresies, and corrupt imaginings, which become so many veils veiling the misbeliever from the true faith, from knowledge of the Real, and from illumination by the sunlight of the Koran and human intelligence.» — la cuarta pieza: la nube son las creencias rancias, las herejías y las imaginaciones corrompidas, vueltas velos.

«For it is the property of a cloud to veil the shining of the sunlight. Now these things, being all of them darkness, are well called “darkness on darkness piled”, shutting the soul out from the knowledge of things near, let alone things far away; veiling the misbeliever, therefore, from the apprehension of the miraculousness of the Prophet, though he is so near to grasp, so manifest upon the least reflection.» — el remate de la interpretación: esas tinieblas apiladas velan hasta lo cercano, y por eso el descreído no alcanza lo milagroso del Profeta.

«Truly it might be said of such an, one that “when a man putteth forth his hand, he can well-nigh see it not.”» — el tratado devuelve al descreído la cláusula del versículo sobre la mano que apenas se ve.

«Finally, if all these Lights have, as we, saw, their source and origin in the great Primary, the One Real, then every Confessor of the Unity may well believe that “the man for whom Allah doth not cause light, no light at all hath he.”» — el cierre del apartado, con la última cláusula del Versículo de la Tiniebla.

«The following tripartite division of the soul, with its analogues, is Platonic (see Republic, bk. iv).» — nota de Gairdner, no del tratado, que declara platónica la división tripartita del alma y remite al libro IV de la República.

«And now you must be content with thus much of the mysteries of this Verse.» — otra de las interrupciones que el tratado se impone, esta vez al cerrar la exposición del Versículo de la Luz.

«What is the signification of the tradition, “Allah hath Seventy Thousand Veils of Light and Darkness: were He to withdraw their curtain, then would the splendours of His Aspect surely consume everyone who apprehended Him with his sight.” (Some read “seven hundred veils;” others, “seventy thousand.”)» — apertura del apartado (ii) de la Parte III, con la Tradición de los Velos y la variante de lectura que el propio tratado consigna: setecientos velos o setenta mil.

«I explain it thus. Allah is in, by, and for himself glorious. A veil is necessarily related to those from whom the glorious object is veiled. Now these among men are of three kinds, according as their veils are pure darkness; mixed darkness and light; or pure light.» — el método del tratado: el velo se relaciona con aquellos de quienes se vela lo glorioso, y los hombres se reparten en tres clases según sus velos.

«The subdivisions of these three are very numerous. That much only is certain. | could no doubt make some far-fetched enumeration of these subdivisions; but I have no confidence in the results of such defining and enumerating, for none knows whether they were really intended or not.» — la reserva del tratado sobre las subdivisiones: podría enumerarlas, y no confía en el resultado porque nadie sabe si estaban en la intención.

«As for the fixing of the number at seven hundred, or at seventy thousand, this is a matter that only the prophetic power can compass.» — el tratado deja el número fuera de su alcance y lo remite a la potencia profética.

«My own clear impression, however, is that these numbers are not mentioned in the way of definite enumeration at all, for numbers are not infrequently mentioned without any intention of limitation, but rather to denote some indefinitely great quantity:» — la impresión que el tratado declara propia: esos números no enumeran sino que denotan una cantidad indefinidamente grande.

«God knows best! That point, then, is beyond our competence, and all I can do now is to unfold to you these three main divisions and a few of the subdivisions.» — el tratado cierra la cuestión del número y anuncia lo que sí va a exponer.

«The first division consists of those who are veiled by pure darkness. These are the atheists “who believe not in Allah, nor the Last Day.”[1] These are they “who love this present life more than that which is to come,”[2] for they do not believe in that which is to come at all. They fall into subdivisions.» — la primera clase: los ateos que no creen en Allah ni en el Último Día y aman esta vida más que la venidera, porque en la venidera no creen.

«First, there are those who desire to discover a cause to account for the world, and make Nature that cause. But nature is an, attribute which inheres in material substances, and is immanent in them, and is moreover a, dark one, for it has no knowledge, nor perception, nor self-consciousness, nor consciousness, nor light perceived through the medium of physical sight.» — la primera subdivisión: los que ponen a la Naturaleza por causa del mundo, y la objeción del tratado de que la naturaleza es atributo inherente y oscuro, sin conocimiento ni percepción ni conciencia.

«Secondly, their are those whose preoccupation is self, and who in no wise busy themselves. about the quest for causality. Rather, they live the life of the beasts of the field. This veil is, as it were, their selfcentred ego, and, their lusts of darkness; for there is no darkness, so intense as slavery to self-impulse and self-love.» — la segunda subdivisión: los ocupados en sí mismos, cuyo velo es el ego y las lujurias de tiniebla; el troceo imprime *their* por *there*. El troceo parte *self-centred* al fin de renglón y la herramienta lo devuelve unido; la restitución es lectura propuesta, no letra de la fuente.

«“Hast thou seen,” saith Allah, “the man who makes self-impulse his god?”[1] and the Prophet, “Self-impulse is the hatefullest of the gods, worshipped instead of Allah.”» — los dos dichos con que el tratado apoya esa subdivisión, el versículo y la palabra del Profeta sobre el impulso propio como el más odioso de los dioses.

«This last division may farther be subdivided. There is one class which has thought that this world’s Chief End is the satisfaction, of one’s wants, lusts, and animal pleasures, whether connected with sex, or food, or drink, or raiment. These, therefore, are the creatures of pleasure; pleasure is their god, the goal of their ambition, and in winning her they believe that they have won felicity.» — la primera clase de esa subdivisión: los que ponen el Fin del mundo en la satisfacción de los apetitos, con el placer por dios; el troceo imprime *farther* por *further*.

«Deliberately and willingly do they place themselves at the level of the beasts of the field; nay, at a viler level than the beasts. Can darkness be conceived more intense than this? Such men are, indeed, veiled by darkness unadulterated.» — el juicio del tratado sobre esa clase: se colocan por su voluntad al nivel de las bestias, y aun más abajo.

«Another class has thought that man’s Chief End is conquest and domination—the taking of prisoners, and captives, and life. Such is the idea of the Arabs, certain of the Kurds, and withal very numerous fools.» — la segunda clase: los que ponen el Fin en la conquista y el dominio, con los nombres que el tratado da —los árabes, ciertos kurdos y necios muy numerosos—.

«Their veil is the dark veil of the ferocious attributes, because these dominate them, so that they deem the running down of their quarry the height of bliss. These, then, are content to occupy the level of beasts of prey, nay, one more degraded still.» — el velo de esa clase: los atributos feroces, que les hacen tener por cima de la dicha el derribo de su presa.

«Such men hoard their pelf underground—you may see them toiling their lives long, embarking on perils by land, perils by sea, up-date, down-lea, piling up wealth, and yet grudging it to themselves—and how much more others!» — la descripción del avaro en el tratado: perils por tierra y por mar, y la riqueza escatimada a sí mismo.

«These are they whom the Prophet had in view when he said, “Poor wretch, the slave of money! Poor wretch, the slave of gold!”» — el dicho del Profeta que el tratado adjudica a esa clase.

«And, indeed, what darkness is in tenser than that which blinds mankind to the fact that gold and silver are just two metals, unwanted for their own sakes, no better than gravel unless they are made a means to various ends, and spent upon things worth spending on?» — la objeción del tratado al avaro: oro y plata son dos metales que nadie quiere por sí mismos y que no valen más que la grava si no son medio para algo; el troceo parte *intenser* en dos.

«A fourth class had advanced a step higher than the total folly of these last, and has supposed that the supreme felicity is found in the extension of a man’s personal reputation, the spread of his own renown, the increase of his own following and his influence over others.» — la cuarta clase, que el tratado pone un escalón más arriba: los que ponen la felicidad en la reputación, la fama y la influencia.

«You may see these admiring themselves in their own looking-glasses! One of them, who may be suffering hunger and penury at home, will be spending his substance on clothes, and trying to look his smartest therein, just in order to avoid contemptuous glances when he walks abroad!» — el retrato que el tratado hace de esa clase: el que pasa hambre en casa y gasta en ropa para evitar miradas de desprecio en la calle.

«Innumerable are the varieties of this species, and one and all are veiled from Allah by pure darkness, and they themselves are darkness. So there is no need to mention all the individual varieties, when once attention has been called to the species.» — el tratado cierra la primera clase declarando innumerables sus variedades y todas veladas por tiniebla pura.

«One of these varieties which we should, however, mention is the sort that confesses with their tongues the Creed “There is no god but Allah,” but are probably urged thereto by fear alone, or the desire to beg from Mohammadans, or to curry favour with them, or to get financial assistance out of them, or by a merely fanatical zeal, to support the opinions of their fathers.» — la variedad que el tratado sí quiere nombrar: los que confiesan el Credo por miedo, por pedir, por congraciarse, por sacar dinero o por celo fanático heredado.

«For if the Creed fails to impel these to good works, by no means shall it secure their elevation from the dark sphere to light. Rather are their patron-saints devils, who lead them from the light into the darkness.» — el criterio del tratado: si el Credo no empuja a obras buenas no saca de la esfera oscura, y los patronos de esos son demonios.

«The second division consists of those who are veiled by mixed light and darkness. It consists of three main kinds: first, those whose darkness has its origin in the Senses; secondly, in the Imagination; thirdly, in false syllogisms of the Intelligence.» — la segunda clase y sus tres géneros: la tiniebla nacida de los Sentidos, de la Imaginación y de los falsos silogismos de la Inteligencia.

«First, then, those veiled by the darkness of the Senses. These are persons who one and all have got beyond that self-absorption which was the characteristic of all the first division, as they deify something outside the self, and have some yearning for the knowledge of the Deity. The first grade of these consists of the idol-worshippers, the last grade consists of the dualists; between which extremes come other grades.» — el primer género: los que ya salieron de la absorción en sí mismos porque divinizan algo externo y anhelan conocer a la Deidad, del adorador de ídolos al dualista.

«The first, the idolaters, are aware, in general, that they have a deity whom they must prefer to their dark selves, and believe that their deity is mightier than everything else, and more to be prized that every prize.» — lo que el tratado concede a los idólatras: saben que tienen una deidad que han de preferir a sus yoes oscuros y que es más poderosa que todo.

«But the darkness of sense veils from them the knowledge that they must transcend the world of sense in this quest; so that they make for themselves from the more precious minerals, gold, silver, gems, etc., figures splendidly fashioned,» — el velo que el tratado les imputa: no saben que han de trascender el mundo del sentido, y se hacen figuras de oro, plata y piedras preciosas.

«is it the uppermost billow, for anger is mostly stronger even than Just; swelling wrath diverts the soul from lust and makes it oblivious of enjoyment; lust cannot for a moment stands up against anger at its height,» — la razón por la que el tratado pone esa ola encima: la ira es más fuerte que la lujuria y la deja olvidada; el arranque *and well also* queda en la plana anterior, antes del folio impreso. El troceo imprime *Just* por *lust* y *stands* por *stand*.

«But he whom the Creed so touches that his evil deeds displease him and his good deeds give him pleasure, has passed from pure darkness even though he be a great sinner still.» — el reverso, con su acotación dentro: a quien el Credo le hace desagradar sus malas obras ya salió de la tiniebla pura aunque siga siendo gran pecador.

«A third class has supposed that the Chief End is riches and prosperity, because wealth is the instrument for the satisfaction of every lust. Their concern is therefore the heaping up and multiplication of riches—the multiplication of property, real» — la tercera clase: los que ponen el Fin en la riqueza, instrumento de toda lujuria; el tramo se corta antes del folio impreso al pie de la plana.

«estate, personal estate, thoroughbreds, flocks, herds, tields and the rest.» — la continuación del inventario en la plana siguiente; el troceo imprime *tields* por *fields*.

«themselves as gods. Such men are veiled by the light of Majesty and Beauty from the attributes of Allah and his light: they have affixed these attributes to sense-perceived bodies; which sense has blocked out the light of Allah; for the senses are darkness in relation to the World Spiritual, as we have already shown.» — el diagnóstico del tratado sobre los idólatras: los velan la luz de la Majestad y la Belleza, fijadas a cuerpos sensibles; la frase arranca a mitad porque *and then take those images unto* queda en la plana anterior.

«The second class, composed of the remotest Turkish tribes, who have no organized religious community and no definite religious code, believe that they have a deity, and that that deity is some particularly beautiful object; so that when they see a human being of exceptional beauty, or similarly a tree, or a horse, etc., they worship it and call it their god. These are veiled by the light of Beauty mixed with the darkness of Sense.» — la segunda clase de los velados por los sentidos: las tribus turcas más remotas, que llaman dios al objeto de belleza excepcional, veladas por la luz de la Belleza mezclada con la tiniebla del Sentido.

«The third class say, Our deity must be in His essence Light, glorious in His express image, majestic in Himself, terrible in His presence, intolerant of approach; and yet He must be likewise perceptible. For the imperceptible is meaningless in the opinion of these. Then because they find Fire thus characterized, they worship it and take it unto themselves as lord. Such are veiled by the light of Dominion and of Glory, which are, indeed, two of the Lights of Allah.» — la tercera clase: los adoradores del Fuego, que piden una deidad de Luz, terrible y a la vez perceptible, y quedan velados por las luces del Dominio y la Gloria, que el tratado reconoce por Luces de Allah.

«The fourth class think that, since we have control over fire, kindling or quenching it at will, it cannot serve as divinity. Only that which possessing the attribute of Dominion and Glory and has us under its absolute sway, and is withal very higher and lifted up-only this avails for divinity.» — la objeción que el tratado pone en boca de la cuarta clase: lo que encendemos y apagamos a voluntad no sirve de divinidad; el troceo imprime *very higher* por *far higher*.

«Astrology is the science that is celebrated among this folk, the attribution to each star of its special influence: so that some worship Cynosura and others Jupiter, and others some other heavenly body, according to the many influences with which they believe the several stars are endued. These, then, are veiled by Light, the Light of the Sublime, the Luminous, the Potent; which are also three of the Lights of Allah.» — la cuarta clase: los que adoran los astros por la influencia propia de cada uno, velados por las luces de lo Sublime, lo Luminoso y lo Potente.

«The fifth class support the fourth in their fundamental idea, but they say that it does not befit their Lord to be describable as small or great among light-giving substances, but He must be the greatest of them; and so they worship the Sun, which, they say, is the Greatest of All. Such are veiled by the Light of Greatness, in addition to the former lights; but are still blent with the darkness of the Senses.» — la quinta clase: los adoradores del Sol por ser el mayor de los cuerpos luminosos, velados por la Luz de la Grandeza.

«The sixth class advance higher still and say, The sun has no monopoly of light; bodies other than the sun have each one its light. So, as the deity must have no partner in lightfulness, they worship Absolute Light, which embraces all lights, and think that It is the Lord of the Universe, and that all good things are attributable to it.» — la sexta clase: los adoradores de la Luz Absoluta, que niegan al sol el monopolio y no admiten socio en la luminosidad.

«This must suffice for the exemplification of this division, the classes whereof are more numerous than those we have mentioned.» — el tratado corta la enumeración declarando más numerosas las clases que las mencionadas.

«Second, those veiled by some light, mixed with the darkness of the Imagination. These have got beyond the senses, for they assert the existence of something behind the objects of sense, but are unable to get beyond the imagination, and so have worshipped a Being who actually sits on a throne.» — el segundo género de la clase mezclada: los que pasan de los sentidos y no de la imaginación, y adoran a un Ser sentado en un trono.

«The meanest grade of these is called the Corporealists; then all the various Karramites, into whose writings and opinions we cannot go here, for to multiply words thereon were bootless.» — los grados de ese género: los Corporealistas y los karramitas, cuyas opiniones el tratado se niega a exponer.

«But the highest in degree are those who denied to Allah corporality and all its accidentia, except one—direction, and that direction upwards; for (say they) that which is not referable to any direction, and cannot be characterized as either within or without the world, does not exist at. all, since it cannot be imagined by the imagination.» — el grado más alto de ese género: los que niegan a Allah toda corporalidad menos la dirección hacia arriba, porque lo no referible a dirección alguna les parece inexistente.

«They failed to perceive that the very first degree of the intelligibilia takes us clean beyond all reference whatsoever to direction and dimension.» — la objeción del tratado: el primer grado de los inteligibles sale ya de toda referencia a dirección y dimensión.

«Third, those who are veiled by Light divine, mixed with the darkness of false syllogisms of the Intelligence, and who worship a deity, that “Heareth, Seeth, and hath Knowledge, Power, Will, Life”, and transcends all directions, including direction upwards;» — el tercer género de la clase mezclada: los que adoran a una deidad que oye, ve, conoce, puede, quiere y vive, y trasciende toda dirección.

«but whose conception of these attributes is relative to their own; so that some of them may even have declared outright that His “speech” is with sounds and letters like ours; while others advanced a step higher, it may be, and said, “Nay, but it is like our thought-speech, both soundless and letterless.”» — el defecto que el tratado les imputa: conciben esos atributos por los suyos, unos dando letras y sonidos a la Palabra de Allah y otros haciéndola como el habla mental.

«Thus they, say, in regard to His will, that it is contingent, like ours; that it is a demanding and a purposing, like ours.» — el ejemplo que el tratado da de ese antropomorfismo: la voluntad divina hecha contingente, demandante y propositiva como la nuestra.

«All of which opinions are well-known, and we need not go into further details with regard to them: These, then, are veiled by several of the divine Lights, mixed with the. darkness of false syllogisms of the intelligence., All such are various classes of the second division, which consists of those veiled by mixed. light and darkness.» — el tratado cierra la segunda clase entera.

«It seems inevitable to read ###. The feminine Pronoun could only refer to ### which makes nonsense. To refer it to a supplied masdar does not seem to be in our author’s manner.» — nota de Gairdner sobre una enmienda de lectura en el árabe, razonada por el pronombre femenino y por lo que llama la manera del autor; el troceo no trae la capa de texto árabe y deja los términos en blanco.

«The third division are those veiled with, pure Light, and they also fall into several classes. | cannot enumerate all, but only refer to three.» — la tercera clase, la de los velados por Luz pura, de la que el tratado dice referir solo tres grados.

«The first of these have searched out and understood the true meaning of the divine. attributes, and have grasped that when thee divine attributes are named Speech, Will Power, Knowledge, and the rest, it is not according to our human mode of nomenclature.» — el primer grado: los que entienden que los atributos divinos no se nombran al modo humano; el troceo imprime *thee* por *the*.

«And this has led them to avoid denoting Him, by these attributes altogether, and to denote Him simply by a reference to His creation, as ‘Moses did in his answer to Pharaoh, when the latter asked, “And what, pray, is the Lord of the Universe?” and he replied, “’The Lord, Whose Holiness transcends even the ideas of these attributes,’ He, the Mover and Orderer of the Heavens.”» — la consecuencia: denotan a Allah solo por referencia a su creación, como Moisés a Faraón, llamándolo el Motor y Ordenador de los Cielos.

«The second mount higher than these, inasmuch as they perceived that the Heavens are a plurality, and that the mover of every several Heaven is another being, called an Angel, and that these angels form a plurality, and that their relation to the other Lights Divine is as the relation of the stars to[1] all other visible lights.» — el segundo grado: los que ven plural el cielo, con un ángel motor por cada uno, y relacionan a esos ángeles con las demás Luces Divinas como las estrellas con las otras luces visibles.

«The third mount higher than these also, and say that this direct communication of motion to the celestial bodies must be an act of service to the Lord of the Universe, an act of worship and obedience to His command, and rendered by one of His creatures, an Angel, who stands to the pure Light Divine in the relation of the Moon to the other visible lights; and they asserted that the LORD is the Obeyed-One of this Angelic Movent, and that the Almighty must be considered the universal Movent indirectly and by way of command only (amr),{1] but not directly by way of act.» — el tercer grado, y la pieza que Gairdner llama el problema del Vicegerente: el movimiento directo lo presta un Ángel, y el Señor es el Obedecido de ese Ángel, motor universal por vía de mandato y no de acto.

«The explication of which “command” and what it really is contains much that is obscure, and too difficult for most minds, besides being beyond the scope of this book.» — la reserva con que el tratado se detiene ahí: la explicación del *amr* la declara oscura, difícil para casi todas las mentes y fuera del alcance del libro.

«These, then, are grades all of which are veiled by Lights without admixture of Darkness.» — el tratado cierra la tercera clase: grados velados por Luces sin mezcla de Tiniebla.

«But those who ATTAIN make a fourth grade, to Whom, in turn, it has been made clear that this Obeyed-One, if identified with, Allah, would have been given attributes negative of His pure Unity and perfection, on account of a mystery which it is not in the scope of this book to reveal;» — apertura del apartado 4, *The Goal Of the Quest*: los que Alcanzan ven que identificar al Obedecido con Allah le daría atributos que niegan su Unidad, por un misterio que el libro declara no poder revelar.

«and that the relation of’ this Obeyed-One to THE REAL EXISTENCE is as the relaxation of the Sun to Essential Light, or of the live coal to the Elemental Fire,» — la relación que el tratado enuncia en su lugar: el Obedecido es a la Existencia Real como el Sol a la Luz Esencial o la brasa al Fuego Elemental; el troceo imprime *relaxation* por *relation*.

«and so “turned their faces” [1] from him who moves the heavens and him who issued the command (amara) for their moving, and Attained unto an Existent who» — el movimiento final de los que Alcanzan: apartan el rostro del que mueve los cielos y del que mandó moverlos; la frase sigue en la plana siguiente.

«transcends ALL that is comprehensible by human Sight or human Insight; for they found IT transcendent of and separate from every characterization that in the foregoing we have made.» — la continuación y la última palabra del tratado sobre lo que hallan: un Existente que trasciende cuanto abarcan la Vista y la Intuición humanas, separado de toda caracterización hecha antes.

«And these last are also divided. For one class the whole content of the perceptible is. consumed away —consumed, obliterated, and annihilated; yet the soul itself remains contemplating the absolute Beauty and Holiness and contemplating herself in her beauty, which is conferred on her by this Attainment unto the Presence Divine In them, then, the seen things, but not the seeing, soul, are obliterated.» — el tratado reparte a los que Alcanzan: en una clase lo perceptible se consume y el alma queda contemplando la Belleza absoluta y contemplándose a sí misma.

«And they are passed by others, among whom are the Few of the Few; whom “the splendours of the Countenance sublime consume”,[1] and the majesty of the Divine Glory obliterate; so that they are themselves blotted out, annihilated. For self-contemplation there is no more found a place, because with the self they have no longer anything to do.» — la segunda clase, los Pocos de los Pocos: los consumen los esplendores del Rostro sublime y quedan ellos mismos borrados, sin lugar para contemplarse.

«Nothing remaineth any more save the One, the Real; and the import of His word, “All perisheth save His Countenance,”[2] becomes the experience of the soul.» — lo que el tratado dice que queda: solo el Uno, lo Real, y la palabra de que todo perece salvo su Rostro se vuelve experiencia del alma.

«To this we have made reference in the first chapter, where we set forth in what sense they named this state “Identity,” and how they conceived the same.» — el tratado remite a la Parte I para el nombre de Identidad dado a ese estado.

«Such is the ultimate degree of those who Attain. Some of these souls had not, in their upward Progress and Ascent, to climb step by step the stages we have described; neither did their ascension cost them any length of time;» — el tratado abre la excepción: algunos no subieron peldaño a peldaño ni su ascensión les costó tiempo.

«but with their first flight they attained to the knowledge of the Holiness and the confession that His sovereignty transcends everything that it must be confessed to transcend. They were overcome at the very first by the knowledge which overcame the rest at the very last.» — lo que el tratado atribuye a esos: de un primer vuelo alcanzaron la Santidad y quedaron vencidos al principio por el conocimiento que a los demás vence al final.

«It may be that that first was the way of Abraham, the Friend of Allah, while the latter was the way of Mohammed, the Beloved of Allah. Allah alone knoweth the mysteries of their Progress and of their Stations on the Way of Light.» — el reparto que el tratado propone, marcado como conjetura: la primera vía por la de Abraham y la segunda por la de Mahoma, con los misterios de su Progreso y de sus Estaciones en la Vía de la Luz reservados a Allah.

«They have penetrated further than the idolaters into the Realm of Light in the discovery of Light, for they are» — lo que el tratado concede a esa clase sobre los idólatras; el tramo se corta antes del folio impreso al pie de la plana y la frase sigue en la siguiente.

«worshippers of Beauty in the absolute, not in the individual; and they do not limit it specially to one individual to the exclusion of others; and then, again, the Beauty they worship is of Nature’s hand, and not of their own.» — la continuación: adoran la Belleza en absoluto y no en un individuo, y esa belleza es de mano de la Naturaleza y no de la suya.

«Then, since they perceive the existence of evils in the world, and will» — el tratado pasa al problema del mal en la sexta clase; el tramo se corta antes del folio impreso.

«by no means allow them to be attributed to their deity, He being wholly void of evil, they conceive of a struggle between Him and the Darkness, and these two are called by them, as I suppose, Yazdan and Ahriman; which is the sect of the Dualists.» — la continuación en la plana siguiente: conciben una lucha entre su deidad y la Tiniebla y los nombran, con la reserva del propio tratado —*a lo que supongo*—, Yazdan y Ahriman, la secta de los Dualistas.

«Thus, when they were challenged to show that “hearing, sight, life”, etc., are real in Allah they fell back on what was essentially anthropomorphism, though they repudiated it[1] formally; for they utterly failed to apprehend what the attribution» — el tratado consigna que al ser desafiados recayeron en un antropomorfismo que repudiaban en la forma; la frase sigue en la plana siguiente.

«of[1] these ideas to Allah really signifies.» — la continuación en la plana siguiente: no alcanzaron lo que esa atribución significa realmente.

«Then they perceived that these Heavens are enveloped by another Sphere, by» — el remate del segundo grado: una esfera exterior que envuelve a las demás; la frase sigue en la plana siguiente.

«whose motion all the rest revolve once in twenty-four hours, and that finally The LORD is He Who communicates motion to this outermost Sphere, which encloses all the rest, on the ground (say they) that plurality must be denied of Him.» — la continuación: el Señor es quien comunica el movimiento a esa esfera exterior, porque de Él ha de negarse la pluralidad.

«The onset of God’s epiphany came upon them with one rush, so that all that is apprehensible by the sight of» — la figura del acometimiento de la epifanía; el tramo se corta antes del folio impreso al pie de la plana.

«Sense or by the insight of Intelligence was by “the splendours of His Countenance utterly consumed”.» — la continuación en la plana siguiente: los esplendores del Rostro consumen cuanto abarcan la Vista y la Inteligencia.

«Yet, if you look carefully, you shall find that of them all not one falls outside the divisions which we have set forth. For, as we have shown, they must be veiled by their own human attributes or by the senses, imagination, discursive intelligence; or by pure light.» — el tratado reduce todas esas clases a sus divisiones ya expuestas: los atributos humanos, los sentidos, la imaginación, la inteligencia discursiva o la luz pura.

«This is what has occurred to me by way of answer to your interrogations, though, these came to me at a time when my thought was divided, and my mind preoccupied, and my attention given to other matters than this.» — el cierre del tratado, con su propia acotación: responde a las preguntas del destinatario en un momento de pensamiento dividido y atención puesta en otra cosa.

«May not my suggestion be, then, that you ask forgiveness for me for anything wherein my pen. has erred, or my foot has slipped?» — la petición de perdón con que el tratado se despide, por lo que haya errado la pluma o resbalado el pie.

«For ‘tis a, hazardous thing to plunge into the fathomless. sea of the divine mysteries; and hard, hard it is to essay the discovery of the Lights Supernal that are beyond the Veil.» — la última frase del tratado: es cosa azarosa zambullirse en el mar sin fondo de los misterios divinos y duro intentar el descubrimiento de las Luces Supernales tras el Velo.

«Such is our account of the classes of the veiled by the Veils; and it» — el tratado cierra la clasificación; la frase se corta en el cambio de plana.

«were not strange, if, after all these Stations were fully classified and the veils of the Pilgrims Mystical were fully studied, the number of classes were found to amount to Seventy Thousand.» — la continuación en la plana siguiente: clasificadas todas las Estaciones y estudiados los velos de los Peregrinos Místicos, no sería extraño que las clases llegaran a setenta mil.

«I HAVE greatly profited from hints, generously lavished in the course of correspondence, from Professors D.B. MACDONALD, R. NICHOLSON, and LOUIS MASSIGNON, in addition to recent works by the last two.» — el Acknowledgment de la plana 7, firmado por el traductor y no por Ghazali: Gairdner agradece la correspondencia de D.B. Macdonald, R. Nicholson y Louis Massignon, y sus trabajos recientes.

«My cordial thanks to these; and also to Professor D.S. MARGOLIOUTH for discussing with me some of the difficult points in the translation.» — el mismo Acknowledgment cierra agradeciendo a D.S. Margoliouth la discusión de puntos difíciles de la traducción: es la primera señal de que la plana 7 y la 9 son voz del traductor.

«I! AM so conscious that my general equipment was insufficient to warrant my having undertaken an introduction to this treatise (in addition to the translation), that my utmost hope is this, —that what I have written may be regarded by lenient Orientalists as something to elicit—provoke, if you will—the necessary supplementing and formative criticism; or as useful materials to be built into some more authoritative and better informed work: and that they may from this point of view be inclined to pardon what otherwise might seem an unwarrantable piece of rashness and indiscretion.» — la plana 9 va rotulada *AUTHOR'S PREFACE* y quien habla es Gairdner: se declara mal equipado para haber emprendido una introducción al tratado *además de la traducción* y pide de los orientalistas crítica formativa. El *I!* es la capitular que el escaneo corrompe.

«A still greater presumption remains to be forgiven, but this time on the ground of the great human simplicities, when I venture to inscribe this work, in spite of everything, to the beloved memory of IGNAZ GOWZIHER —that golden-hearted man—who in 1911 introduced me to the Mishkat;» — Gairdner dedica el trabajo a la memoria de Ignaz Goldziher, que lo introdujo al Mishkat en 1911; el troceo imprime el apellido *GOWZIHER*, corrupción del escaneo que se conserva dentro de la cita.

«and to join with:-his name that of DUNCAN BLACK MACDONALD who first introduced me to the Mishkat’s author.» — la segunda mitad de la dedicatoria: Duncan Black Macdonald, de quien Gairdner dice haber recibido la presentación del autor del Mishkat. El *:-* es basura de escaneo.

«As for the former, ...in Abraham’s bosom all things are forgiven. CAIRO July, 1923.» — la firma del prefacio del traductor, única fecha de la traducción que el troceo imprime; de aquí sale el `anio` del encabezado, y no del nombre del archivo.

«The references in square brackets are to the pages of the Cairo Arabic edition, and to the present English translation.» — Gairdner fija la convención del aparato: los números entre corchetes remiten a la edición árabe de El Cairo y a esta traducción inglesa, nunca a las planas del troceo.

«The Mishkat al-Anwar is numbered No. 34 in Brockelmann’s Geschichte der Arabischen Literatur (vol. i, p. 423). It was printed in Cairo (Matba ‘at as Sidq, A. H. 1322), to which edition the references in the present work are made.» — la primera nota de Gairdner declara de qué edición traduce: el número 34 de la Geschichte der Arabischen Literatur de Brockelmann y el impreso de El Cairo, Matba 'at as Sidq, del año A. H. 1322.

«There is another edition in a collection of five opuscules of Ghazzali under the title of the first of the five, Faisal al-Tafriqa.» — la misma nota registra una segunda edición del tratado dentro de una colección de cinco opúsculos de Ghazzali, titulada por el primero de ellos.

«THE MISHKAT AL-ANWAR{]1] is a work of extreme interest from the viewpoint of al-Ghazzali’s[2] inner life and esoteric thought. The glimpses it gives of that life and thought are remarkably, perhaps uniquely, intimate.» — Gairdner abre su introducción situando el tratado en la vida interior y el pensamiento esotérico de al-Ghazzali, y califica de únicos los atisbos que da; las llamadas de nota pegadas al texto son del escaneo.

«It begins where his autobiographical Al-Mungidh min al-Dalal[3] leaves off. Its esotericism excited the curiosity and even the suspicion of Muslim thinkers from the first, and we have deeply interesting allusions to it in Ibn Tufaill and Ibn Rushd,[4] the celebrated philosophers of Western Islam, who flourished within the century after al-Ghazzali’s death in 1111» — Gairdner enlaza el tratado con la autobiografía —*Al-Munqidh min al-Dalal*, que el troceo imprime *Al-Mungidh*— y data en 1111 la muerte de al-Ghazzali, cuyo esoterismo dice haber despertado desde el principio la curiosidad y la sospecha de los pensadores musulmanes.

«There is no way of fixing the Precise date of this treatise; but it falls among his later ones, perhaps among the latest; the most important hint we get from Ghazzali himself being that the book was written after his Magnum opus, the Ihya’al Ulam (p. [9]).» — el apartado I de la introducción: Gairdner niega que pueda fijarse la fecha exacta y sitúa el tratado entre los últimos de Ghazzali, apoyado en que el propio texto lo dice escrito después del Ihya'; la mayúscula de *Precise* y la grafía *Ihya'al Ulam* son del escaneo.

«The object of the opuscule is to expound a certain Koran verse and a certain Tradition.» — Gairdner enuncia el encargo del opúsculo: exponer un versículo del Corán y una Tradición.

«The former is the celebrated Light-Verse (S. 24, 35) and the latter the Veils-Tradition.» — Gairdner nombra las dos piezas: el Versículo de la Luz, sura 24, 35, y la Tradición de los Velos.

«It is divided into three sections, of which the first is considerably the longest.» — Gairdner describe la partición del tratado en tres secciones, la primera con mucho la más larga.

«In this first section he considers the word “light” itself, and its plural “lights,” as applied to physical light and lights; to the eye; to the intelligence (i.e. intellect or reason); to prophets; to supernal beings; and finally to Allah himself, who is shown to be not the only source of light and of these lights, but also the only real actual light in all existence.» — Gairdner resume la primera sección: el recorrido de la palabra *luz* desde la luz física hasta Allah, de quien dice que el tratado lo presenta no solo como fuente sino como la única luz real de cuanto existe.

«Symbols are shown to be no mere metaphors.» — la lectura que Gairdner hace de la segunda sección: en el tratado los símbolos no son meras metáforas.

«There is a real mystical nexus between symbol and symbolized, type and antitype, outer and inner.» — Gairdner formula el nexo que atribuye al tratado: un vínculo místico real entre símbolo y simbolizado, tipo y antitipo, exterior e interior.

«The symbols are infinitely numerous, very much more numerous than those mentioned in Koran, or Traditions.» — Gairdner señala que los símbolos del tratado exceden con mucho a los nombrados en el Corán y en las Tradiciones.

«Every object on earth “perhaps” has its correlative in the unseen, spiritual world.» — Gairdner recoge la reserva del propio Ghazzali —el *perhaps* va entrecomillado en el original— sobre que todo objeto terrestre tenga su correlato en el mundo invisible.

«This doctrine of symbols reminds us of the Platonic “ideas” and their earthly copies, and of the “patterns of things in the heavens” and “the example and shadow [on earth] of heavenly things” in the Epistle to the Hebrews.» — la comparación es de Gairdner, no del tratado: acerca la doctrina de los símbolos a las ideas platónicas y a los *patrones de las cosas en los cielos* de la Epístola a los Hebreos.

«A notable deduction is made from this doctrine, namely, the equal incumbency of keeping the outward letter (zahir) of the Law as well as its inner meaning (batin).» — Gairdner deriva de esa doctrina la obligación igual de guardar la letra externa de la Ley, *zahir*, y su sentido interno, *batin*.

«Nearly all the most advanced Siifis were zealous and Minutely scrupulous keepers of the ritual, ceremonial, and other prescriptions of the Sunna law, and Ghazzali here supplies a quasiphilosophical basis for this fidelity» — Gairdner sostiene que casi todos los sufíes más avanzados fueron guardadores escrupulosos de la ley de la Sunna y que Ghazzali les da aquí base cuasi filosófica; el troceo imprime *Siifis* y *Minutely* con mayúscula a media frase. El troceo parte *quasi-philosophical* al fin de renglón y la herramienta lo devuelve unido; la restitución es lectura propuesta, no letra de la fuente.

«In the third section the results of this symbology are applied to the Verse and Tradition in question. In the former the beautiful, and undeniably intriguing expressions of the Koran—the Light, the Niche, the Glass, the Oil, Tree, the East and the West—are explained» — Gairdner describe la tercera sección: la aplicación de la simbología a la Luz, el Nicho, el Vidrio, el Aceite, el Árbol, el Oriente y el Occidente del versículo.

«In the course of all this Ghazzali gives us, incidentally, much that excites our curiosity to the highest degree; though always, when we get to the crucial point, we meet a “perhaps,” or a patronizing allusion to the immaturity of his less-initiated reader.» — apartado II, *Mysteries Left Veiled in this Treatise*: Gairdner objeta que en el punto crucial el tratado ofrece un *perhaps* o una alusión condescendiente a la inmadurez del lector menos iniciado.

«Ghazzali’s hesitations—"it may be,” “perhaps”, etc.—are worthy of study in this treatise. They do not so much have the impression of hesitancy in his own mind, as of a desire to “fence” a little with his reader.» — Gairdner lee las vacilaciones del tratado no como duda del autor sino como esgrima con el lector; la mezcla de comilla recta y curva es del escaneo.

«He himself writes “incommunicable mystery”’ across a number of these passages.» — Gairdner señala que el propio Ghazzali rotula varios de esos pasajes como misterio incomunicable; el apóstrofo suelto tras la comilla es del escaneo.

«the mystic “state” of al-Hallaj, and other “inebriates,” and the expressions they emit in their mystic intoxication (p. [20]) —”behind which truths,” says Ghazzali, “also lie secrets which it is not lawful to enter upon”;» — Gairdner enumera entre los misterios velados el *estado* místico de al-Hallaj y el de otros *ebrios*, y cita a Ghazzali diciendo que tras esas verdades hay secretos en los que no es lícito entrar.

«the real explanation of the word tawhid, involving as it does the question of the reality of the universe and the nature of the soul’s union or identification with deity;» — otro de los misterios que Gairdner da por velados: la explicación verdadera de *tawhid*, con la cuestión de la realidad del universo y la de la unión o identificación del alma con la deidad.

«the nature of the Commander (al-Muta’) of the universe, and whether he be Allah or an ineffable supreme Vicegerent; who that Vicegerent is, and why it must be he and not Allah who performs the prime function of the cosmos-ruler, viz. the issue of the command for the moving of the primum mobile, whereby all the motions of the Heavenly (and the Sublunary) spheres are set a-going;» — el problema del Vicegerente tal como Gairdner lo plantea: quién es el Comandante del universo, si Allah o un Vicegerente supremo inefable, y por qué toca a ese y no a Allah emitir el mandato que mueve el *primum mobile*.

«and the final mystery of Allah-an-sich, a Noumenal Deity, in whose case transcendence is to be carried to such a pitch that gnosticism and agnosticism meet, and the validity of every possible or conceivable predication is denied, whether of act or attribute» — Gairdner nombra el último misterio velado con término alemán propio, *Allah-an-sich*: una deidad nouménica cuya trascendencia lleva a que gnosticismo y agnosticismo se toquen y se niegue la validez de toda predicación.

«all these things are incommunicable mysteries, secrets, from the revealing of which our author turns away at the exact moment when we expect the denouement.» — Gairdner cierra el apartado II con la objeción de que el autor se retira justo en el momento del desenlace.

«The art is supreme—but something more than tantalizing.» — el juicio que Gairdner emite sobre ese procedimiento, en su propia voz.

«On the whole it is the final section on the Veils-Tradition which, though really of the nature of an appendix, contains the most numerous and the most interesting problems for the study of @hazzali’s inner life, thought, and convictions.» — apartado III: Gairdner sostiene que la sección final sobre la Tradición de los Velos, pese a ser un apéndice, es la que más problemas ofrece para el estudio de la vida interior de Ghazzali; el troceo imprime *@hazzali's* con arroba por la G.

«This tradition speaks of “Seventy Thousand Veils of Light and Darkness” which veil pure Godhead from the human soul.» — el contenido de la Tradición según Gairdner: setenta mil velos de luz y de tiniebla entre la Divinidad pura y el alma humana.

«The origin of the tradition is, it is safe to hazard, Neoplatonic, and it therefore lent itself completely to the gnostic and theosophical mode of thought which so soon invaded Muslim Stfism» — Gairdner arriesga un origen neoplatónico para la Tradición y lo liga al modo gnóstico y teosófico de pensar que dice haber invadido el sufismo musulmán; el troceo imprime *Stfism*.

«According to this version, the soul, in its upward Seven-fold Way to Union with pure Deity, is at every stage stripped of 10,000 of these Veils, the dark ones first and then the bright.» — la versión que Gairdner atribuye a los derviches Rifai y a su propio libro anterior: en cada una de las siete etapas el alma se despoja de diez mil velos, primero los oscuros y luego los luminosos.

«Ghazzali’s treatment is different. According to him, these Veils are various according to the varieties of the natures which they veil from the One Real.» — Gairdner separa el tratamiento de Ghazzali del de esa versión: los velos varían según las naturalezas que velan de lo Uno Real.

«It is not the orthodox schoolman, the fierce dogmatist, the rigid mutakallim, who is now speaking.» — la lectura de Gairdner sobre quién habla en esa sección: no el escolástico ortodoxo ni el *mutakallim* rígido.

«We have the sensation of overhearing Ghazzali as he speaks aloud to his own soul, or to a circle of initiates. It is hardly less than an outline of a philosophy of religion with which we have to do.» — Gairdner describe el efecto de esa sección como el de escuchar a Ghazzali hablándole a su propia alma o a un círculo de iniciados, y la llama poco menos que un esbozo de filosofía de la religión.

«Ghazzali mentioned by him in this treatise are the Mi ar al-'Ilm, Mahakk al-Nazar, and al-Maqsad al-Asna.» — Gairdner enumera las otras obras de Ghazzali que el propio tratado nombra: el Mi ar al-'Ilm, el Mahakk al-Nazar y el al-Maqsad al-Asna; la frase arranca a mitad, porque *Other works of* queda en la plana anterior.

«Who were the adepts to whom he did communicate these thrilling secrets? Were these communications ever written down for or by his brother» — Gairdner cierra el apartado II preguntando a qué adeptos comunicó Ghazzali esos secretos y si alguna vez se pusieron por escrito; el tramo se corta antes del folio *ili* que el escaneo deja al pie de la plana.

«CONTENTS Acknowledgment Author’s Preface Translator’s Introduction I. Date, Object, and General Contents II. Mysteries Left Veiled in this Treatise Il. A Ghazzalian Philosophy of Religion IV. Ghazzali Problems Raised by the Foregoing V. The Problem of the Vicegerent in Ibn Rushd and Ibn Tufail VI. One Solution of the Problem of the Vicegerent VII. Another Solution VIII. Al-Ghazzali and the Seven Spheres IX. Anthropomorphism and Theomorphism in Al-Mishkat X. Pantheism and Al-Ghazzali, in Al-Mishkat» — el índice de la reimpresión, que da los diez apartados de la Translator's Introduction; el tercero sale impreso *Il.* por III y el cuarto pierde la preposición del título, corrupciones del escaneo que se conservan dentro de la cita.

«Part I. Light, and Lights: Preliminary Studies . “Light” as Physical Light; as the Eye; as the Intelligence . The Koran as the Sun of the Intelligence . The Worlds Visible and Invisible; with their Lights . These Lights as Lamps Terrestrial and Celestial: with their order and Grades» — el índice desglosa la Parte I del tratado en ocho apartados, de la luz física a Allah como fuente de todos los grados de luz; el troceo desordena la numeración de los apartados y la deja suelta al pie de la plana.

«Part II. The Science of Symbolism (i) The Outward and the Inward in Symbolism Type and Antitype 1. The Two Worlds: their Types and Antitypes 2. An Example of Symbolism, from the Story of Abraham in the Koran 3. Fundamental Examples of Symbolism: especially from the Story of Moses in the Koran 4. The Permanent Validity of the Outward and Visible Sign: an Example 5. Another Example of this Two-sided and Equal Validity of Outward and Inward (ii) The Psychology of the Human Soul: its Five Faculties or Spirits» — el índice de la Parte II: el simbolismo del exterior y el interior, cinco ejemplos tomados sobre todo de las historias de Abraham y de Moisés en el Corán, y la psicología del alma humana con sus cinco facultades.

«The Application to the Light-Verse and the Veils Tradition (i) The Exposition of the Symbolism of the Light-Verse 1. The Sensory Spirit 2. The Imaginative Spirit 3. The Intelligential Spirit 4 The Ratiocinative Spirit 5. The Transcendental Prophetic Spirit Epilogue: the “Darkness”-Verse (ii) The Exposition of the Symbolism of the Seventy Thousand Veils 1. Those veiled by Pure Darkness 2. Those veiled by mixed Light and Darkness (a) The darkness of the Senses (b) The darkness of the Imagination (c) The darkness of the (ratiocinative) Intelligence 3. Those veiled by Pure Light 4. The Goal of the Quest» — el índice de la Parte III: la exposición del simbolismo del Versículo de la Luz por cinco espíritus, el epílogo del Versículo de la Tiniebla, y la exposición de los setenta mil velos en sus tres clases hasta la meta de la búsqueda.

«He begins at the bottom and works up the light-ladder, rung by rung, to the very top, thus giving a gradation of human natures and human creeds in respect of their approach to absolute truth.» — Gairdner describe el método del tratado como una escalera de luz recorrida de abajo arriba, que gradúa naturalezas y credos humanos por su cercanía a la verdad absoluta.

«In the following summary Ghazzali’s own identifications are given between round brackets; inferred identifications certain or nearly certain, between square brackets.» — la convención con que Gairdner marca su propio trabajo dentro del resumen: entre paréntesis redondos las identificaciones del propio Ghazzali, entre corchetes las inferidas por él.

«Class I. —Those veiled with Veils of pure Darkness Atheists — (a) Naturist philosophers whose god is Nature, (b) Egotists whose god is Self. Subdivisions of (b):— (1) Seekers after sensual pleasures (the bestial attributes). (2) Seekers after dominion (“Arabs, some Kurds, and (the very numerous Fools”). (3) Seekers after filthy lucre (4) Seekers after vainglory» — la primera clase del resumen de Gairdner: ateos, repartidos entre los naturalistas cuyo dios es la Naturaleza y los egotistas cuyo dios es el Yo, con cuatro subdivisiones; el entrecomillado de los buscadores de dominio es cita del propio tratado dentro del esquema.

«A. Those whose Darkness Originates in the Senses (1) Image-worshippers. [Polytheists of the Hellenic (? and Indian) type.] (2) Worshippers of animate objects of physical beauty. (Some of the most remote Turkish tribes.) (3) Fire-worshippers. [Magians.] (4) Astrologizing Star-worshippers. [Star-worshippers of Harran: Sabians. | (5) Sun-worshippers (6) Light-worshippers, with their dualistic acknowledgement of a supreme correlative Darkness. (Zoroastrians of the cult of Ormuzd and Ahriman.)» — el primer tramo de la segunda clase: adoradores de imágenes, de objetos animados de belleza física, del fuego, de los astros, del sol y de la luz con su tiniebla correlativa; entre paréntesis van las identificaciones que Gairdner atribuye a Ghazzali y entre corchetes las suyas —politeístas helénicos, magos, sabeos de Harran, zoroastrianos—.

«B. Those whose Darkness Originates in the Imagination (who worship a One Being, sitting [spatially] on his throne) (1) Corporealists. [Extreme Hanbalites: Zahirites.] (2) Karramites. (3) Those who have eliminated all spatial ideas in regard to Allah except the literal “up-above”.» — el segundo tramo de la segunda clase, los velados por la imaginación: corporealistas, karramitas y quienes eliminan toda idea espacial sobre Allah salvo el *arriba* literal.

«Averroes adds to these (with justice) the Koran; Mohammed himself; the “Early Fathers”; al-Ash’ari; and the early Ash‘arites— before the time of Abul Ma’ali,” says Averroes, loc. cit. i.e. of al-Juwaini, The Imam al-Haramain, our author’s Shaikh, d. 478» — nota de Gairdner: Averroes añade a esa lista el Corán, a Mahoma, a los primeros Padres, a al-Ash'ari y a los primeros ash'aríes anteriores a al-Juwaini, el Imam al-Haramain, a quien Gairdner llama el maestro de su autor.

«For according to Ghazzali the genuine axiomata of the pure intelligence are infallible. See p. [10], and an_ important autobiographical passage near the beginning of the Mungidh» — otra nota de Gairdner, que acota el tercer tramo: para Ghazzali los axiomas genuinos de la inteligencia pura son infalibles, de modo que la tiniebla nace de la inteligencia discursiva y no de ella.

«(1) Anthropomorphists in respect of the Seven Attributes of Allah, “Hearing, Seeing,” etc., and especially the “Word” of Allah. (Those who said that the Word of Allah has letters and sounds like ours.)» — el tramo de los velados por la inteligencia discursiva: antropomorfistas respecto de los siete atributos y, sobre todo, de la Palabra de Allah, a la que atribuyen letras y sonidos como los nuestros.

«Class III.— Those veiled by pure Light [i.e. purged of all anthropomorphism (tashbih)] (1) Those whose views about the Attributes were sound, but who refused to define Allah by means of them: replying to the question “What is the Lord of the World?” by saying, “The Lord, who transcends the ideas of those attributes; He, the Mover and Orderer of the Heavens.”» — la tercera clase, purgada de todo antropomorfismo: los que tienen ideas sanas sobre los atributos pero se niegan a definir a Allah por ellos y lo llaman el Motor y Ordenador de los Cielos; el paréntesis *tashbih* es del resumen de Gairdner.

«(2) Those who mounted higher than the preceding, in declaring that Allah is the mover of only the primum mobile (the Ninth and outermost Heaven), which causes the movement of the other Eight, mediated by their respective Angels.» — el segundo grado de la tercera clase: quienes hacen a Allah motor únicamente del *primum mobile*, el noveno y más exterior cielo, que mueve a los otros ocho por medio de sus ángeles; el corchete de Gairdner apunta a los filósofos sufíes y, con interrogante, a al-Farabi.

«(3) Those who mount higher than these again, in putting a supreme Angel in place of Allah, Who now moves the heavens by commanding this supreme Angel, but not immediately by direct action.» — el tercer grado: quienes ponen un ángel supremo en lugar de Allah, que mueve los cielos mandando a ese ángel y no por acción directa. Gairdner apunta entre corchetes, con signo de admiración, al propio al-Ghazzali cuando habla *coram populo*.

«Class IV.— The Unveiled who Attain Those who will predicate nothing whatsoever of Allah, and refuse to allow that He even issues the order for the moving of the primum mobile. This Commander (Muta’) is now a Vicegerent, who is related to the Absolute Being as the sun to Essential Light or live coal to the Element of Fire.» — la cuarta clase en el resumen de Gairdner: los que nada predican de Allah y le niegan hasta la emisión de la orden de mover el *primum mobile*, con lo que el Comandante pasa a ser un Vicegerente relacionado con el Ser Absoluto como el sol con la Luz Esencial o la brasa con el Elemento del Fuego.

«(1) Adepts who preserve self-consciousness in their absorption in this Absolute, all else being effaced. (2) Adepts whose self-consciousness is also effaced (“the Fewest of the Few”) [al-Hallaj and the extreme Mystics], (a) who attain to this State with a single leap—as Abraham “al-Khalil” did, (b) who attain to it by stages, —as Mohammed “al-Habib” did» — los dos grados de la cuarta clase: adeptos que conservan la autoconciencia en la absorción y adeptos en quienes también se borra —*los menos de los pocos*, que Gairdner identifica entre corchetes con al-Hallaj y los místicos extremos—, estos últimos por salto único como Abraham o por etapas como Mahoma.

«The mere perusal of this graded scale of systems and of souls shows at once its extraordinary interest because of its revelation of Ghazzali’s innermost thought about these things, and because of the piquancy and difficulty of some of the problems raised.» — apartado IV: Gairdner declara que la escala graduada interesa por lo que revela del pensamiento más íntimo de Ghazzali y por la dificultad de los problemas que abre.

«(1) How is it that some reputable Moslems are grouped with Idolators and Dualists in the second division (“mixed light and dark”)?» — la primera de las once preguntas con que Gairdner define esos problemas: por qué hay musulmanes reputados agrupados con idólatras y dualistas en la segunda división.

«(2) How is it that Jews and Christians are neither mentioned nor alluded to in this rather full sketch for a philosophy of religion? And where could they have been fitted in if they had been mentioned?» — segunda pregunta de Gairdner: por qué judíos y cristianos no aparecen ni aludidos en un esbozo tan completo de filosofía de la religión, y dónde habrían cabido.

«(3) How is it that the later Ash/arites, the standard orthodox Theologians, are placed so low, viz. in the division where there are still veils of darkness?» — tercera pregunta: por qué los ash'aríes tardíos, teólogos ortodoxos por excelencia, quedan tan abajo, en la división donde aún hay velos de tiniebla; el troceo imprime *Ash/arites* con barra.

«(5) How is it that the most pious believers of the earliest and most venerated type come no higher than the lowest section of the third division?» — quinta pregunta de Gairdner: por qué los creyentes más piadosos del tipo más venerado no suben más allá de la sección más baja de la tercera división.

«(7) How is it that the various doctrines about the mode of this Moving of the Heavens is made the main if not the sole differentia of the (ascending) grades of this division, though in other works Ghazzali treats this very matter with marked coolness[2]? How is it that on this is explicitly said to turn the superiority of the schools of Sufi’s over the pious Believers, and the superiority of one school of Sufi’s over another?» — séptima pregunta: por qué el modo de mover los cielos se vuelve la diferencia principal entre los grados de esa división, cuando en otras obras Ghazzali trata el asunto con frialdad, y por qué de ahí se hace depender la superioridad de las escuelas sufíes sobre los creyentes piadosos.

«(8) How is it that this matter of Moving the Heavens is considered so particularly to threaten the Unity of Allah, and that that Unity is only saved when He is relieved from even the function of Commanding the (outermost) Heaven to be moved?» — octava pregunta de Gairdner: por qué mover los cielos se considera amenaza para la Unidad de Allah, salvada solo cuando se le releva incluso de la función de mandar que el cielo exterior se mueva.

«(9) And who is this Commander who thus commands, and who orders all things, and who is related to pure Being as the Sun to Elemental Light? And what was “the mystery (in this affair), the disclosure of which this book does not admit of”?» — novena pregunta, la del Vicegerente: quién es ese Comandante relacionado con el Ser puro como el Sol con la Luz Elemental, y cuál es el misterio cuya revelación el libro dice no admitir.

«(10) What becomes of a Deity of whom nothing whatsoever can even be said or predicated? And how, then, cana “relation” between Him and His Vicegerent be asserted, still more described as above? And how can this Unknowable, Unimaginable and Inconceivable be nevertheless “reached” by mystic souls?» — décima pregunta: qué queda de una Deidad de la que nada puede predicarse, cómo se afirma entonces una relación con su Vicegerente y cómo la alcanzan las almas místicas.

«(11) What was “the book” into which Ghazzali himself says he put all his esoteric teaching (Jawahir, p. 31); which he implores any into whose hands it may fall not to publish; which Ibn Tufail denies could have been this Mishkat (Hayy, ed. Gautier, pp. 13-15, trans. Gautier. pp. 12-14), nor any other of the supposed esoteric books that “had come to Andalus”?» — undécima pregunta: cuál era el libro en que Ghazzali dice haber puesto toda su enseñanza esotérica, que pide no publicar, y que Ibn Tufail niega que pudiera ser este Mishkat.

«(1) Ibn Rushd uses the passage to level at Ghazzali a direct accusation of gravest hypocritical insincerity over a matter which Ghazzali had ostentatiously singled out as the prime test of orthodoxy, namely.. the doctrine of emanation. According to Ibn Rushd the passage about the Vicegerent was the explicit teaching of this doctrine of the Philosophers, for which, elsewhere, Ghazzali can find no words strong enough to express his censure and contempt.» — Gairdner enuncia el cargo de Ibn Rushd: que el pasaje del Vicegerente enseña abiertamente la doctrina de la emanación que Ghazzali condena en otras partes, y que eso lo hace insincero justo en lo que él mismo declaró prueba de ortodoxia.

«“Then he comes on with his book known as Mishkat al-Anwar, and mentions therein all the grades of the Knowers of Allah; and says that all of them are veiled save those who believe that Allah is not the mover of the First Heaven, He being the One from Whom this mover of the First Heaven emanated: which is an open declaration on his part of the tenet of the philosophers’ schools in the science of theology; though he has said in several places that their science of theology (as distinct from their other sciences) is a set of conjectures.”» — las palabras de Ibn Rushd traducidas por Gairdner: la voz es de Ibn Rushd, no de Ghazzali ni del traductor. Sostiene que el Mishkat declara velados a todos salvo a quienes creen que Allah no es el motor del Primer Cielo sino Aquel de quien ese motor emana.

«It is not within the scope of this Introduction to follow in detail the evidence for and against the truth of this radical accusation. This has been done at length and with considerable minuteness in the monograph in Der Islam, which has already been cited (pp. 133-145). The reader must be referred to that; and it must suffice here to say that after the full consideration of all the evidence the verdict given there. is Not Guilty.» — Gairdner declara fuera del alcance de la introducción el examen de esa acusación, remite a su monografía en *Der Islam* y adelanta el veredicto que allí da, *Not Guilty*.

«On the other hand, the existence of an esoteric doctrine in regard to this Vicegerent and his function is undeniable (and undenied); and it is clear, from the comparison of the Mishkat itself with the Mungidh, that that doctrine differed vitally from the one professed by Ghazzali exoterically» — en la misma frase Gairdner sostiene lo contrario para la doctrina misma: la existencia de una enseñanza esotérica sobre el Vicegerente le parece innegable y distinta de la que Ghazzali profesaba en público.

«himself, in a passage of remarkable candour,|1] admits that every “Perfect” man has three sets of opinions (madhahib), (a) those of his own environment, (b) those he teaches to inquirers according as they are able to receive them, and (c) those which he believes in secret between himself and Allah, and never mentions except to an inner circle of friends or students.» — Gairdner cita otra obra de Ghazzali, el *Mizan al 'Amal*, para el reparto de opiniones del hombre *Perfecto*: las de su ambiente, las que enseña a los que preguntan según lo que pueden recibir, y las que guarda entre él y Allah.

«Ibn Rushd’s accusation was an attempt to identify the figure of the Vicegerent, al-Muta’ with that of Al Mala] al Awwal, the First Caused, in the emanational scheme of the Neoplatonizing[1] philosophers of Islam, with al-Farabi and Ibn Sina at their head. This was the Demiurge, the Being who first emanates from the Absolute Being, and mediates between It and all the lower stages or relational existence, with their increasing limitedness and grossness, thus relieving the predicateless Absolute from all part in the creation or administration of the universe.» — Gairdner explica el cargo de Ibn Rushd como intento de identificar al Vicegerente con el Primer Causado del esquema emanatista de los filósofos neoplatonizantes del islam, con al-Farabi e Ibn Sina a la cabeza: el Demiurgo que releva al Absoluto de toda parte en la creación.

«of pure darkness; those veiled with veils of mixed darkness and light; those veiled with veils of pure light; and those who attain to the vision of the Unveiled.» — las cuatro clases del esquema de Gairdner, ya en la plana siguiente: velados por tiniebla pura, por tiniebla y luz mezcladas, por luz pura, y los que alcanzan la visión sin velo. El arranque de la frase —*He divides mankind into four classes: those veiled with veils*— queda en la plana anterior.

«Every line of this part of the work merits and requires the closest study. It is not possible to give this detailed» — Gairdner declara que cada línea de esa parte merece el estudio más cerrado; la frase sigue en la plana siguiente.

«study here—it has been given elsewhere, and to that the reader must be referred.» — la continuación: Gairdner remite al lector a su estudio publicado en otro sitio, que las notas identifican como *The Moslem World* de 1912 y *Der Islam* de 1914.

«But a summary of Ghazzali’s classification of souls and creeds may be given here, for thus, even more effectively than by an extended study, may a vivid preliminary appreciation be gained of the importance of this section for students of the Ghazzali problem.» — Gairdner justifica el resumen de la clasificación de almas y credos como vía más eficaz que un estudio extenso para apreciar la importancia de esa sección.

«After this it will cause no surprise that it is this figure of the Vicegerent (al-Muta’ .. . alladhi amara bi tahrik il-samawat) who» — Gairdner abre el apartado V con la figura del Vicegerente, que nombra con la fórmula árabe del propio tratado; la frase sigue en la plana siguiente.

«excited the curiosity and suspicion of thinkers in the century after Ghazzali’s death. The passage is at least twice singled out, once by Ibn Rushd in the treatise already cited, and once by Ibn Tufail in his Hayy ibn Yaqzan.» — la continuación: Gairdner señala que ese pasaje lo entresacan al menos dos veces, Ibn Rushd en el tratado ya citado e Ibn Tufail en el *Hayy ibn Yaqzan*.

«There can be no doubt that whatever Ghazzali’s doctrine of the Vicegerent was, and whatever else his esoteric doctrine contained, the emanational theory formed no part of that doctrine. For this particular piece of pseudo-metaphysics he appears to have had a very particular dislike and contempt;» — Gairdner niega que la teoría emanatista formara parte de la doctrina esotérica de Ghazzali, y le atribuye a este una aversión particular por esa pieza de pseudometafísica.

«and if Ibn Rushd was really serious in levelling his accusation he can hardly be acquitted of being blinded by his bitter prejudice against “AbG Hamid”.» — Gairdner objeta el cargo de Ibn Rushd atribuyéndolo a prejuicio amargo contra Abu Hamid; el troceo imprime el nombre *AbG Hamid* con G por la u.

«The only possible ground for Ibn Rushd’s accusation which I have been able to discover is as follows:—it is a fact that the extreme (ghulat) Imamites did identify al-RGh “The Spirit of Allah” with the First Emanation» — Gairdner ofrece el único fundamento que dice haber hallado para el cargo: que los imamíes extremos, los *ghulat*, sí identificaban al Espíritu de Allah con la Primera Emanación.

«If, as is contended hereafter, Ghazzali identified al-Muta’ with Al-Rah, and Ibn Rushd was aware of this,» — el paso siguiente del razonamiento de Gairdner: si Ghazzali identificó al-Muta' con al-Ruh e Ibn Rushd lo sabía, pudo suponer de ahí la Primera Emanación; el troceo imprime *al-Rah* y *al-RGh* por al-Ruh.

«We now pass to the other criticism of the passage, by Ibn Rushd’s contemporary Ibn Tufail, in the introduction to his philosophical romance entitled Hayy Ibn Yaqzan.» — Gairdner pasa a la segunda crítica del pasaje, la de Ibn Tufail en la introducción a su romance filosófico *Hayy Ibn Yaqzan*.

«“Some later writers[3] have fancied they have found something tremendous in that passage of his that occurs at the end of al-Mishkat, which (they think) impales Ghazzali on a dilemma from which there is no escape. I mean where, after speaking of the various degrees of the Light-Veiled, and then going on to speak of the true Attainers, he tells us that these Attainers have discovered that this Existing One possesses an attribute which negates unmitigated Unity; insisting that it necessarily follows from this that Ghazzali believed that the Absolute Being has within His Essence some sort of plurality: which God forbid!”» — las palabras de Ibn Tufail traducidas por Gairdner: la voz es de Ibn Tufail. Recoge el dilema que otros creen ver en el final del Mishkat —que los Alcanzadores hallan en el Existente un atributo que niega la Unidad sin mezcla— y rechaza la consecuencia de que el Ser Absoluto tenga pluralidad en su Esencia.

«It seems to have escaped the critics quoted by Ibn Tufail, that the Unveiled, according to Ghazzali himself, abandoned the position of the last of the Light-Veiled just because of this dread, viz. that the identification of al-Muta with Allah would endanger “the unmitigated Unity” of Deity.» — la lectura de Gairdner: a los críticos que cita Ibn Tufail se les escapa que los Sin Velo abandonan la posición de los últimos Velados de Luz justamente por ese temor, el de que identificar a al-Muta' con Allah pusiera en riesgo la Unidad sin mezcla.

«Ibn Tufail himself, though he admits the serious contradictions which appear in GhazzAli’s books, flatly refuses to see in this passage anything so monstrous, or anything sinister at all.» — Gairdner consigna que Ibn Tufail admite las contradicciones serias de los libros de Ghazzali y aun así se niega a ver nada monstruoso ni siniestro en este pasaje; el troceo imprime *GhazzAli's* con A mayúscula.

«Unfortunately he does not give us his own exegesis of the passage; but it may perhaps be inferred from his own schematization of the grades of being. In this he makes elaborate use of the schema of reflectors, and reflectors of reflectors, which Ghazzali has already suggested in this book (pp. [15, 16]). “The essences of the Intelligences of the Spheres” are represented as successive, graded reflections of the Divine Essence.» — Gairdner señala que Ibn Tufail no da su propia exégesis y la infiere de su esquema de espejos y reflejos de reflejos, ya sugerido en este libro, donde las esencias de las Inteligencias de las Esferas son reflejos graduados de la Esencia Divina.

«The highest of them is not the essence of the One Real nor is he the Sphere itself, nor is he other than both. He is, as it were, the image of the sun which appears in a polished mirror; for that image is neither the sun, nor the mirror, nor other than them both.”» — la fórmula de Ibn Tufail traducida por Gairdner: lo más alto no es la esencia de lo Uno Real ni la Esfera ni otra cosa que ambas, como la imagen del sol en un espejo pulido no es ni el sol ni el espejo ni otra cosa que los dos.

«It is probable that Ibn Tufail, who professed to have won through to his position after studying al-Ghazzali and Ibn Sina (the juxtaposition is singular!), would have more or less equated this conception of the highest Essence of the Intelligences of the Spheres with the conception of al-Muta’ in the Mishkat, though he says nothing about the business of Heaven-moving in relation to this Being.» — conjetura de Gairdner: que Ibn Tufail, que decía haber llegado a su posición estudiando a al-Ghazzali y a Ibn Sina, habría equiparado esa Esencia suprema con al-Muta' del Mishkat, aunque nada dice del movimiento de los cielos.

«It need not follow that al-Ghazzali would have accepted this explanation[1]; though both men were evidently striving equally to avoid a total pantheism, and both disbelieved in the emanational theory as taught by al-Farabi and Ibn Sina.» — Gairdner acota su propia conjetura: no se sigue que al-Ghazzali hubiera aceptado esa explicación, aunque a los dos hombres les atribuye el mismo esfuerzo por evitar un panteísmo total y la misma incredulidad ante la teoría emanatista de al-Farabi e Ibn Sina.

«In the absence of “the book” into which Ghazzali put these secret opinions, or inconceivable mysteries, including, we may suppose, the secret of this mysterious Vicegerent, we are not likely to reach any authoritative settlement of the question: nor, even if we be put on the right track, clear up the whole of the mystery.» — apertura del apartado VI: Gairdner declara improbable un arreglo autoritativo de la cuestión mientras falte el libro donde Ghazzali puso sus opiniones secretas.

«For want of direct help from our author, therefore, the only thing to be done is to examine minutely al-Mishkat itself, to see if it yields any indirect help. It would seem that from this examination two possible solutions emerge. In this section the first of these will be discussed.» — Gairdner enuncia el método que le queda: examinar el Mishkat mismo en busca de ayuda indirecta, de donde dice que salen dos soluciones posibles.

«According to the developed doctrine, this Qutb was an earthly Mystic of supremest attainment, who during his lifetime administered the affairs of the heavens and the earth. There was nothing about him, during his lifetime, to suggest to any observer that he was, engaged in so stupendous a task, and it was not known till after his death that he had been “the Axis of his time” (qutbu zamanihi).» — la doctrina del Qutb tal como Gairdner la resume: un místico terrestre de logro supremo que administraba en vida los asuntos de los cielos y de la tierra sin que nada lo delatara, y que solo tras su muerte se sabía *Eje de su tiempo*.

«The beginnings of this doctrine go back far beyond al-Ghazzali—a rudimentary form of it was held by even the ultra-orthodox Hanbalites,[1] and a developed form of the conception is expressed quite definitely in al-Hujwiri’s Kashf al-Mahjab,[2] and must have been widely held, in orthodox circles too, in the fifth century, at the close of which our treatise was written.» — Gairdner data el arranque de la doctrina del Qutb muy antes de al-Ghazzali, con forma rudimentaria entre los hanbalíes ultraortodoxos y desarrollada en el *Kashf al-Mahjub* de al-Hujwiri, difundida en el siglo quinto.

«Moreover, at least from the time of al-Hallaj, to whom, as we shall see, our author in. this treatise refers in terms by no means of repudiation, the very word under discussion, al-Muta or some other form of the same verb, occurs in significant connexion with supreme sainthood.» — Gairdner añade que desde al-Hallaj la palabra misma, *al-Muta'*, aparece ligada a la santidad suprema, y adelanta que el tratado se refiere a al-Hallaj en términos que no son de repudio.

«One of the accusations levelled against al-Hallaj was that he taught that “having attained to sainthood the Adept becomes al-Muta’ he who says to a thing ‘Be!’ and it becomes”.» — la acusación contra al-Hallaj según Gairdner: que enseñaba que el Adepto, alcanzada la santidad, se vuelve el Obedecido que dice a una cosa *¡Sé!* y la cosa es.

«It sounds startling enough, but it was a true accusation, though it has to be taken in connexion with the whole of Hallaj’s philosophy of mystical union with the Divine.» — Gairdner da por cierta la acusación y a la vez la acota: solo vale tomada dentro de la filosofía entera de la unión mística de Hallaj.

«For he did definitely adopt from a predecessor, Ibn ‘Iyad, the aphorism “Man ata’a Allaha ata’ahu kullu shay’”,[3] an aphorism which received a later redaction (quite in the spirit of Hallaj, as has been shown), “man hudhdhiba ... fa yasiru muta’an, yaqulu lish shay’i ‘Kun’ fa yaktn,” “He who has passed through the mystic askesis becomes Obeyed; he says to this or that, ‘Be!’ and it is.”» — Gairdner remonta el aforismo a Ibn 'Iyad y da su redacción posterior con la transliteración árabe dentro de la cita: quien ha pasado por la ascesis mística se vuelve Obedecido y dice a esto o aquello *¡Sé!*.

«Since then al-Hallaj did so teach, and did use this very word, and since al-Ghazzali in this treatise betrays a very considerable admiration of al-Hallaj, and a sort of tremulous half-assent to his wildest utterances, including the notorious “Ana-l Haqq” itself, it would seem that a strong prima-facie case has been made out for identifying the Muta’ of our treatise, in spite of the cosmic nature of his functions, with some supreme Adept. But only a prima-facie case.» — Gairdner reconoce una presunción fuerte a favor de identificar al Muta' con un Adepto supremo, por la admiración del tratado hacia al-Hallaj y su medio asentimiento tembloroso al *Ana-l Haqq*, y la deja en presunción.

«To make out the thesis itself, the treatise itself must be interrogated; for it by no means follows that because a Hallaj held an opinion a Ghazzali adopted it.» — el límite que Gairdner se pone: que Hallaj sostuviera una opinión no implica que Ghazzali la adoptara, y el tratado hay que interrogarlo por sí mismo.

«The description of the adventures of a soul in highest state of Union (Mish., p. [24]) tends to bear out the Identification, or the general idea underlying it. The person there described is a supreme Adept, and in particular al-Hallaj himself. Having reached Union with the One divine Real, he ascends in and with Him “to the throne of the Divine Unity and from thenceforth administers the Command throughout His (or ‘his,’ for in this extraordinary passage the pronouns remain the same throughout) storied Heavens.”» — la primera de las tres pruebas que Gairdner reúne: el pasaje del alma en unión suprema, que asciende con lo Uno Real al trono de la Unidad Divina y desde ahí administra el Mandato. Gairdner advierte entre paréntesis que en ese pasaje los pronombres no distinguen entre Él y él.

«The words translated “administers the Command”, yudabbiru-! amr, are remarkable, for they contain an Arabic word (amr) which, as we shall see presently, is to the last degree significant, being the very word used in the Muta’ passage (p. [55]), where Ghazzali confesses it is an obscure mystery.» — Gairdner subraya que la expresión traducida *administra el Mandato* contiene *amr*, la misma palabra del pasaje del Muta' que el propio Ghazzali declara misterio oscuro.

«The words yudabbiru-l] amr could no doubt be translated in a less significant way, Owing to the troublesome double meaning of amr, (“affair,” “command”), namely, “he disposes things.” But in view of the fact that this amr was a notable Safi term, and a mysterious problem alluded to by Ghazzali in this very treatise, it seems inevitable to take it as “command” here. And a “Command” necessitates an “Obeyed”.» — Gairdner admite la traducción menos significativa de *amr* —*dispone las cosas*— y sostiene la otra por ser *amr* término sufí notable, con el paso que le importa: un Mandato exige un Obedecido.

«(2) On p. [23], where the reference throughout is purely general, and presumably applies to anyone who has the necessary qualifications and attains this supreme mystical “state”, Ghazzali says that when the mystic Ascent is complete, “if there be indeed any change, it is by way of ‘the Descent into the Lowest Heaven’, the radiation from above downwards.”» — la segunda prueba: un pasaje general donde el tratado dice que, completado el Ascenso, el cambio es por vía del Descenso al Cielo más bajo, la radiación de arriba abajo.

«This also suggests supreme divine activity in the Universe below, especially if the word ishraq refers, as it probably does, to causative activity.» — la lectura que Gairdner hace de ese pasaje, marcada con su propia reserva: actividad divina suprema en el universo de abajo, si *ishraq* remite a actividad causativa.

«(3) On pp. [13, 14] occurs another passage which strongly supports the general identification, though it leaves its particular and personal reference still obscure. In this the adepts, who in their mystical Ascent (mi raj) “attained to that supreme attainment”, are said to be “the Prophets”, who “from thence looked down upon the entire World Invisible [precisely the world of the Heavens]; for he who is in the world of the Realm Supernal is which Allah, and hath the keys of the Unseen. I mean that from where he is descend the causes of existing things; for the world of sense is one of the effects of yonderworld of causes”, etc.» — la tercera prueba: los adeptos que en su *mi'raj* alcanzaron lo supremo son llamados los Profetas, que miran desde ahí el Mundo Invisible entero y tienen las llaves de lo Oculto, porque de donde ellos están descienden las causas de las cosas existentes. El troceo parte *yonder-world* al fin de renglón y la herramienta lo devuelve unido; la restitución es lectura propuesta, no letra de la fuente.

«This looks almost like a reasoned, philosophic doctrine behind the mystical one, that to attain to the world of Reality is ipso facto to attain to the fount of causation; which involves the ability to direct the Causes which control all the Effects in the Heavens below and the Earth beneath. The Vicegerent does no more than this.» — Gairdner infiere una doctrina filosófica detrás de la mística: alcanzar el mundo de la Realidad es alcanzar la fuente de la causación, con la facultad de dirigir las Causas de los Cielos y de la Tierra, que es cuanto hace el Vicegerente.

«A close scrutiny of these passages leaves, one, nevertheless, with the impression that the Adepts whose celestial adventures are there described are too generalized, or perhaps one should say too pluralized, to be identifiable with this single, solitary figure of al» — la objeción que Gairdner se pone a sí mismo: los adeptos de esos pasajes le resultan demasiado generalizados o pluralizados para identificarlos con la figura solitaria de al-Muta'; el nombre se corta al pie de la plana.

«This solution, which was first suggested to the writer by the distinguished French Orientalist, M. Louis Massignon, identifies the» — Gairdner acredita la primera solución al orientalista francés Louis Massignon; la frase sigue en la plana siguiente y el tramo se corta antes del folio *XiV*.

«mysterious figure of this Vicegerent, al-Muta’, with the Qutb (“Axis”) or some other Supreme Adept.» — la continuación: esa solución identifica al Vicegerente con el Qutb, el *Eje*, o con algún otro Adepto Supremo.

«words suggest a further consideration which in itself seems fatal to the proposed identification; namely, that al-Muta’ was Vicegerent from the very foundation of the world; he is the one “who commanded the Heavens to be moved” (p. [55, 1. 12]). No Hallaj, no Adept, no Qutb, no Prophet even, ever claimed, or had claimed for him, such priority as this,» — la objeción que Gairdner da por decisiva contra la solución del Qutb: el tratado hace al Muta' Vicegerente desde la fundación del mundo, y ninguna prioridad semejante reclamó nunca ningún Hallaj, Adepto, Qutb ni Profeta; la frase arranca a mitad porque *And these last four* queda en la plana anterior.

«But if not, none of them—and, if so, no terrestrial being at all—can claim to fill the role of this Vicegerent. The three passages were probably intended only to assert and account for the karamat of the Saints in their wonderworking which was parallel to that of the Koranic Jesus» — Gairdner concluye que ningún ser terrestre puede llenar el papel del Vicegerente, y lee los tres pasajes como afirmación de los *karamat* de los santos, paralelos a los del Jesús coránico. El troceo parte *wonder-working* al fin de renglón y la herramienta lo devuelve unido; la restitución es lectura propuesta, no letra de la fuente.

«The a-priori question of our author’s attitude to the Qutb doctrine— whether, consistently with his published writings, he could have sustained such a doctrine in this work—is one which can only be indicated here. Professors R. Nicholson and D.S. Macdonald have both communicated to the writer, in reference to the passage under discussion, their opinion that there is an a-priori impossibility.» — Gairdner consigna que Nicholson y Macdonald le comunicaron por carta su opinión de que hay imposibilidad a priori en atribuir a Ghazzali la doctrina del Qutb; el troceo imprime *D.S. Macdonald* donde el Acknowledgment imprimió *D.B. MACDONALD*.

«To al-Ghazzali the doctrine was tainted with Imamism, his special bete noire (see his attack on the Ta’limites in his Mungidh;[2] that since an omnipotent. Administrator must also be an infallible Guide (whom Ghazzali would not have at any price), there is no room for the former in Ghazzali’s thought (thus Professor Macdonald). If the Muta is not Mohammed, he is certainly no Saint (thus Professor Nicholson).» — los dos argumentos ajenos que Gairdner resume con su firmante: para Macdonald, un Administrador omnipotente sería también Guía infalible, cosa que Ghazzali no aceptaría a ningún precio; para Nicholson, si el Muta' no es Mahoma no es santo alguno.

«Be this as it may, the above considerations, drawn from the study of the text itself, and from the passages which prima facie seemed to point to the Qutb-Muta’ identification, seem finally, when more closely examined, to rule that identification out.» — Gairdner cierra el apartado VI negando la identificación del Muta' con el Qutb a partir del estudio del texto mismo.

«But there are other passages in our treatise which, when carefully studied, lead to the belief that in Ghazzali’s own mind—though the identification is nowhere explicitly stated or significantly hinted — the Muta’ is none than al-Rah, THE SPIRIT OF ALLAH.» — la tesis del apartado VII, con su límite dentro: Gairdner sostiene que el Muta' no es otro que al-Ruh, el Espíritu de Allah, y reconoce a la vez que la identificación no está enunciada ni insinuada en ninguna parte del tratado; el troceo imprime *al-Rah*.

«Nicholson. The Idea of Personality in Safism, pp. 44, 45. The identification had occurred independently to the present writer before appearance of Professor Nicholson’s work. It had also occurred independently to Professor D. B. Macdonald.» — nota de Gairdner sobre la propiedad de la tesis: dice habérsele ocurrido antes de aparecer el trabajo de Nicholson, y que también a Macdonald por su cuenta. El troceo imprime *Safism* por Sufism.

«In S. 17, 87, Mohammed himself had left this enigmatic entity as a divinely uncommunicated, and therefore incommunicable, mystery. The passage runs as follows: “They ask thee of The Spirit: say, The Spirit pertains to my Lord’s Word-of-Command, and ye have not been communicated knowledge [of It] save a little.”» — Gairdner remonta el enigma a la sura 17, 87, donde el Espíritu queda declarado misterio no comunicado: pertenece a la Palabra-de-Mandato del Señor y del conocimiento de ello solo se ha comunicado poco.

«The Arabic of the words italicized is min amri rabbi; and we are again faced, at the outset, with the troublesome double meaning of the word amr. The phrase min amr might merely mean—perhaps did only mean—"a matter of’[1] (my Lord’s), a vague phrase, common in Arabic, meaning “something that pertains to” so and so.» — Gairdner señala el doble sentido de *amr* en la frase árabe *min amri rabbi*, que podría no pasar de la vaga fórmula *asunto de*.

«But in a case like this, we are not concerned with what Mohammed may originally have meant, but what mystic writers have taken him to mean. And enormously though this verse attracted puzzled, and_ baffled commentators and mystics of all ages, the latter seem to have taken the word amr, with practical unanimity, in the far more significant sense of “Command”.» — el desplazamiento que Gairdner declara: no le interesa lo que Mahoma pudo querer decir sino lo que los místicos entendieron, y estos tomaron *amr* casi por unanimidad como Mandato.

«A mystery having been definitely started by this text, a haze of mystification was thrown over the entire subject of “spirit”: over angels as “spirits”, over the human “spirit”, the prophetic “spirit”; the interrelation between these, and the relation of all to “the Spirit”; finally Its relation to Allah. In our treatise there is a full measure of this mystification.» — Gairdner describe el efecto del versículo: una bruma sobre el asunto entero del espíritu —los ángeles, el espíritu humano, el profético, el Espíritu— de la que dice que el tratado trae medida cumplida.

«“The Spirit” is ar-Ruh. With this may be absolutely identified Rah Allah “The Spirit of God”; Rahuhu “His Spirit’; and al-Rahu-l Qudsi[1] (or RGhu-!l Qudsi) “The Transcendent Spirit” —all Koranic expressions.» — Gairdner reúne bajo una misma identificación las expresiones coránicas del Espíritu, con las transliteraciones tal como el escaneo las imprime.

«This is the Arabic for the Christian “The Holy Spirit”. But in Arabic as in early Hebrew the word emphasized the idea of separation or transcendence rather than of righteousness or holiness.» — nota de Gairdner que acota la equivalencia con el Espíritu Santo cristiano: en árabe y en hebreo antiguo la palabra subrayaba la separación o la trascendencia, no la santidad.

«What then are the considerations which suggest that we have in this Figure of Mystery the key to the mystery of the Vicegerent? On this supposition there would be no wonder that Ghazzali left the figure of the latter a mystery, and declined to divulge the secret of it [p.55].» — Gairdner enuncia la pregunta del apartado y adelanta el rendimiento de su hipótesis: explicaría por qué Ghazzali dejó al Vicegerente en misterio y se negó a divulgarlo.

«He could not divulge the whole secret, because by the decree of Allah and the Book, he could not know it himself—”save a little.” And, there is no wonder he declined to discuss it, considering the interminable complexities and baffling obscurities of the recorded musings of Sufi doctors on the theme.» — las dos razones que Gairdner atribuye a esa negativa: que por decreto de Allah y del Libro no podía saberlo entero, y las complejidades interminables de las cavilaciones de los doctores sufíes sobre el tema.

«The text 87, 23, is not definitely cited in Mishkat; and in later Islam the commentators, with their arid tameness, made a stereotyped identification of this Figure with the Angel Gabriel.» — Gairdner consigna que el texto no se cita expresamente en el Mishkat y que los comentaristas posteriores identificaron esa Figura con el ángel Gabriel; el troceo imprime la sura como *87, 23* donde antes la dio como 81, 23.

«But the Koran gives no warrant for this; and there is nothing in the Mishkat to show that Ghazzali thus taught. On the contrary, Gabriel is assigned a low place in the angelic hierarchy.» — Gairdner objeta esa identificación: el Corán no la autoriza, el Mishkat no la enseña y en él Gabriel ocupa un lugar bajo en la jerarquía angélica.

«No one can read those two Koranic passages (in S. 87 and S. 53) without feeling that Mohammed’s awful visitant on those two occasions was the One of absolute supreme rank in the heavenlies: not a spirit but the Spirit.» — la lectura de Gairdner sobre el visitante de Mahoma: no un espíritu sino el Espíritu, de rango supremo absoluto en lo celeste.

«And It was muta’ —”one who is obeyed.” Is it not but a very short step from this to al-Muta’, The Obeyed-One?» — el paso final de la conjetura de Gairdner, formulado como pregunta: de *muta'*, *uno que es obedecido*, a al-Muta', el Obedecido.

«The identification, however attractive, would nevertheless be precarious if there was not so much in the Mishkat itself that supports this identification.» — Gairdner declara precaria la identificación si no la sostuviera el Mishkat mismo, y anuncia los pasajes que va a alegar.

«(1) On p. [15] the ultimate kindling-place of the graded Lights, of which the Prophets occupy the lower and terrestrial ranks and the Angelic Beings the higher and celestial, is the theme of discussion. Both these ranks of beings are compared to “lights” and all of them are contrasted with the Highest of all, who is compared to “fire”, from whose flame these graded lights are successively lit, from top to bottom.» — el primer pasaje alegado: la jerarquía de luces graduadas, con los profetas en los rangos terrestres bajos y los seres angélicos en los celestes, todos encendidos desde el fuego del más alto.

«Who and what is this Highest of all next to Allah? He is said to be an Angel with countenances seventy thousand’... This is he who is contrasted with all the angelic host, in the words: ‘On that day whereon THE SPIRIT ariseth, and the Angels, rank on rank.”» — Gairdner cita el tratado para el más alto después de Allah: un ángel de setenta mil rostros, contrastado con la hueste angélica entera en la frase coránica del día en que el ESPÍRITU se alza y los ángeles en filas.

«It is thus explicitly clear that this Being is the highest of all possible beings in heaven or earth next to Allah; and so, if the Vicegerent of p. [55] is also the highest of all, it would seem inevitable to equate them.» — Gairdner cierra el primer apoyo: si ese Ser es el más alto de todos después de Allah y el Vicegerente también lo es, la equiparación le parece inevitable.

«(2) In the very next page, p. [16], Ghazzali schematizes this conception, and, comparing Allah with the Sun (the source of light in the terrestrial system), he compares the highest of the ministrant lights to the Moon (all others being reflections, or reflections-ofreflections, of it).» — el segundo apoyo: el esquema del tratado que compara a Allah con el Sol, la más alta de las luces ministrantes con la Luna, y todas las demás con reflejos o reflejos de reflejos. El troceo parte *reflections-of-reflections* al fin de renglón y la herramienta lo devuelve unido; la restitución es lectura propuesta, no letra de la fuente.

«This “Highest is the one who is nearest to the Ultimate Light: . . . that Nighest to Allah, he whose rank comes» — la cita que Gairdner toma de esa plana para el Altísimo más cercano a la Luz Última; la frase sigue en la plana siguiente y el tramo se corta antes del folio.

«nighest to the Presence Dominical, which is the Fountainhead of all these Lights” This “Nighest” and “Highest” cannot be other than THE SPIRIT spoken of in the preceding page.» — la continuación y el paso de Gairdner: ese Cercanísimo y Altísimo no puede ser otro que el ESPÍRITU de la plana anterior.

«And on p. [31]—unless Ghazzali has suddenly changed all the symbols—the Sun is said to be the Sovereign, while “the antitype of the Moon will be that Sovereign’s Minister (wakil), for it is through the moon that the sun sheds his light on the world in its own absence, and even so it is through his own wakil that the Sovereign makes his influence felt by subject who never beheld the royal person”.» — el tercer tramo del segundo apoyo, con la reserva de Gairdner por delante: en otro lugar del tratado el Sol es el Soberano y el antitipo de la Luna es su Ministro, el *wakil*, por quien el Soberano se hace sentir de súbditos que nunca lo vieron.

«Does not this wakil who stands “highest and nighest” to his Liege-Lord, and who makes himself obeyed by all that Lord’s subjects, strongly suggest “the Obeyed One”, al-Muta’, the Vicegerent of the conclusion, whose function is, precisely, this?» — Gairdner formula como pregunta el enlace entre el *wakil* y al-Muta', el Obedecido del final del tratado.

«(3) But what perhaps clinches the matter is the tell-tale word amr in that passage about al-Muta’ himself on p. [55]. Those who stopped short of complete illumination, he says, identified al-Muta’ with Allah just because he moves the primum mobile (and so all things) “with his Word of Command” (amr). “The explication of which amr (he continues), and what it really is, contains much that is obscure, and too difficult for most minds, besides going beyond the scope of this book.”» — el tercer apoyo: quienes se quedaron a mitad de la iluminación identificaron a al-Muta' con Allah porque mueve el *primum mobile* con su Palabra de Mandato, y el propio tratado declara la explicación de ese *amr* oscura y fuera de su alcance.

«And then he says that the perfect Illuminati perceived that, al-Muta’ the Obeyed One is not more than the Highest —otherthan-Absolute-Deity, and is related to Him as the sun to Essential Light (mysterious enough this!) or as a glowing coal to the Elemental Fire: and therefore they turned their faces from that Being “who commanded (amara) the moving of the Heavens” to the One Existent, Transcendent, Incomparable, Predicateless.» — el remate del tercer apoyo: los Iluminados perfectos ven que al-Muta' no pasa de lo Más Alto distinto de la Deidad Absoluta, y por eso vuelven el rostro de aquel que mandó mover los Cielos hacia el Existente Uno sin predicados. El troceo parte *other-than* al fin de renglón y la herramienta lo devuelve unido; la restitución es lectura propuesta, no letra de la fuente.

«With this word amr thus impressed on us with such penetrating significance we turn back to the Koran text: “The Spirit pertains to my Lord’s Word of Command (amr) .. .” Unless the word min introduces a quite upsetting element, the identification between this SPIRIT and the Commander who is Obeyed seems complete.» — Gairdner vuelve al versículo coránico y declara completa la identificación entre el ESPÍRITU y el Comandante Obedecido, salvo que *min* introduzca un elemento que la trastorne.

«It was the explicit teaching of al-Hallaj[1] and the typical “word of command” which this Divine Spirit gave was the fiat “Kun!”» — Gairdner atribuye la enseñanza expresa a al-Hallaj, con el fiat *Kun!* por palabra de mandato típica del Espíritu Divino.

«We have seen the fascination which this treatise shows al-Hallaj had for al-Ghazzali. Does it not seem likely, nay almost certain, that in his meditation on the inscrutable text he followed al-Hallaj in this equation, with whatever mental reserve regarding the Spirit itself—whether divine or creaturely, eternal or originate?» — Gairdner conjetura, en forma de pregunta y con la reserva dentro, que Ghazzali siguió a al-Hallaj en esa ecuación sin pronunciarse sobre si el Espíritu es divino o criatura, eterno u originado.

«Not that it was only Imamites or extreme Sufi Sunnites like al-Hallaj who asserted the divinity of The Spirit. The ultra-orthodox Hanbalites “admitted in some manner the eternity of the Rah Allah”.» — Gairdner acota que la divinidad del Espíritu no la afirmaban solo imamíes y sufíes extremos: también los hanbalíes ultraortodoxos admitieron de algún modo la eternidad del Ruh Allah.

«Ibn Hanbal himself had given them the lead with a characteristic hedging aphorism (which reminds us of similar remarks on the Sifat, the Kalam Allah, and the Qur’an) “Whoever says that al-Ruth is created, (makhlq) is a heretic: whoever says that It is eternal (qadim) is an infidel.”» — el aforismo de Ibn Hanbal que Gairdner cita: hereje quien diga creado el Ruh, infiel quien lo diga eterno; el troceo imprime *al-Ruth* y *makhlq*.

«His followers held fast on to “uncreate”, and it was hard to keep “eternal” from following. No wonder al-Ghazzali gave a unique and mysterious tinge to his similitude for “The Obeyed”, and that-It figures, virtually, as an Arian Logos.» — la lectura de Gairdner: sus seguidores se aferraron a lo increado y de ahí el tinte único que da Ghazzali a su símil del Obedecido, que a Gairdner le figura virtualmente como un Logos arriano.

«more one reflects on what is said about the function of this Being in M., p. [55], and especially Its comparison with the Sun (Allah being Essential Light), or with glowing coal (Allah being Elemental Fire), the more unique It appears, and: the more mysterious our author’s thought about It becomes.» — Gairdner declara que cuanto más se piensa en la función del Ser y en sus símiles —el Sol frente a la Luz Esencial, la brasa frente al Fuego Elemental— más único le parece y más misterioso el pensamiento del autor; el arranque *Th* de la frase queda mutilado por el escaneo.

«For such functions, and such a relation to Absolute Deity, are in very truth entirely unique, in kind as well as degree; and, thus described, the Vicegerent becomes, in a secondary way, as unique a Figure as is Deity Itself.» — el remate de Gairdner: funciones y relación así descritas hacen del Vicegerente una figura tan única, de modo secundario, como la Deidad misma.

«The Hebrew root means “speak”, and this meaning is implicit in the Arabic root also, which signifies spoken command. And just as later Jewish writers made out of a derivative of this root a Logos doctrine (Memra), so the Mohammedan mystics» — el paralelo que traza Gairdner entre la Memra de los escritores judíos y lo que los místicos musulmanes hicieron con *amr*; la frase sigue en la plana siguiente y el tramo se corta antes del folio *xix*.

«came near to making a Logos doctrine out of the word amr, taking their start from this very text.» — la continuación: Gairdner dice que estuvieron cerca de hacer del *amr* una doctrina del Logos partiendo de ese mismo versículo.

«At the very outset we are struck by the fact that the word Muta* occurs in the Koran (S. 81, 23), and not only so, but it occurs as an attribute of the mysterious Agent of Revelation, the vision of whom» — el primer apoyo de Gairdner: la palabra Muta con asterisco, tal como la deja el escaneo, aparece en el Corán como atributo del Agente misterioso de la Revelación; la frase sigue en la plana siguiente y el tramo se corta antes del folio *XX*.

«Mohammed saw at the first (S. 53, 5-16).» — la continuación remite a la sura 53, 5-16, donde Gairdner sitúa la primera visión de Mahoma.

«But the history of the Sufi teaching on the text shows that min need introduce no such upsetting element, and that the practical identification of Amr with RGh, of The Word of Command with The» — Gairdner responde a su propia reserva sobre *min*: la enseñanza sufí sobre el texto identificaba en la práctica el Mandato con el Espíritu; la frase sigue en la plana siguiente y el tramo se corta antes del folio.

«Spirit, was with the Mystics a familiar idea.» — la continuación: Gairdner declara esa identificación idea familiar entre los místicos.

«raised doubts as to the soundness of our author’s monotheism! No wonder he was not anxious to go more deeply into the matter, out of consideration for the limited spiritual capacities of his readers!» — Gairdner explica la reticencia del tratado por la capacidad espiritual limitada de sus lectores; el arranque de la frase —*No wonder the passage*— queda en la plana anterior.

«Perhaps, to preserve his own faith in the Unity, Indivisibility, and absolute Uniqueness of Allah,. he was glad to leave the dark problem of the Vicegerent where Allah Himself had left that of —the Spirit—an uncommunicated and incommunicable mystery, which now he only knew in part, and only saw as ina glass, darkly.» — la conjetura con que Gairdner cierra el apartado VII, con reserva por delante y con un giro de la Primera a los Corintios en su propia pluma: Ghazzali dejó el problema del Vicegerente donde Allah había dejado el del Espíritu. El troceo pega *ina* por *in a*.

«This mediation of the creative function would carry with it the mediation of the administrative. In this connexion use would unquestionably be made of S. 7, 53, “the sun, the moon, and the stars are compelled-to-work by His amr—His Word-of-Command — His Spirit—exactly the function of al-Muta’.» — nota de Gairdner que extiende la mediación creativa a la administrativa apoyándose en la sura 7, 53, donde el sol, la luna y las estrellas quedan sujetos al *amr*.

«It remains to consider whether there is any evidence that Ghazzali extended the equation Muta’ = Amr = Ruth to include the Nar Muhammadi (as suggested tentatively by Professor R. Nicholson in his lectures on “The Idea of Personality in Sdfism’”’)[1], the archetypal spirit of Mohammed, the Heavenly Man created in the image of God, and regarded as a Cosmic Power on whom depends the order and preservation of ‘the universe.» — Gairdner plantea la última variante del problema: si Ghazzali extendió la ecuación al *Nur Muhammadi*, el espíritu arquetípico de Mahoma, Hombre Celestial creado a imagen de Dios y poder cósmico del que dependería el orden del universo; la sugerencia la acredita a Nicholson y el troceo imprime *Nar Muhammadi* y *Sdfism*.

«If this could be sustained it would to some extent modify the conclusion reached before that al-Muta’ had nothing to do with any human being, idealized or not, whether a Prophet or even Mohammed; though even so, there would be a vast difference between this archetypal Spirit and the historical Prophet.» — Gairdner acota el alcance que tendría: modificaría en parte su conclusión anterior, aunque quedaría una diferencia enorme entre el Espíritu arquetípico y el Profeta histórico.

«While the germs of this idea, as of every other one, may be found much earlier than Ghazzali’s century (the fifth), the study of the sketch which M. Massignon gives of the history of the doctrine (Hallaj, pp. 830 seqq.) does not create the impression that it was developed or received in orthodox circles[1] up to Ghazzali’s time.» — Gairdner data la doctrina apoyado en el bosquejo histórico de Massignon: los gérmenes son muy anteriores, pero no le parece desarrollada ni recibida en círculos ortodoxos hasta el tiempo de Ghazzali.

«Professor Nicholson does not find it in an orthodox Sdfi writer earlier than Abdu-l Qadir al-Jilani, in the generation immediately succeeding that of Ghazzali.[2] After which the doctrine developed and spread amazingly, reaching its height with Ibn al-‘Arabi al-Jili several centuries later.» — Gairdner recoge de Nicholson que el primer escritor sufí ortodoxo en que aparece es Abdu-l Qadir al-Jilani, de la generación siguiente a Ghazzali, y que la doctrina alcanza su cima con Ibn al-'Arabi al-Jili siglos después.

«He described Muhammed as al-rah al-qudus and rih jasad alwajud “the Transcendent Spirit, the Spirit of the body of the Universe.”» — la nota de Gairdner con la fórmula que atribuye a al-Jilani: Mahoma como Espíritu Trascendente y Espíritu del cuerpo del Universo, en transliteración tal como la imprime el escaneo. El troceo parte *al-wajud* al fin de renglón y la herramienta lo devuelve unido; la restitución es lectura propuesta, no letra de la fuente.

«Thus the a-priori evidence is this time decidedly against Ghazzali’s having anything to do with this doctrine. Unless, therefore, very clear actual evidence were found in his writings, it would be surely justifiable to assert definitely that it is not Ghazzalian.» — Gairdner declara la evidencia a priori en contra esta vez, y condiciona toda afirmación distinta a que aparezca evidencia clara en los escritos.

«It appears not to be found in his works other than al-Mishkat. If this is so, it may be further asserted with confidence that it is not found in al-Mishkat either.» — el paso que Gairdner da con su condicional dentro: si la doctrina no está en las demás obras, tampoco en el Mishkat.

«On the contrary, there is much there that shows a relatively simple, primeval conception of Mohammed on the part of Ghazzali. For him the archetypal man is Adam, as in the Koran, not Mohammed.» — Gairdner atribuye al tratado una concepción relativamente simple y primitiva de Mahoma, con Adán y no Mahoma por hombre arquetípico, como en el Corán.

«An examination of the passage[2] in which the idea of the “Khalifa” appears shows that here also his thought was not esoteric, and that Mohammed was not in his mind: he is thinking of the whole human race, or of Adam himself, the first and representative human being, the only “Khalifa” particularized by the Koran.» — la lectura que Gairdner hace del pasaje del *Khalifa*: no es esotérico y no piensa en Mahoma sino en el género humano entero o en Adán, único Khalifa que el Corán particulariza.

«And the one passage in the Mishkat which at first sight does look as if it contained a “high doctrine of the person” of Mohammed, turns out on closer inspection to, prove the exact reverse, viz. that essentially be belonged to this world and to the time-order—to the prophets, above whom are ranked the celestial “Lights” culminating, as we have. seen, in the Supreme Angelical, The Spirit.» — Gairdner objeta la lectura de un pasaje como doctrina alta de la persona de Mahoma: a su juicio muestra lo contrario, que Mahoma pertenece a este mundo y al orden del tiempo, por debajo de las Luces celestes.

«Here we have the Transcendent Spirit Prophetical (al-RGh al-qudus alnabawi) attributed to Mohammed as prophet, by reason of which he is called a Luminous Lamp (siraj munir).» — el pasaje en cuestión: el Espíritu Trascendente Profético atribuido a Mahoma en cuanto profeta, por lo que se le llama Lámpara Luminosa, *siraj munir*. El troceo parte *al-nabawi* al fin de renglón y la herramienta lo devuelve unido; la restitución es lectura propuesta, no letra de la fuente.

«If this stood by itself we might be suspicious of something esoteric. But immediately after this the other prophets, and even saints, are said to be “Lamps”’, and to possess, as its name implies this Spirit Prophetical.» — el argumento de Gairdner contra la lectura esotérica: inmediatamente después los otros profetas y aun los santos son llamados Lámparas y se les da el mismo Espíritu Profético.

«The sequel shows that this Spirit is the Fire from which all the Angelical lights above and the Prophetical lights beneath are lit, and that this Spirit is the Supreme Angelical, “The Spirit,” as in the passage already discussed.» — el remate: Gairdner identifica ese Espíritu con el Fuego del que se encienden las luces angélicas de arriba y las proféticas de abajo, y con el Angélico Supremo del pasaje anterior.

«To sum up the conclusion to which I have been led by a consideration of the evidence of the Mishkat itself, top-ether with the a-priori evidence which supplements it and is checked by it,—the heavenly Vicegerent is the Spirit of Allah, the Transcendent Spirit of Prophecy, the divine Word-of-Command; he is not a Qutb or any Adept; he is not Mohammed nor the archetypal spirit of Mohammed.» — la conclusión que Gairdner firma como suya: el Vicegerente celeste es el Espíritu de Allah, el Espíritu Trascendente de la Profecía, la Palabra-de-Mandato divina; ni Qutb, ni adepto, ni Mahoma, ni el espíritu arquetípico de Mahoma. El troceo imprime *top-ether* por together.

«Whether this mystery of the Vicegerent was connected in our author’s mind with that of the divine-human, archetypal Sura, as developed by al Hallaj and other advanced Mystics, will be discussed later.» — Gairdner aplaza la cuestión de si el misterio del Vicegerente se ligaba en la mente del autor con la Forma arquetípica divino-humana de al-Hallaj; el troceo imprime *Sura* donde el sentido pide Sura como forma.

«The only thing that puzzles is that Ghazzali sometimes distributes and pluralizes the Spirit, see p. [15, |. 4] and p. [22. 1. 8]. In each case the regulative singular, however, is close by.» — nota de Gairdner con lo que le queda sin resolver: que Ghazzali a veces distribuye y pluraliza el Espíritu, aunque el singular regulativo quede siempre cerca.

«The Seven Planetary Heavens played a great part in Platonic,[1] Neoplatonic, and Gnostic-theosophical schemes. The naive adoption by Mohammed (in the Koran) of the Ptolemaic celestial construction was one of the things which added picturesqueness to early Mohammedan tradition and theology; caused endless trouble to generations of later theologians; made it easier for Neoplatonic ideas to graft themselves on to Islam; gave to the raptures of the Mystics sensuous form and greater definition; and afforded to the Philosophers a line of defence, and even of attack, in their war with the Theologians.» — apertura del apartado VIII: Gairdner atribuye a la adopción coránica de la construcción celeste ptolemaica cinco efectos, del pintoresquismo de la tradición temprana al injerto de ideas neoplatónicas y a la línea de defensa de los filósofos contra los teólogos.

«And the allusions of the Koran were heavily reinforced by the legend of the Miraj, the exact origin of which is obscure, but which appears in a highly developed form almost from the first. The influences of the Mi‘raj are indeed evident in page after page of the Mishkat.» — Gairdner declara oscuro el origen de la leyenda del Mi'raj y muy visible su influencia en el Mishkat, página tras página.

«Al-Ghazzali’s sympathies in regard to this subject were divided. He disliked the Philosophers, and this made him displeased with their confident assertions about the Heavens, while he detested the “philosophical” profit to which they put them. On the other hand, he was a Sufi and thus in closest touch with persons who made very similar assertions about the Heavens, and also put them to profit in their own way. Finally, he was an Ash‘arite Theologian, belonging to a school which had recently, after much trouble, eliminated from theology the dangerous ideas to which Mohammed’s naive attitude to the Heavens, had given rise.» — Gairdner reparte en tres las simpatías divididas del autor sobre los cielos: su antipatía por los filósofos, su condición de sufí en trato con quienes afirmaban cosas parecidas, y su pertenencia a la escuela ash'arí que acababa de eliminar esas ideas de la teología.

«This uncertainty of touch comes out, as, might be expected, in a treatise like al-Mishkat with its blend of scholasticism and Neoplatonically-tinctured mysticism. The Heavens figure continually in its pages. They seem to play a most important part both in thought and in experience—towards the close of the book a determining part. Yet it-is impossible to make. out exactly what that part was, in the mind of al-Ghazzali himself.» — Gairdner declara que los cielos figuran de continuo en el tratado, con papel determinante hacia el final, y que es imposible precisar cuál era ese papel en la mente del autor.

«On p. [23] we have a correlation of the human microcosm and the macrocosm of the celestial realm, Ptolemaically construed, in describing the Ascension of a God-united soul. The, adept’s bodyand-soul structure is conceived of as subsisting in three planes or Spheres, which are correlated with the three lower spheres of the Seven Planetary Heavens. From the highest of these (the Intelligence) the soul takes its departure and ascends through the four upper Heavens (ila saba‘i tabaqat) to the Throne [beyond the outermost Heaven].» — el pasaje del microcosmos: la estructura de cuerpo y alma del adepto se concibe en tres planos correlacionados con las tres esferas bajas de los Siete Cielos Planetarios, y desde la Inteligencia el alma asciende por los cuatro superiores al Trono. El troceo parte *body-and* al fin de renglón y la herramienta lo devuelve unido; la restitución es lectura propuesta, no letra de la fuente.

«Thus he “fills all things’’ by his upward Ascent just as Allah did by His downward Descent (nuzil). In all this the pronoun “he” stands for the soul who is now Allah-possessed and united, as described in what immediately precedes. It is the upward ascent of Allah (corresponding to His nuztl illa-] sama’i-] dunya), and not of the Adept only.» — la lectura de Gairdner sobre los pronombres del pasaje: el *él* que llena todas las cosas es el alma poseída y unida a Allah, y el ascenso es el de Allah y no solo el del adepto.

«On the other hand, in p. [29], this Ascent is described in purely psychological terms, without this schema of the Heavens.» — Gairdner consigna la divergencia interna sin armonizarla: en otra plana el mismo Ascenso se describe en términos puramente psicológicos, sin el esquema de los Cielos.

«“Do not imagine that I mean by the World Supernal the World of the [Seven] Heavens, though they are ‘above’ in respect of part of our world of sense-perception. These Heavens are equally present to our apprehension and that of the lower animals. But a man finds the doors of the Realm Celestial closed to him, neither does be become of or belonging to that Realm (mala-kiti), unless this earth to him ‘be changed into that which is not earth; and likewise the heavens;’[1] .. . and his ‘heaven’ come to be all that transcends his sense. This is the first Ascension for every Pilgrim who has set out on his Progress to the nearness of the Presence Dominical.”» — la cita del tratado que Gairdner alega: el Mundo Supernal no es el de los Siete Cielos, que están igualmente presentes a los animales inferiores; las puertas del Reino Celeste se abren solo cuando la tierra se cambia en lo que no es tierra.

«And he continues: “The Angels ... are part of the World of the Realm Celestial, floating even in the Presence of the Transcendence, whence they gaze down upon our world inferior.» — la continuación de la cita: los ángeles pertenecen al Mundo del Reino Celeste y miran desde la Presencia de la Trascendencia el mundo inferior.

«The last lines hardly give us the same ultra-spiritualizing impression which is conveyed by their predecessors. And, as we have already seen (Introduction pp. 12-17), the part played by the Spheres with their Angels in the last section of the book is decisive, and there does not seem to be there any spiritualizing whatever.» — Gairdner señala la tensión entre esas líneas y las anteriores, y sostiene que en la última sección del libro el papel de las Esferas con sus Ángeles es decisivo y sin espiritualización alguna.

«How far, therefore, these passages are mere word-play, pious picturesqueness, or how far they represent speculation of a rather far-reaching character, is one of the puzzles of the book.» — Gairdner deja abierto el enigma: si esos pasajes son juego de palabras, pintoresquismo piadoso o especulación de largo alcance.

«In the Tahafut, demolishing the arrogant claim of the Philosophers to prove their doctrine of the Spheres by syllogistic demonstration (burhan), he said: “The secrets of The Kingdom are not to be scanned by means of such fantastic imaginations as these; Allah gives none but His Prophets and Saints (anbiya’ and awliya’) to scan them, and that by inspiration, not by demonstration.”» — Gairdner cita el *Tahafut* del propio Ghazzali contra la pretensión de los filósofos de demostrar las Esferas por silogismo: los secretos del Reino solo los escrutan profetas y santos, y por inspiración.

«So then there were mysteries and secrets in regard to the Spheres. In the Mishkat we are able to see pretty clearly that Ghazzali had his; but we are not able to see just what they were. He has kept this secret well.» — el cierre del apartado VIII: Gairdner da por visible que Ghazzali tenía sus misterios sobre las Esferas y por invisible cuáles eran.

«The doctrine of mukhalafa—that the divine essence and characteristics wholly and entirely “differ from” the human-appears to be assorted, as this treatise’s last word, in its most extreme and intransigent form. For the conclusion of the whole matter, the end of the quest for truth for those who “Arrive”, is “an Existent who transcends ALL that is comprehensible by human Insight . . . transcendent of and separate from every characterization that in the foregoing we have made.”» — apertura del apartado IX: Gairdner lee como última palabra del tratado la doctrina de *mukhalafa* en su forma más extrema, con un Existente que trasciende todo lo comprensible por la Intuición humana y toda caracterización previa.

«In Ghazzali the most extreme Agnosticism and the most extreme Gnosticism meet, and meet at this point; for, as he says, things that go beyond one extreme pass over to the extreme opposite.” For him “Creed because Incredible” becomes “Gnosis because Agnoston”.» — la fórmula que Gairdner acuña en nota para ese punto: en Ghazzali el agnosticismo y el gnosticismo extremos se tocan, y su fórmula del credo por increíble se vuelve fórmula de la gnosis por incognoscible.

«What saved the Universe for him from his nihilistic theologizing was his ontology (see below, pp. 108 seqq.). What saved God for him from his obliterating agnosticism was the experience of the mystic leap, his own personal mi'raj. This may have been non-rational, but it was to him experience.» — la explicación que Gairdner propone en la misma nota: la ontología le salvó el universo y la experiencia del salto místico, su propio *mi'raj*, le salvó a Dios del agnosticismo que todo lo borra.

«Nevertheless, the Mishkat itself seems to be one long attempt to modify or even negate this its own bankrupt conclusion. Indeed, it goes unusual lengths in asserting a certain ineffable likeness between Allah and man.» — la tesis del apartado IX: Gairdner lee el tratado entero como intento de modificar o negar su propia conclusión agnóstica, y le atribuye longitudes inusuales al afirmar una semejanza inefable entre Allah y el hombre.

«It is true that the usual anthropomorphic expressions—the Hand, the Sessions on the Throne, the Descent to the Lowest Sphere, etc., those perennial sources for Mohammedan theologizing-are used and are discounted in the usual way.» — Gairdner enumera las expresiones antropomórficas de rigor —la Mano, las Sesiones en el Trono, el Descenso a la Esfera más baja— y consigna que el tratado las descuenta del modo usual.

«(1) a quasi-Platonic doctrine of terrestrial type and celestial antitype; (2) the relation of the divine and human rth (spirit); (3) the relation of the divine and human stra» — los tres aspectos en que Gairdner reparte lo que llama el sistema sufí de teomorfismo: la tipología cuasi platónica, la relación de los *ruh* divino y humano, y la de las *sura*, imagen o forma; el troceo imprime *stra* y *rth*.

«(1) The whole of the first two parts of the treatise are practically an exposition of an Islamico-Platonic typology. It is not explicitly said that earthly things are more or less faint copies of “the patterns of things in the heavens,” though this is probably implicit in what is said, namely, that the heavenly realities (haqa’iq), (ma‘ani), all have their symbols on earth.» — Gairdner lee las dos primeras partes del tratado como exposición de una tipología islámico-platónica, y acota que lo de las copias terrestres de los patrones celestes no está dicho expresamente, solo implícito en que las realidades celestes tienen todas su símbolo en la tierra.

«These symbols or types, as their Arabic term itself suggests (amthal), do possess a “resemblance” to their celestial antitypes, for, as al Ghazzali remarks, “the thing compared (al-mushabbah, the antitype) is in some sort parallel, and bears resemblance, to the thing compared therewith (al-mushabbah bihi, the type or symbol), whether that resemblance be remote or near; a matter again which is unfathomably deep.”» — la cita del tratado con que Gairdner apoya la semejanza: lo comparado guarda paralelo y semejanza con aquello con que se compara, remota o cercana, y el asunto se declara de hondura insondable.

«Ghazzali. can hardly be allowed to elude the application of this true principle to Allah Himself, considering that this very Koran-verse which it is the object of the entire treatise to expound begins with a simile.» — la objeción de Gairdner al propio autor: el versículo que el tratado entero se propone exponer empieza por un símil, de modo que el principio de semejanza alcanza al mismo Allah.

«“Light” is the chosen, or rather the God-given symbol, wherewith Allah is “compared”, and which therefore He must “in some sort resemble”.» — el paso de Gairdner: la luz es el símbolo con que Allah es comparado, y por tanto aquello a lo que en algún modo tiene que parecerse.

«This analogy of light floods the whole book. Now Allah is the Sun: now the Light of lights: and at the end, in the same breath in which Abu Hamid, with the incorrigible inconsistency which so angered Averroes, denied the validity of the similitude, description, relation, or even predication in regard to Allah, we are told that He stands in relation to His Vicegerent (or “wakeel” in a parallel passage) as the pure Light-essence to the sun, or as the Elemental Fire to a glowing coal.» — Gairdner señala la analogía de la luz corriendo por el libro entero y la contradicción que le atribuye: en el mismo aliento en que Abu Hamid niega validez a la semejanza, se da la relación de Allah con su Vicegerente como la de la luz pura al sol o la del Fuego Elemental a la brasa.

«Theomorphism has “in some sort” been admitted» — el remate del apartado: Gairdner da el teomorfismo por admitido *en algún modo*; la frase queda sin punto final al pie de la plana.

«“The specific characteristic which differentiates humanity [from the lower creation] is something which it is not lawful to indite in a book.”» — la frase del *Ihya'* que Gairdner cita por carta de Nicholson: lo que diferencia a la humanidad no es lícito escribirlo en un libro.

«The thing that agitates him is the relation of this human rah to the Spirit of God, rah Allah, and its relation to Allah. The matter is esoteric—it is to be “grudged” to the “commons” —because it is dangerous ground. It is dangerous ground because one has to talk warily in order to avoid a violation of the uniqueness of Allah, which would involve confusing Creator with created, and so passing gradually to ishrak, which is the worst “infidelity.”» — Gairdner nombra el riesgo que atribuye a esa materia: confundir Creador y creado y pasar al *ishrak*, que llama la peor infidelidad.

«This particular anxiety is not reflected in the present treatise; it is strange that the mystery of ruh does not figure in the list (see above p. 5) over which the author’s favete linquis! is inscribed.» — Gairdner consigna una ausencia como dato: la ansiedad por el *ruh* no reaparece en este tratado, y el misterio del *ruh* no figura en la lista de los que el autor declara incomunicables.

«He is mainly occupied with working out what the New Testament calls the “operations”, rather than the nature of the spirit. In so doing the singular “spirit” becomes plural “spirits”, arwah, which, as already observed, happens also in the Book of the Revelation.» — Gairdner describe lo que sí hace el tratado, con su propio término tomado del Nuevo Testamento: ocuparse de las *operaciones* más que de la naturaleza del espíritu, con el singular vuelto plural *arwah*.

«Ghazzali works out the theory of the several “spirits” of the human psychology; then the graded “spirits” of the heavenly hosts; and then the Neoplatonic or theosophic idea of the gradation of all these (in maqamat), and the way in which they are “lit” (muqtabasa) from each other in order: we must not say “derived”, for that would involve him in the emanationism be was ever anathematizing yet, for ever incurring the suspicion of.» — Gairdner enumera los tres tramos de esa teoría —los espíritus de la psicología humana, los graduados de las huestes celestes y la gradación neoplatónica o teosófica de todos— y subraya que se dicen *encendidos* y no *derivados*, para no caer en el emanatismo.

«In all this his tone is open, easy, confident. The special mystery of The Spirit had been already discounted in the Koran, so that was harmless. As for the identification of RGh Muta’, if our theory is correct, that was a grand» — Gairdner distingue dos secretos por el tono: el misterio del Espíritu, ya descontado en el Corán y por tanto inocuo, y la identificación de Ruh y Muta', que califica de grande; la frase sigue en la plana siguiente.

«secret. But that secret he never intended even to hint at, and it would really seem as if we had surprised and betrayed a sirr maknun!» — la continuación, con la reserva de Gairdner sobre su propia tesis: si acertó, ha sorprendido y delatado un secreto guardado que el autor nunca quiso ni insinuar.

«(3) It was the stra tradition,[1] “ALLAH CREATED ADAM AFTER HIS IMAGE,” that above all else led Moslem thinkers into temptation—the temptation of trenching on the uniqueness of Allah. Its very riskiness seems, however, to have fascinated them supremely from the very outset. Not one of them could let it alone.» — el tercer aspecto: Gairdner atribuye a la tradición de que Allah creó a Adán a su imagen la tentación mayor de los pensadores musulmanes, la de tocar la unicidad de Allah, y dice que ninguno pudo dejarla en paz.

«In this very treatise Ghazzali returns to it again and again. Perhaps it would accord with inner truth to say rather that both he and others returned to that tradition not so much as moths fascinated by a dangerous glare, but as those who are feeling cold return for warmth and cheer to even an alien fire.» — Gairdner enmienda su propia imagen: no polillas fascinadas por un resplandor peligroso, sino gente con frío que vuelve al calor de un fuego ajeno.

«The aphorism, sacred as a Koran text, was the assertion and pledge that man somehow is, or may become, “like God.” The word stra became the symbol and the guarantee of theomorphism.» — Gairdner enuncia qué prendaba esa tradición: que el hombre de algún modo es o puede volverse semejante a Dios, con *sura* por símbolo y garantía del teomorfismo.

«Gen. i. 27, though Islam ignores the parentage.» — nota de Gairdner que remonta la tradición al Génesis y consigna que el islam desconoce esa filiación.

«In the first allusion in the Mishkat to this tradition (p. [9]), the point of the similarity is the human intelligence (‘aql). In virtue of his intelligence, Ghazzali hints, man is “after the image of Allah.”» — la primera alusión según Gairdner: el punto de semejanza es la inteligencia, *'aql*, y por ella insinúa el tratado que el hombre es a imagen de Allah.

«The ‘aql is “Allah’s balance-scale upon earth.”[1] In its own sphere it is infallible.[2] From the ‘aql, as from a firm “taking-off” place, souls make their mystic Ascension to the heavenlies.[3] It is because it is thus the specifically human faculty that it is a determinative element in the human stra.» — Gairdner reúne lo que el tratado dice del *'aql*: balanza de Allah en la tierra, infalible en su esfera, plataforma de despegue del Ascenso místico y elemento determinante de la *sura* humana.

«The second allusion (M., p. [23]) carries us very much further—even to that verge from which Moslem mystics so often looked dizzily down, but from which they so seldom fell, into the pantheistic abyss. Behold a human soul in completest Union (jam’) with Deity, sitting on The Throne, and administering all things in heaven and earth!» — la segunda alusión, que Gairdner sitúa al borde del abismo panteísta: un alma humana en Unión completa, sentada en el Trono y administrando cuanto hay en el cielo y en la tierra.

«But, he continues, “after contemplating that word more deeply one becomes aware that it has an interpretation like [al-Hallaj’s] ‘I am the One Real.’”» — la continuación de la cita del tratado: contemplada más hondo, esa palabra admite una interpretación como la del *Ana-l Haqq* de al-Hallaj; los corchetes del nombre los pone Gairdner.

«Unfortunately he has omitted to indicate what precisely that interpretation is. We have a tantalizing author to deal with.» — el juicio de Gairdner sobre esa omisión, en su propia voz.

«How {to} translate this “Ana-l-Haqq”? Not by Jesus, “I am the Truth”, tempting though this is. “I am the Absolute” would be a parallel rendering in modern philosophic parlance. Professor Nicholson’s “I am God” is startling, but illuminating because perfectly justifiable: for al-Haqq and Allah are mutually and exclusively convertible.» — nota de Gairdner sobre cómo traducir el *Ana-l Haqq*: descarta el *Yo soy la Verdad* de Jesús, propone *Yo soy el Absoluto* y da por justificable el *Yo soy Dios* de Nicholson, porque al-Haqq y Allah se convierten mutuamente.

«Probably we do not find it in the third passage (pp. [34, 35]), though it is deeply influenced by Hallajian thought. There is in the celestial world something which “developpe, modalise, et concerte entre elles les creations divines ... une certaine structure interne particuliere a l’acte createur”.» — el tercer pasaje: Gairdner lo declara hondamente influido por el pensamiento hallajiano y lo describe con una frase en francés tomada de Massignon, sobre una estructura interna propia del acto creador.

«This living order, this organised “Presence” (hadar), is symbolized by the word Image, or Form. And this macrocosmic hadra has its earthly counterpart in an analogous human form, or sara, which has the same “structure interne particuliere” (it is alluded to on p. [22, |. 1], and p. [34, 1. 3], and described in detail on pp. [39-41]). Therefore, man, formed in this Form, is “after the Form, the Image, of this Merciful One (al Rahman)”.» — Gairdner expone el juego de correspondencias: la *hadra* macrocósmica tiene su contraparte terrestre en una forma humana análoga, de modo que el hombre queda a la Forma del Misericordioso.

«Ghazzali’s explanation of his preference for this variation of the tradition, to which, however, he by no means always adheres, is difficult to follow.» — Gairdner declara difícil de seguir la explicación que da el autor de su preferencia por esa variante de la tradición, a la que además no siempre se atiene.

«Massignon, op. cit., p, 519, describing Hallaj’s doctrine of the divine rah, and exactly hitting off Ghazzali’s difficult thought on p. (24, ll. 2, 3], (cf. p, [22, 1. 2]). But from this point of view rah and stra merge into each other, as a careful comparison of the two Mishkat passages just cited shows.» — nota de Gairdner: desde ese punto de vista *ruh* y *sura* se funden una en otra, según le parece al cotejar los dos pasajes del Mishkat.

«But the general idea clearly is that “but for this ‘mercy’ [i.e. of these two correlative and coincident Forms] every son of Adam would have been powerless to know his Lord, for ‘only he who knows himself knows his Lord”.» — la idea general según Gairdner: sin esa misericordia de las dos Formas correlativas ningún hijo de Adán podría conocer a su Señor, porque solo quien se conoce a sí mismo conoce a su Señor.

«The wheel has, indeed, brought us round a strange circle! Through the eternal grace of theomorphism we win back to a higher anthropomorphism, so that the proper study of God is—man! And this from the writer whose last word is that Allah must not have so much as an attribute predicated of Him, or the divine uniqueness will be violated! Truly, thus the whirligig of thought brings in his revenges.» — el juicio de Gairdner sobre ese círculo: por la gracia del teomorfismo se vuelve a un antropomorfismo más alto, en un escritor cuya última palabra es que ni un atributo puede predicarse de Allah.

«We have already seen many indications that before he wrote this treatise Ghazzali must have been deep in the study of al-Hallaj; and the passage we have just been considering may be added to these indications.» — Gairdner suma el pasaje a los indicios de que el autor estudió a fondo a al-Hallaj antes de escribir el tratado.

«Yet there is no overt trace in it, or elsewhere in the Mishkat, of al-Hallaj’s profoundest thought on this matter of the Divine-Adamic; no trace of that strange Figure—that Epiphany of humanized Deity, or Apotheosis of ideal-Humanity—which was presented by Allah to the angels for worship or ever the first man was created, and in which He Himself, on behalf of the human race, swore unto Himself the Covenant (mithaq) of allegiance.» — la ausencia que Gairdner consigna: ni rastro abierto de la figura hallajiana de la Deidad humanizada presentada a los ángeles para adoración antes de crearse el primer hombre, con quien Allah juró el pacto en nombre del género humano.

«Ghazzali’s silence on this so remarkable development of the Sara tradition would suggest that it was precisely here that he felt it dangerous to follow al-Hallaj. What was possible for the seer might send the theologian over the line where Islam ends and pantheism begins.» — la lectura que Gairdner hace de ese silencio: ahí sintió el autor que era peligroso seguir a al-Hallaj, porque lo posible para el vidente podía pasar al teólogo la línea donde el islam acaba y el panteísmo empieza.

«His inmost thought may have been, “Perhaps al-Hallaj has penetrated here to something of what the Koran itself [in the Spirit-Verse] left obscure. I neither assert, nor deny. Allahu alam!”» — la frase que Gairdner pone en boca del autor, marcada como conjetura suya: ni afirmo ni niego, Allah sabe.

«In a note Massignon hazards the tentative suggestion that this epiphanized God (called by al-Hallaj al-Nastt) in contra-distinction from the unknowable al-Lahtt) is analogical to, or suggestive of Ghazzali’s Vicegerent (p. 601, n. 5). The suggestion is thrilling, as we see. It must be repeated that there is no overt trace of the doctrine in M.» — nota de Gairdner con la sugerencia de Massignon, declarada tentativa: que el Dios epifanizado de al-Hallaj sea análogo al Vicegerente de Ghazzali, y la repetición de que en el Mishkat no hay rastro abierto de la doctrina.

«Thus we come to the ultimate question—the ultimate question with every Sufi writer and book—does he and it escape pantheism? What light comes from this “Niche for Lights” upon this obscure question?» — el cierre del apartado IX y el enunciado del X: Gairdner formula como pregunta última de todo libro sufí la de si escapa al panteísmo.

«“Well might one,” says our author, “in looking upon such an one,”» — la frase con que el autor introduce esa lectura de la tradición, según la traduce Gairdner; el tramo se corta antes del folio *XXXil* y la frase sigue en la plana siguiente.

«get a new view of this tradition. Is not such a uniate, indeed, “after the image of Allah”?» — la continuación en la plana siguiente: Gairdner pregunta si ese unido no queda a imagen de Allah.

«On the other hand, is it possible that here we have the explanation of our author's embarrassed words on p. [55] “on account of a Mystery which it is» — Gairdner deja la hipótesis en pregunta: si el silencio sobre al-Hallaj explica las palabras embarazadas del autor sobre un Misterio; el tramo se corta antes del folio *XXXIV* y la frase sigue en la plana siguiente.

«not in the competence of this book to reveal”?» — el cierre de esa pregunta ya en la plana siguiente: el Misterio que el libro declara no tener competencia para revelar.

«In the Ihya’ al ‘Ulam Ghazzali speaks of the human rih as amr rabbani “a divine affair’ (amr must surely bear here its other meaning); and he is there very anxious, not to say agitated, over the esoteric character of the doctrine; it must be kept a dead secret from the Many» — el segundo aspecto del teomorfismo: Gairdner cita el *Ihya'*, donde el *ruh* humano se llama *amr rabbani*, asunto divino, y consigna la agitación del autor por el carácter esotérico de la doctrina, que manda guardar del vulgo.

«The root question in regard to al-Ghazzali, and every other advanced mystic and adept in Islam, is the question of Pantheism: did he succeed in balancing himself upon the edge of the pantheistic abyss, and finding some foothold for his creationist theism, some position that cleared his conscience towards his orthodox co-religionists? Or did he fail in this? The Mishkat contains a good deal that is relevant to this final issue.» — apertura del apartado X: Gairdner enuncia la cuestión raíz que aplica a todo místico avanzado del islam, la del panteísmo, y la formula en dos preguntas —si logró equilibrio sobre el borde del abismo o si falló—. El título de la plana imprime *AL-GHAZZALTI*, corrupción del escaneo.

«It contains much, in the first place, which on the face of it reads like naked pantheism; and in particular the whole passage on pp. [19, 201 and [22-4], where not only is the most extreme language of the extreme wing of Sufism (Ana-l Haqq[1] and the rest) quoted with guarded approval, but there is open eulogy of the formula la huwa illa Huwa “there is no it but HE”, which is declared to be more expressive of real, absolute truth than the Mohammedan creed itself la ilaha ill-Allah “there is no god but God”.» — Gairdner señala lo que a primera vista le parece panteísmo desnudo: la aprobación guardada del *Ana-l Haqq* y el elogio abierto de la fórmula *la huwa illa Huwa*, *no hay ello sino ÉL*, declarada más expresiva de la verdad absoluta que el propio credo musulmán.

«This would seem to be as unreserved an assertion of flat pantheism as could be found in philosophic Hinduism itself. Equally worthy of philosophic Hinduism is Ghazzali’s “He is everything: He is that He is: none but He has ipseity or heity at all» — Gairdner compara ese pasaje con el hinduismo filosófico y añade la frase del tratado: Él lo es todo, Él es lo que es, ninguno sino Él tiene ipseidad ni heidad.

«experience of the advanced Initiates and Adepts is described in terms of thorough pantheism: to them “the plurality of things fell away in its entirety. They were drowned in the absolute Unitude[5] and their intelligences were lost in its abyss” (p. [19]); and when they return to earthly illusions again from that world of reality they “confess with one voice that they had seen nought existent there save the One Real (Allah)”. Existent! Do words mean what they say?» — Gairdner recoge la experiencia de los iniciados avanzados en términos que llama panteísmo cabal —la pluralidad de las cosas cae entera, las inteligencias se pierden en el abismo de la Unidad, y al volver confiesan no haber visto ahí nada existente salvo lo Uno Real— y cierra con su propia pregunta sobre si las palabras significan lo que dicen.

«Which, it must be remembered, might not unfairly be translated -I am God —-; see footnote above.» — nota de Gairdner que recuerda su propia traducción posible del *Ana-l Haqq* como *Yo soy Dios*; el troceo imprime las rayas como guiones sueltos.

«No, not precisely! with a Ghazzali, and with Mohammedan mystics, clinging desperately to orthodoxy! The matter, in fact, turns precisely on this word “existent”. What is existence? What is non-existence?» — Gairdner responde a su propia pregunta: el asunto se juega en la palabra *existente*, y de ahí pasa a preguntar qué es existencia y qué no existencia.

«This philosophy is poetically stated in our treatise, but in spite of the poetic, imaginative diction it can be recognized as identical with his usual doctrine.» — Gairdner declara idéntica a la doctrina habitual del autor la ontología que el tratado enuncia en dicción poética.

«We have there a picturesque representation of a doctrine well known to the schoolmen of Islam, that Not-Being is a sort of dark limbo in which the Contingent awaits the creative word Kun “Be!” —compared in this “Light” treatise to a ray of light from the One Self-existing Being.» — la doctrina que Gairdner atribuye a los escolásticos del islam: el No-Ser como limbo oscuro donde lo Contingente aguarda la palabra creadora *Kun*, comparada en este tratado de la luz a un rayo del Ser único que existe por sí.

«Neither the Greeks nor the schoolmen could ever quite get over the feeling that, in predicating anything of Not-being or a Nonentity, in using the word “is” in a sentence with Not-being or a Nonentity as its subject, you have in some way ascribed, not existence, but a sort of quasi-being, to that subject.» — la dificultad que Gairdner atribuye por igual a griegos y escolásticos: predicar algo del No-ser le adscribe una suerte de cuasi ser.

«Hegel’s solution was so to evacuate the category of mere, bare “Being” of all content, and to demonstrate its consequent total impoverishment and inanity, that it could be seen to be, the equivalent of Not-being.» — la solución que Gairdner atribuye a Hegel: vaciar de contenido la categoría del ser desnudo hasta verla equivalente al no ser.

«This was impossible for the schoolmen, above all for Oriental schoolmen, even of the most contradictory schools, who regarded the category of “pure” being (they would never have said “mere”) as the sublimest and most radiant of all the categories, and the very object of the whole quest of life.» — Gairdner declara esa salida imposible para los escolásticos orientales, que tenían el ser puro por la más sublime de las categorías y por objeto mismo de la búsqueda de la vida.

«The effect of the creative word was simply to turn this potential into actual being. Thus the universe, always contingent, indeed but formerly potential-contingent, now became actualcontingent.» — el reverso de la paradoja según Gairdner: la palabra creadora vuelve actual el ser potencial, y el universo pasa de contingente potencial a contingente actual. El troceo parte *actual-contingent* al fin de renglón y la herramienta lo devuelve unido; la restitución es lectura propuesta, no letra de la fuente.

«All this is schematized in al-Mishkat. The limbo becomes Darkness (p. 30); the potential-contingent, Dark Things;[1] the divine creator, tne Sun; the creative act, a Ray from His real being, whereby a dark Nonentity flashes into being and becomes an Entity, but an Entity that depends continuously on the permanent illumination of that ray, for in the Mohammedan creational scheme, at any rate, Creator is equally capable of being Annihilator.» — el esquema que Gairdner extrae del tratado: el limbo vuelto Tiniebla, el contingente potencial Cosas Oscuras, el creador el Sol, el acto creador un Rayo del que la entidad depende de continuo, porque en el esquema musulmán el Creador puede igualmente aniquilar.

«It is just here that, as it seems to the writer, the Philosophers with their Aristotelian doctrine of the eternity, the formless substrate of things— might well have forced a place for their thought, in spite of the Ghazzalian wrath against them and it. For when the dark “selfaspect” of these contingencies of the Theologians is considered, prior to their “existence” (p. [59]), is there much to choose between the eternal potentiality asserted of them by Ghazzali, and the eternity asserted for hyle by the Philosophers?» — nota extensa de Gairdner, marcada por él como parecer propio: pregunta si hay mucho que escoger entre la potencialidad eterna que el tratado atribuye a las contingencias y la eternidad que los filósofos atribuyen a la *hyle*. El troceo parte *self-aspect* al fin de renglón y la herramienta lo devuelve unido; la restitución es lectura propuesta, no letra de la fuente.

«Ghazzali himself quotes a saying of Mohammed (p. [13]), on to which these Philosophers would eagerly have seized proving the point: “Allah created the creation in darkness, then sent an effusion of His light upon it,”» — el hadiz que Gairdner alega dentro de esa nota: Allah creó la creación en tiniebla y luego derramó sobre ella su luz.

«It might very well have been claimed by the Philosophers that this creation-in-darkness is precisely their formless, chaotic hyle, eternal as darkness is eternal before the light shines.» — el uso que Gairdner imagina para los filósofos: que esa creación en tiniebla es su *hyle* caótica e informe, eterna como la tiniebla antes de que brille la luz.

«At this point Ghazzali’s tortured thought is greatly helped out by the ambiguous word wajh, which has two senses, or rather three, Face, Side, Aspect (logical).» — Gairdner atribuye el apoyo del razonamiento a la ambigüedad de *wajh*, con sus tres sentidos de rostro, lado y aspecto lógico.

«This gave him a formula: it was not the first time, nor the last, that the ambiguity of the chief word in a theological formula has been welcome to all concerned.» — el comentario de Gairdner en su propia voz sobre lo cómoda que resulta la ambigüedad de la palabra central de una fórmula teológica.

«He could take the Koran texts “the Wajh of everything faces (muwajjah) to Him and is turned in His direction,” and “Whithersoever they turn themselves, there is the Wajh of Allah;” and the hadith qudsi, “Everything is a perishing thing except His Wajh;” and could then play on the word.» — los tres textos con que Gairdner muestra ese juego: dos del Corán sobre el *wajh* de todas las cosas vuelto a Él, y el hadiz *qudsi* de que todo perece salvo su *wajh*.

«In ancient and mediaeval times the merest plays on words were not considered figures of speech but profundities of thought. Quibbles masqueraded as discoveries.» — el juicio de Gairdner sobre el procedimiento, en su propia voz.

«And so this word (a) enabled Ghazzali to keep his hold on creationism on the one hand, for these were “things” sure enough, all turned towards the central Sun and dependent for their existence on its creative light; and there was also the sound logical position, that under this aspect (wajh) of relatedness these things have actual being (p. [18]). So the actuality of the universe is saved, and the abyss of pantheism is avoided.» — el primer uso de la palabra según Gairdner: bajo el aspecto de relación las cosas tienen ser actual, con lo que se salva la actualidad del universo.

«And (b), on the other hand, he could say to the pantheistic Sufi (and to himself in that mood), that equally under this “aspect” of relatedness things, if and when considered an sich, had no existence, were not existent at all.» — el segundo uso, sin armonizarlo con el primero: bajo el mismo aspecto de relación las cosas consideradas en sí no existían en absoluto.

«The only Existent was the Wajh Allah (p. [22]) that is, Allah Himself, for, as he carefully informs us (p. [191]), Allah cannot possibly be said to be greater” (akbar) than His own wajh; and I must, therefore, be identical therewith.» — el remate de ese segundo uso: el único Existente es el *Wajh Allah*, porque Allah no puede decirse mayor que su propio *wajh*; el troceo imprime *I* donde el sentido pide *it*.

«And thus the out-and-out pantheist might well feel his case complete; the last vestige of dualism disappears; Allah is All, and All is Allah, la mawjtda ill-Allah (M. p. [18])! As Ghazzali himself put it, Allah is the Sun and besides the sun there is only the sun’s light. Quid plura?» — Gairdner concede que el panteísta cabal podría darse por servido: Allah es Todo y Todo es Allah, y el propio tratado dice que Allah es el Sol y fuera del sol solo hay su luz.

«Nevertheless, it may be believed that Ghazzali himself contrived to use this ontology so as to keep, not lose, his hold on the reality[1] and actuality of things, and that early training, central theological orthodoxy, and strong commonsense proved by its help too strong for the pull towards pantheism, with which his late Sdfism with its» — el giro de Gairdner, marcado como creencia suya: el autor usó esa ontología para conservar la realidad y la actualidad de las cosas, y su formación temprana, su ortodoxia y su sentido común pudieron más que la atracción panteísta; la frase sigue en la plana siguiente.

«Neoplatonic atmosphere and sensational ecstasies undoubtedly did pull him —as Safism pulled every Mohammedan mystical devotee.» — la continuación: Gairdner atribuye esa atracción a la atmósfera neoplatónica y a los éxtasis sensacionales del sufismo tardío, y la da por común a todo devoto místico musulmán.

«Is it not notable that even in the lyrical passages in this treatise, in which he describes (with a rather scared unction) the Mystics’ intoxication and the verbal blasphemies which that state so happily permitted, and which were permitted to that state, Ghazzali keeps his head, and preserves the same cautious balance as he does in the ontological sections (see pp. [19, 20])?» — Gairdner señala, en pregunta, que aun en los pasajes líricos sobre la embriaguez de los místicos y las blasfemias verbales que ese estado permitía, el autor conserva el mismo equilibrio cauto de las secciones ontológicas.

«When these inebriates, he says, became sober again, “and they came under the sway of the intelligence they knew that that had not been actual Identity, but only something resembling Identity”» — la frase del tratado que Gairdner da por decisiva: vueltos sobrios, los ebrios saben que aquello no fue Identidad actual sino algo que se le parecía.

«If we correctly translate ittihad[2] thus, the remark is of crucial importance; for the ultimate test of a complete Pantheism is whether things are identical with God, or only united with Him.» — el criterio que Gairdner propone, con su condicional por delante: la prueba última de un panteísmo completo es si las cosas son idénticas a Dios o solo unidas a Él.

«All classes of mystics without exception assert at least the latter —it is the “Union” of the Christian, as of the Muslim, Catholic; but only those who have actually surrendered their balance and toppled over into the pantheistic abyss assert the former. And Ghazzali did not do so.» — Gairdner reparte a los místicos por ese criterio: todos afirman la unión, cristianos y musulmanes, y solo los que cayeron al abismo afirman la identidad; de Ghazzali niega que lo hiciera.

«He goes on to quote yet another “drunken” cry of a soul in Union, “I am He whom I love, and He whom I love is I,” and shows how even here a distinction is preserved.» — el grito que el tratado cita —yo soy Aquel a quien amo y Aquel a quien amo soy yo— y la lectura de Gairdner: aun ahí se conserva una distinción.

«“The glass is thin, the wine is clear. The twain are alike, the matter is perplexed For ‘tis as though there were wine and no wineglass there, Or as though there were wine-glass and nought of wine.”» — los versos del vidrio y el vino que el tratado cita, en la traducción de Gairdner: vidrio delgado y vino claro, los dos semejantes, como si hubiera vino y no copa, o copa y nada de vino.

«And thus comments: “Here there is a difference between saying ‘The wine is the wineglass’ and “tis as though it were the wineglass’.” The former, he tells us, is Identity (tawhid), the latter Unification» — el comentario del propio tratado sobre esos versos: hay diferencia entre decir que el vino es la copa y decir que es como si lo fuera; Gairdner traduce lo primero Identidad y lo segundo Unificación, y transcribe *tawhid* para las dos.

«not in the commonalty’s meaning of tawhid, he honestly says (p. [20]), for them this is one of “the mysteries which we are not at liberty to discuss” —but at the same time not inconsistent With that meaning.» — Gairdner consigna la reserva del autor: no es el *tawhid* del vulgo, y es uno de los misterios que no está en libertad de discutir, sin que por eso sea incompatible con aquel sentido.

«It therefore seems to the writer that Ghazzali’s position, which he tortured rather than explained when he tried to describe and illlustrate it, really amounted to nothing more than the inevitable distinction between absolute and relative being; between things when viewed relationally, in their relation to their Author, and things viewed apart from that relation.» — la conclusión que Gairdner firma como parecer suyo: la posición del autor no pasa de la distinción entre ser absoluto y ser relativo, entre las cosas vistas en su relación con su Autor y vistas fuera de ella; el troceo imprime *illlustrate* con tres eles.

«Neither Author nor Things were to be denied actuality, or reality, as we understand the latter term.» — el límite de esa conclusión: ni al Autor ni a las Cosas se les niega actualidad ni realidad en el sentido moderno del término.

«What he had in mind was, perhaps, something like this: “I reject the herd’s interpretation of tawhid, the mere declaration-of-the-oneness of Allah, as a bare truism, miserable in its inadequacy. I likewise reject the other extreme, the pantheist’s interpretation of the word as an absolute denial of the actuality of things, or an assertion that things are Allah.» — la primera mitad del parlamento que Gairdner pone en boca del autor, marcado por él mismo como conjetura: rechaza la lectura vulgar del *tawhid* por perogrullada y la panteísta por negación absoluta de la actualidad de las cosas. El tramo se parte en dos porque la guarda anticosido rechaza los 802 caracteres del parlamento entero.

«Against them both I assert that Allah and the Universe constitute a UNITY, but one wherein the Universe is wholly relative to and dependent on Allah, for existence or nonexistence; preservation or annihilation. All existing things are and must be ‘united’ to Allah. But even this must not be declare, openly, for, then, what about Iblis, Hell, and the Damned? I must not seem to teach ‘universalism’ any more than pantheism. Allahu a’lam!» — la segunda mitad del mismo parlamento: Allah y el Universo constituyen una Unidad donde el Universo es del todo relativo y dependiente para existencia o inexistencia, y aun eso hay que callarlo por no parecer que se enseña universalismo. El troceo imprime *declare* por declared.

«lengths (in this very treatise of all others) in asserting parallelism and comparability, similarity therefore[1]; but between Allah and all else ONE fundamental all-sufficient difference had to be asserted; namely, ALLAH is self-subsistent, qayyim; things are not so.» — Gairdner formula la diferencia mínima y máxima que atribuye al autor entre Allah y todo lo demás: Allah subsiste por sí, *qayyim*, y las cosas no; el arranque de la frase queda en la plana anterior.

«This distinction was the minimum one; yet also the maximum, for it preserved at once Creator and created, and gave actuality to each.» — el rendimiento que Gairdner atribuye a esa distinción: preservar a la vez Creador y creado, y dar actualidad a cada uno.

«There is, in truth, a good deal of wilful paradox in the Mishkat, of Oriental hyperbole, of pious highfalutin[2] intended perhaps to scare the “unco” orthodox of the day, to make their flesh creep a little for their health’s sake, and to “wake them out of their dogmatic slumbers”.» — el juicio de Gairdner sobre el estilo del tratado, en su propia voz: paradoja deliberada, hipérbole oriental y altisonancia piadosa dirigidas a espantar a los ortodoxos del día.

«In other words, it is by a purely arbitrary mental abstraction that we “regard derived being in and by itself”. The impossibility of really effecting this abstraction is precisely what preserves to derived being its measure of actuality —”whatever being it has .. .”» — la lectura de Gairdner: mirar el ser derivado en y por sí mismo es abstracción arbitraria, y la imposibilidad de efectuarla es lo que le conserva su medida de actualidad.

«To us these last words are a clear concession of reality to conditioned being. It is true Ghazzali denies reality to it in the next sentence.» — Gairdner consigna el desacuerdo sin armonizarlo: lee ahí una concesión de realidad al ser condicionado, y reconoce que la frase siguiente del tratado se la niega.

«But this only shows that when an Oriental talks of “Real” he means what we mean by “Unconditioned”, and that when he is thinking of “Conditioned or Relative” he says “Unreal.” The matter has become one of terms.» — la explicación que Gairdner propone para esa contradicción: que *Real* vale por *Incondicionado* y *Irreal* por *Condicionado o Relativo*, con lo que el asunto se vuelve de términos.

«Is not this true for all Safi writers? Do we not take their language too seriously? It parades as scientific; it is really poetico-rhetorical.» — nota de Gairdner que extiende la observación a todos los escritores sufíes: su lenguaje se toma demasiado en serio, desfila como científico y es poético-retórico.

«Gh. has no more use for the Noumenon, for the Ding an sich, than had the post-Kantians; though for how different reasons.» — nota de Gairdner que acerca al autor a los poskantianos en el rechazo del nóumeno, y a la vez acota que por razones muy distintas.

«It is impossible to demand more than this from Ghazzali as philosopher-theologian. He was, perhaps, not more successful than other eastern theologians in finding a place for the universe, philosophically, with or in Allah. But has western philosophy been any more successful in finding a place for Allah, philosophically, with or in the universe?» — el cierre de la Introducción: Gairdner declara imposible pedir más al autor como filósofo teólogo y devuelve la pregunta a la filosofía occidental, que tampoco le parece más exitosa en hallar sitio para Allah dentro del universo.

«For it is in the Mishkat that we find the following words, too, which seem plain and harmless enough: “Being is itself divided into that which has being-in-itself, and that which derives its being» — la cita del tratado que Gairdner alega como llana e inofensiva: el ser se divide en el que lo tiene en sí y el que lo deriva de otro; el tramo se corta en el cambio de plana.

«from not-itself. The being of this latter is borrowed, having no existence by itself. Nay, if it is regarded in and by itself it is pure not-being. Whatever being it has is due to its relation to not-itself, which is not real being at all» — la continuación en la plana siguiente: el ser de lo derivado es prestado, mirado en sí mismo es puro no ser, y lo que tiene le viene de su relación con lo que no es él.

«CPSIA information can be obtained at www.ICGtesting.com Printed in the USA» — el aviso de impresión bajo demanda que la reimpresión imprime en la plana 110, con la única indicación de lugar de impresión que trae el troceo; no hay página de derechos ni año.

«Abu Hamid Mohammad ibn Mohammad Al-Ghazali (1058-1111), known as Algazel to the western medieval world, was born and died in Tus, in the Khorasan province of Persia (modern day Iran).» — arranque de la contracubierta biográfica de la reimpresión, plana 112: es texto editorial de Dodo Press, no voz de la obra ni del traductor. Da las fechas 1058-1111, el nombre latino Algazel y Tus, en Khorasan, por lugar de nacimiento y de muerte.

«He is considered a pioneer of the methods of doubt and skepticism, and in one of his major works, The Incoherence of the Philosophers, he changed the course of early Islamic philosophy,» — la misma contracubierta atribuye a Ghazali la condición de pionero de la duda y del escepticismo y le adjudica un cambio de rumbo de la filosofía islámica temprana por la *Incoherencia de los filósofos*; el OCR de la plana está muy corrompido y el tramo se toma de los renglones legibles. El troceo parte *skep-ticism* al fin de renglón y la herramienta lo devuelve unido; la restitución es lectura propuesta, no letra de la fuente.

«He received many titles such as Sharaful A’emma, Zainuddin and Hujjatul Islam, meaning "Proof of Islam".» — los títulos que la contracubierta le adjudica, con la traducción de *Hujjatul Islam* como Prueba del Islam.

«The autobiography Ghazali wrote towards the end of his life, The Confessions of Al-Ghazali: Rescuer from Error is considered a work of great importance.» — la contracubierta nombra la autobiografía tardía con el título inglés *The Confessions of Al-Ghazali: Rescuer from Error*, mientras la Introducción de Gairdner la llama *Al-Munqidh min al-Dalal*: las dos denominaciones se consignan sin armonizar.

«Another of Ghazali's major works is /hya al-Ulum al-Din or lhya'ul Ulumuddin (The Revival of Religious Sciences).» — la contracubierta da el *Ihya al-Ulum al-Din* con dos grafías distintas en la misma frase y su traducción inglesa; el troceo imprime la barra inicial del título en cursiva como carácter suelto.

Gnosis (conocimiento salvífico) — El tratado llama gnósticos de Allah a quienes suben de las metáforas a las realidades y ven al final del Ascenso que nada existe salvo Allah; distingue entre los que llegan científicamente y los que llegan experimental y subjetivamente, y pone la experiencia mística por encima del conocimiento y este por encima de la fe.

Microcosmos (el hombre-mundo) — Adán recibe una imagen sumaria que abraza todo género y especie del mundo, como copia resumida suya, y de ahí que solo quien se conoce a sí mismo conozca a su Señor; Gairdner añade en su Introducción la correlación entre el microcosmos humano y el macrocosmos celeste de las tres esferas bajas.

Iniciación (recepción por grados / metamorfosis del ser) — El tratado condiciona la entrega de los misterios al estado del destinatario —corazón abierto por la Luz y conciencia purgada— y enuncia la regla de doble filo: negar la Sabiduría a sus Hijos no es menos injusto que entregarla a los extraños.

Secreto (lo que se jura no fijar por escrito) — La reserva es sistemática: no todo misterio se descubre, hay misterios que el autor declara no estar en libertad de discutir, y la explicación del *amr* queda fuera del alcance del libro. Gairdner lo objeta en su apartado II, donde enumera los pasajes en que el tratado se retira al llegar al desenlace.

Imaginación (phantasia) — La imaginación es a la vez estorbo y órgano: dura y opaca a la luz de la inteligencia mientras está en bruto, y conductora de luz una vez clarificada, como el vidrio. El tratado la hace además necesaria para que el conocimiento intelectual no se disipe.

Correspondencia — La tesis simbólica del tratado: la misericordia divina dio al Mundo Visible correspondencia con el Reino Supernal, de modo que no hay cosa sensible que no simbolice algo de allá, y una cosa de acá puede simbolizar varias de allá y al revés. Los símbolos no son metáforas sino nexo real entre tipo y antitipo.

Theurgia (obra divina) — El grado supremo del tratado describe al alma unida asentándose en el trono de la Unidad divina y tomando desde ahí el mando por los cielos escalonados; sobre ese pasaje monta Gairdner su hipótesis del Vicegerente, y el propio tratado corta la exposición ahí.

Philosophia perennis (filosofía perenne) — Gairdner acerca la doctrina de los símbolos del tratado a las ideas platónicas y a los «patrones de las cosas en los cielos» de la Epístola a los Hebreos, y declara platónica en nota la división tripartita del alma; la comparación es suya y no del tratado.

Cadena de transmisión (quién tomó de quién) — El propio tratado acota la transmisión de un dicho que cita: la cadena del hadiz del fuera y el dentro del Corán se detiene en el nombre de Alí, y el tratado lo consigna en vez de darlo por profético sin más.

Crítica de fuentes (criterios de inclusión y descarte) — El tratado registra variantes de lectura sin arbitrar: dos lecturas del Versículo de la Luz —la de Ibn Mas'ud y la de Ubayy b. Ka'b— y dos cifras para los velos, setecientos o setenta mil, cuya fijación declara fuera de su competencia. Gairdner, por su parte, enmienda el árabe en nota y lo dice.