Atributos de Deus

Ao nível humano a grandeza, a beleza, a bondade de um ser se exprimem pela abundância dos qualificativos e pelo emprego do superlativo. Vê-se de pronto que estes procedimentos, aplicados ao divino, não alcançam a dar conta de uma maneira adequada do que se quer exprimir: logo chega um momento onde a inteligência especulativa falha em seu esforço para designar e descrever o objeto de sua contemplação. O Ser Primeiro (o Deus das tradições religiosas) é soberanamente Ser, Unidade, Beleza, Bondade, Vida, Inteligência, Amor, Poder… mas segundo que medida? E não é ele senão isso?
Uma questão interessante se coloca: esta pluralidade de «aspectos» do divino existe realmente ou virtualmente (quer dizer unicamente relativamente ao conhecimento que dela temos)? O Verbo Divino constitui a totalidade do divino? As relações entre este Verbo e o resto do divino são de natureza filo:dialética — segundo o ensinamento de sofia:Hegel? Seriam o fruto de uma contemplação? A contemplação dele mesmo do Ser Divino, que filo:Aristóteles iluminou admiravelmente, permite uma fecundidade de inteligência e de amor espiritual? O que o filósofo pode afirmar, é que o mundo manifestado porta traços muito claros das perfeições divinas; que as tradições intelectuais e religiosas da humanidade testemunham incontestavelmente de uma pluralidade de «aspectos» no seio do divino (pensamos nos trabalhos de Guénon sobre o simbolismo); enfim que o Noûs do homem contemplativo, do Sábio é familiar da luz na qual o Ser Primeiro dá a cada ser o esse: esta luz é aquela da contemplação metafísica.

(Christophe Andruzac: René Guénon, la contemplation métaphysique et l’expérience mystique)

Lo que hemos dicho sobre el simbolismo permite darse cuenta de la manera en la que la incomprehensión que da nacimiento al antropomorfismo puede tener como resultado hacer de los «atributos divinos» otros tantos «dioses», es decir entidades concebidas basándose en el tipo de los seres individuales, y a las que se presta una existencia propia e independiente. Ese es uno de los casos más evidentes de la «idolatría», que toma el símbolo por lo que es simbolizado, y que reviste aquí la forma del «politeísmo»; pero es claro que ninguna doctrina ha sido nunca politeísta en sí misma y en su esencia, puesto que no podía devenir tal más que por el efecto de una deformación profunda, que no se generaliza, por lo demás, sino mucho más raramente de lo que se cree vulgarmente; a decir verdad, no conocemos siquiera más que un solo ejemplo cierto de la generalización de este error, a saber, el de la civilización grecorromana, y todavía hubo al menos algunas excepciones en su elite intelectual. En Oriente, donde la tendencia al antropomorfismo no existe, a excepción de aberraciones individuales siempre posibles, pero raras y anormales, nada semejante ha podido producirse jamás; eso sorprenderá sin duda a muchos de los occidentales, a quienes el conocimiento exclusivo de la antigüedad clásica lleva a querer descubrir por todas partes «mitos» y «paganismo», pero, sin embargo, es así. En la India, en particular, una imagen simbólica que representa uno u otro de los «atributos divinos», y que se llama pratîka, no es un «ídolo», ya que no ha sido tomada nunca por otra cosa que lo que es realmente, un soporte de meditación y un medio auxiliar de realización, pudiendo cada uno, por lo demás, vincularse preferentemente a los símbolos que están más en conformidad con sus disposiciones personales. (René Guénon: Shivaismo)

When Ibn Arabi speaks about God’s attributes and acts, he has in view the divine similarity. In this respect many things can be attributed to God, although it is best to observe courtesy (adab) by attributing to Him only that which He has attributed to Himself in revelation. What He has attributed to Himself is epitomized by His names and attributes, the discussion of which delineates Ibn Arabi’s fundamental approach to the exposition of the nature of things. The attributes are reflected in the acts, i.e., all things found in the cosmos. God’s “power” is reflected passively in everything He has made and actively in suns, volcanoes, seas, bees, human beings, and other creatures. His Hearing is found in every animal and perhaps in plants as well. His Speech is certainly reflected in the cries, calls, and chirps of animals, but only in the same way that a glowing ember may be said to manifest the light of the sun. Only in the human being, the crown of that creation with which we are familiar, can speech reach a station where it expresses intelligence and truth and, in prayer, becomes discourse between man and God. “Call upon ME,” says God in the Koran — to man, not to monkeys or parrots — “and I will answer you” (40:60).

For Ibn Arabi the divine names are the primary reference points in respect to which we can gain knowledge of the cosmos. In the Futuhat he constantly discusses words and technical terms that were employed by theologians, philosophers, and Sufis before him. For example, he has chapters devoted to many of the states (ahwal) and stations (maqamat) that are discussed in detail in Sufi works. These represent the psychological, moral, and spiritual attributes and perspectives that mark degrees of spiritual growth which travelers on the path to God must experience, assimilate, and in most cases pass beyond. Examples include attributes that are paired and usually must be actualized together, such as hope and fear, expansion and contraction, intoxication and sobriety, annihilation and subsistence; and other attributes which are viewed as marking a kind of ascending hierarchy, such as awakening, repentance, self-examination, meditation, ascetic discipline, abstinence, renunciation, desire, refinement, sincerity, confidence, satisfaction, gratitude, humility, joy, certainty, courtesy, remembrance, good-doing, wisdom, inspiration, love, jealousy, ecstasy, tasting, immersion, realization, and unity. Ibn Arabi devotes about 200 chapters of the Futuhat to such terminology. The point to be made here is that his characteristic mode of approach is to discuss briefly what previous masters have said about these qualities and then to bring out what he calls the “divine root” (al-asl al-ilahi) or the “divine support” (al-mustanad al-ilahi) of the quality in question. What is it about God — Allah, the all-comprehensive Reality — that allows such a quality to be manifested in existence in the first place and then to be assumed by a human being? In a few cases the answer is immediately clear. “Love” is attributed to God in many places in the Koran, so the love that the spiritual traveler acquires must be a reflection of that divine love. But in most cases the divine root can only be brought out by a subtle analysis of Koranic verses and hadiths. Invariably, these analyses circle around the names and attributes that are ascribed to God in the revealed texts.

It must be concluded — from the above and a great deal more evidence that will present itself naturally in the course of the present book — that the divine names are the single most important concept to be found in Ibn Arabi’s works. Everything, divine or cosmic, is related back to them. Neither the Divine Essence nor the most insignificant creature in the cosmos can be understood without reference to them. It is true that the Essence is unknown in Itself, but it is precisely the Essence that is named by the names. There are not two realities, Essence and name, but a single reality — the Essence — which is called by a specific name in a given context and from a particular point of view. A single person may be father, son, brother, husband, and so on without becoming many people. By knowing the person as “father” we know him, but that does not mean we know him as brother. Likewise, by knowing any name of God we know God, but not necessarily in respect of another name, nor in respect to His very Self or Essence.

In the same way, God’s creatures must be known in terms of the divine names for any true knowledge to accrue. Every attribute possessed by a creature can be traced back to its ontological root, God Himself. The existence of the creature derives from God’s Being, its strength from God’s power, its awareness from God’s knowledge, and so on. (William Chittick, Caminho Conhecimento)