Niffari's Station of Reality- Through the Metaphysics of Ibn 'Arabī
In this post, we will explore the profound dialogue from Niffari’s Station of Reality - 44 , guided by the illuminating commentary of Tilmisani and grounded in the metaphysical framework of Ibn 'Arabī.
The Mystic, The Master, and The Commentator
The history of Islamic mysticism is woven from threads that span centuries, and few threads are as luminous, or as tightly interlaced, as those connecting Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Jabbār al-Niffarī (d. c. 354 AH / 965 CE), 'Afīf al-Dīn al-Tilimsānī (d. 690 AH / 1291 CE), and Muḥyī al-Dīn Ibn 'Arabī (d. 638 AH / 1240 CE).
Niffarī is one of the most enigmatic figures in the Sufi canon. A wandering mystic of the fourth Islamic century, he left behind two short but inexhaustible works: the Kitāb al-Mawāqif (The Book of Spiritual Stations) and the Kitāb al-Mukhāṭabāt (The Book of Divine Addresses). In them, Niffarī records moments of direct encounter between the servant and God, dialogues of terrifying intimacy, where God stations the mystic before a truth and speaks to him without intermediary. His language is compressed, oracular, and often paradoxical. Each mawqif (station or stopping-place) is a scene of unveiling: the servant is halted, addressed, and transformed. Because the texts are so dense and allusive, they have demanded, and rewarded, commentary across the centuries.
Ibn 'Arabī, the Shaykh al-Akbar (the Greatest Master), needs little introduction to students of Sufism. Born in al-Andalus and writing his vast corpus in Damascus, he constructed the most comprehensive metaphysical system in Islamic thought. His two magisterial works, the Fuṣūṣ al-Ḥikam (The Bezels of Wisdom) and the al-Futūḥāt al-Makkiyya (The Meccan Revelations), articulate the doctrines of waḥdat al-wujūd (the oneness of existence), the a'yān thābita (fixed or immutable entities), tajallī (divine self-disclosure), and fanā' (annihilation in God). These doctrines form the conceptual architecture through which virtually all later Sufi metaphysics is built.
Tilimsānī stands at the crossroads of these two giants. A devoted student of the Akbarian school, the intellectual tradition flowing directly from Ibn 'Arabī, he composed a commentary on Niffarī's Mawāqif that reads Niffarī's visionary encounters through the precise metaphysical vocabulary of Ibn 'Arabī. Where Niffarī offers the raw experience of mystical encounter, and Ibn 'Arabī offers the theoretical framework that maps the architecture of existence, Tilimsānī bridges the two: showing that Niffarī's ecstatic visions and Ibn 'Arabī's rigorous ontology describe the same reality from different vantage points. His commentary transforms each cryptic line of the Mawāqif into a worked-out demonstration of Akbarian metaphysics: shadow and light, existence and non-existence, the mirror of the servant and the self-disclosure of the Lord.
What follows is a deep reading of Mawqif 44, The Station of Reality (مَوْقِفُ الحَقِيقَة), one of the most profound encounters in the entire collection. We will move through Niffarī's original text, Tilimsānī's commentary, and the Akbarian citations that illuminate the metaphysical landscape, tracing the mystic's journey from the first question, "Who are you and who am I?", through the eclipse of all created light, into the darkness of non-existence, and finally to the paradox of seeing God while becoming "the furthest of the far."
Part I: The Shadow and the Light
Niffari:
أَوْقَفَنِي وَقَالَ لِي
He stationed me and said to me:
Divine:
مَنْ أَنْتَ وَمَنْ أَنَا،
"Who are you and who am I?"
Niffari:
فَرَأَيْتُ الشَّمْسَ وَالْقَمَرَ وَالنُّجُومَ وَجَمِيعَ الْأَنْوَارِ
Then I saw the sun, the moon, the stars, and all the lights.
Tilmisani's Commentary
قُلْتُ: اعْلَمْ أَنَّ مُرَادَهُ أَنْ تَتَبَيَّنَ حَقِيقَةُ الْعَبْدِ مَا هِيَ وَحَقِيقَةُ الْحَقِّ مَا هِيَ.
I said: Know that his intent is for the reality of the servant to become clear as to what it is, and the reality of the Truth [God] as to what it is.
قَوْلُهُ: فَرَأَيْتُ الشَّمْسَ وَالْقَمَرَ وَجَمِيعَ الْأَنْوَارِ يَعْنِي فِي حَقِيقَةِ قَوْلِهِ: مَنْ أَنْتَ، وَأَمَّا حَقِيقَةُ قَوْلِهِ: مَنْ أَنَا، فَسَوْفَ يَتَبَيَّنُ أَنَّ ذَلِكَ مِمَّا يُوجِبُ انْكِسَافَ الشَّمْسِ وَانْخِسَافَ الْقَمَرِ وَذَهَابَ الْأَنْوَارِ كُلِّهَا وَعَوْدَهَا إِلَى الظُّلْمَةِ، وَنَعْنِي بِالظُّلْمَةِ الْعَدَمَ.
His saying: "Then I saw the sun, the moon, and all the lights" refers to the reality of his saying: "Who are you?" As for the reality of his saying: "Who am I?", it will soon become clear that this is among what necessitates the eclipse of the sun, the eclipse of the moon, the vanishing of all lights, and their return to darkness—and by darkness, we mean non-existence.
Akbarian Commentary: The Cosmos as a Shadow
In the deep Akbarian context of the cosmos as a shadow, the lights Niffarī sees—the sun, moon, stars—are the shadow of the One Light. Thus, when God asks "Who are you?" the answer is: you are the shadow. When He asks "Who am I?" the answer eclipses the shadow entirely. This principle is rooted in Ibn 'Arabī's profound assertion in the Fuṣūṣ al-Ḥikam (Chapter of Joseph), specifically Chapter 9 — The Bezel of the Wisdom of Light in the Word of Joseph (فص حكمة نورية في كلمة يوسفية), where he states:
وَاعْلَمْ أَنَّ مَا سِوَى اللَّهِ أَوْ مَا يُسَمَّى عَالَمًا هُوَ بِالنِّسْبَةِ إِلَى الْحَقِّ كَالظِّلِّ لِلشَّخْصِ، فَهُوَ ظِلُّ اللَّهِ.
"Know that what is other than God, or what is called the cosmos, is in relation to the Real like a shadow to a person; so it is the shadow of God."
In this chapter, Ibn Arabi uses the story of Joseph (a story fundamentally about dreams and interpretation) to explain that the entire universe is a "dream within a dream" and a shadow-play. The cosmos only possesses the relative reality of a shadow cast by the Light of the Absolute. Ibn 'Arabī mirrors this exact moment of ontological questioning in his own visions from Contemplation 1:
أشهدني الحق بمشهد نور الوجود وطلوع نجم العيان، وقال لي: من أنت؟
The Real made me contemplate the light of existence as the star of direct vision rose, and He asked me, "Who are you?"
قلت: العدم الظاهر.
I replied, "Apparent non-existence".
Part II: The Flowing Sea
Niffari:
وَقَالَ لِي
And He said to me:
Divine:
مَا بَقِيَ نُورٌ فِي مَجْرَى بَحْرِي إِلَّا وَقَدْ رَأَيْتَهُ،
"There remained no light in the flow of My sea except that you have seen it."
Niffari:
وَجَاءَنِي كُلُّ شَيْءٍ حَتَّى لَمْ يَبْقَ شَيْءٌ فَقَبَّلَ بَيْنَ عَيْنَيَّ وَسَلَّمَ عَلَيَّ وَوَقَفَ فِي الظِّلِّ.
And everything came to me until nothing was left, and it kissed between my eyes, greeted me, and stood in the shadow.
Tilmisani's Commentary
قُلْتُ: مَجْرَى بَحْرِهِ هُوَ حَقِيقَةُ وُجُودِهِ، وَالتَّقْبِيلُ بَيْنَ عَيْنِهِ هُوَ عِبَارَةٌ عَنِ انْقِيَادِ مَا سِوَاهُ إِلَيْهِ، وَذَلِكَ هُوَ حَقِيقَةُ السَّلَامِ أَيْضًا. وَأَمَّا وُقُوفُ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ فِي الظِّلِّ فَإِنَّ الظِّلَّ هُوَ الْعَدَمُ الْإِضَافِيُّ؛ فَإِنَّ الظِّلَّ لَا حَقِيقَةَ لَهُ فِي ذَاتِهِ وَإِنَّمَا يَتَحَقَّقُ بِالنُّورِ الْمُكْشِفِ لِمَا بَطَنَ أَنَّهُ مَكَانُهُ وَأَدْرَكَ حَقِيقَةَ الظِّلِّ، وَمَنْ عَرَفَهُ عَرَفَ حِكْمَةً كَثِيرَةً، فَقَوْلُهُ وَقَفَ فِي الظِّلِّ: أَيْ شَهِدْتُ حَقِيقَةً فَوَجَدْتُهَا كَحَقِيقَةِ الظِّلِّ فَوَقَفْتُ فِيهِ أَيْ كَانَتْ مِنْ نِسْبَتِهِ.
I said: The course of His sea is the reality of His existence, and the kissing between his eyes is an expression of the submission of all else to Him, and that is also the reality of the greeting. As for everything standing in the shadow, the shadow is relative non-existence; for the shadow has no reality in itself, but is only realized by the light revealing what is hidden, that it is its place, and he perceived the reality of the shadow, and whoever knows it knows much wisdom. Thus, his saying "stood in the shadow": meaning I witnessed a reality and found it like the reality of the shadow, so I stood in it, meaning it was of its nature [relation].
Akbarian Commentary: On "The Sun and the Light"
In the deep Akbarian context of "The Sun and the Light," the "sea" of God is His infinite existence, and every light in that sea is a created form—the sun, the moon, the stars—all stamps of the One Seal. The shadow where everything stands has no reality in itself; it is the form required for the spirit to appear. This dynamic of tajallī (self-disclosure) is perfectly captured when Niffarī observes, "You are to the Truth like the sun to the light."
Niffarī and Ibn 'Arabī use the exact same analogy to describe this relationship, where the sun (Absolute) and light (Relative) are distinct in nature, but inseparable in manifestation. This is explicitly codified by Ibn 'Arabī in al-Futūḥāt al-Makkiyya (Chapter 198):
الْمَخْلُوقُ هُوَ الصُّورَةُ، وَالْخَالِقُ هُوَ الرُّوحُ، وَالنِّسْبَةُ بَيْنَهُمَا كَالشَّمْسِ لِلضَّوْءِ، أَوِ الْخَاتَمِ لِلنَّقْشِ.
"The creature is the form (ṣūra); the Creator is the spirit (rūḥ). The relationship between them is like the sun to the light, or the seal to the stamp (naqsh)."
As Ibn 'Arabī says: the creature is the form, the Creator is the spirit. In Contemplation 1, Ibn 'Arabī explicitly defines this metaphysical boundary between the limited, relative form of the servant and the absolute, infinite "sea" of the Divine:
ثم قال لي: كل وجود لا يصح إلا بالتقييد فهو لك، وكل وجود مطلق فهو لي.
Then He said to me, "Every [kind of] limited and relative existence is yours and all absolute and unlimited existence belongs to Me."
Metaphysically, the "sea" represents the absolute, unlimited (muṭlaq) existence of God, while the "lights" or forms represent the limited, restricted (muqayyad) existence of the cosmos. The servant only possesses existence insofar as it is restricted and defined by form, while the pure, boundless reality belongs solely to the Real.
Part III: The Broken Mirror
Niffari:
وَقَالَ لِي
And He said to me:
Divine:
تَعْرِفُنِي وَلَا أَعْرِفُكَ،
"You know Me, but I do not know you."
Niffari:
فَرَأَيْتُهُ كُلَّهُ يَتَعَلَّقُ بِثَوْبِي وَلَا يَتَعَلَّقُ بِي، وَقَالَ
So I saw all of it attaching to my garment and not attaching to me, and He said:
Divine:
هَذِهِ عِبَادَتِي،
"This is My worship."
Niffari:
وَمَالَ ثَوْبِي وَمَا مِلْتُ فَلَمَّا مَالَ ثَوْبِي قَالَ لِي
And my garment swayed, but I did not sway. Then when my garment swayed, He said to me:
Divine:
مَنْ أَنَا،
"Who am I?"
Tilmisani's Commentary
قُلْتُ: مَعْنَى قَوْلِهِ تَعْرِفُنِي وَلَا أَعْرِفُكَ: أَيْ أَنَا وُجُودٌ فَأُعْرَفُ وَأَنْتَ عَدَمٌ فَلَا تُعْرَفُ. وَقَوْلُهُ: فَرَأَيْتُ الْحَقَّ يَتَعَلَّقُ بِثَوْبِي، أَيْ بِوُجُودِي وَلَا يَتَعَلَّقُ بِي أَيْ بِحَقِيقَتِي فَإِنَّهَا عَدَمٌ، ثُمَّ قَالَ هَذِهِ عِبَادَتِي أَيْ شُهُودُ أَنِّي وُجُودٌ وَأَنَّكَ عَدَمٌ هُوَ عِبَادَتِي. قَوْلُهُ: وَمَالَ ثَوْبِي، الْمَيْلُ هُوَ الْعُدُولُ عَنِ الطَّرِيقِ أَيْ مَالَ ثَوْبِي إِلَى دَعْوَى الْأَنَانِيَّةِ لِأَنَّهُ وُجُودٌ.
I said: The meaning of his saying "You know Me, but I do not know you": Meaning, I am existence so I am known, and you are non-existence so you are not known. And his saying: "So I saw the Truth attaching to my garment," meaning to my existence, "and not attaching to me," meaning to my reality, because it is non-existence. Then he said "This is My worship," meaning witnessing that I am existence and you are non-existence is My worship. His saying: "And my garment swayed," swaying is deviating from the path, meaning my garment inclined towards the claim of egoism (I-ness) because it is existence.
Akbarian Commentary: On "Naming and Adorning"
In the deep Akbarian context on "Naming and Adorning," Niffarī advises: "If I name you, do not take a name; if I adorn you, do not adorn yourself." Tilimsānī interprets Niffarī’s warning using this Akbarian logic: the servant must remain a mirror; claiming the "adornments" (Divine Names/Qualities) as one's own identity shatters the mirror, making true witnessing impossible.
The Truth clings to the "garment" (existence) but not to the "self" (reality), because the self is non-existence. "This is My worship" means: witnessing that I am existence and you are nothing is the essence of worship. When the garment sways toward egoism, the mirror cracks. This perfectly reflects the core Akbarian reference found in Ibn 'Arabī (Fuṣūṣ al-Ḥikam, Chapter of Muhammad):
الْعَبْدُ مِرْآةٌ لِلرَّبِّ، وَالرَّبُّ سِرٌّ لِلْعَبْدِ، فَإِذَا ادَّعَى الْعَبْدُ الصِّفَاتِ، فَقَدْ كَسَرَ الْمِرْآةَ.
"The servant is a mirror for the Lord, and the Lord is a secret for the servant. If the servant claims the qualities (ṣifāt) for himself, he has broken the mirror."
As Ibn 'Arabī says: if the servant claims the qualities for himself, he has broken the mirror. Then God asks again: "Who am I?"—and the question shatters the cracked mirror entirely. To claim an adornment is to claim existence, which the servant intrinsically does not possess. In Contemplation 1, Ibn 'Arabī captures this exact metaphysical distinction, recognizing that the servant's true perfection lies in their absolute ontological poverty—being stripped of all names and qualities—while God's perfection is in possessing them unconditionally:
فأنا مسمى من غير اسم وموصوف من غير وصف ومنعوت بلا نعت وهو كمالي، وأنت مسقى بالاسم وموصوف بالوصف ومنعوت بالنعت وهو كمالك.
"...so I am named without a name, qualified without any quality and described without description, and this constitutes my perfection. However, You are named by the name, qualified by the quality and described by the description, and this constitutes Your perfection."
Ibn 'Arabī further confirms this distinction between the existent Lord and the non-existent servant:
ثم قال لي: لا يعرف الموجود إلا المعدوم.
Then He said to me, "Only the non-existent knows the existent."
ثم قال لي: الوجود مني لا منك وبك لا بي،
"Existence is from Me, not from you, but it is in you, not in Me."
Part IV: The Eclipse and Annihilation
Niffari:
فَكَسَفَتِ الشَّمْسُ وَالْقَمَرُ وَسَقَطَتِ النُّجُومُ وَخَمَدَتِ الْأَنْوَارُ وَغَشِيَتِ الظُّلْمَةُ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ سِوَاهُ وَلَمْ تَرَ عَيْنِي وَلَمْ تَسْمَعْ أُذُنِي وَبَطَلَ حِسِّي، وَنَطَقَ كُلُّ شَيْءٍ، فَقَالَ
So the sun and the moon eclipsed, the stars fell, the lights extinguished, and darkness enveloped everything other than Him. And my eyes did not see, my ears did not hear, my senses ceased, and everything spoke, saying:
Everything:
اللَّهُ أَكْبَرُ،
"Allah is the Greatest."
Niffari:
وَجَاءَنِي كُلُّ شَيْءٍ وَفِي يَدِهِ حَرْبَةٌ، فَقَالَ لِيَ
And everything came to me with a spear in its hand, saying to me:
Everything:
اهْرُبْ،
"Flee!"
Niffari:
فَقُلْتُ إِلَى أَيْنَ،
So I said: "To where?"
Niffari:
فَقَالَ
He said:
Divine:
قَعْ فِي الظُّلْمَةِ،
"Fall into the darkness."
Tilmisani's Commentary
فَلَمَّا شَهِدَ الْعَبْدُ الْأَنَانِيَّةَ الْمُطْلَقَةَ وَالْحَقِيقَةَ الْمُحَقَّقَةَ آنَذَاكَ طَوْرُهُ طَوْرُ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ فِي عَيْنِهِ فَهُوَ قَوْلُهُ: فَكَسَفَتِ الشَّمْسُ إِلَى آخِرِهِ. ثُمَّ غَشِيَتِ الظُّلْمَةُ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ سِوَاهُ، وَيَعْنِي بِالظُّلْمَةِ الْعَدَمَ، فَكَأَنَّهُ قَالَ انْعَدَمَ فِي نَظَرِي كُلُّ شَيْءٍ ثُمَّ صُعِقَ هُوَ فِي نَفْسِهِ وَهُوَ قَوْلُهُ: وَلَمْ تَرَ عَيْنِي وَلَمْ تَسْمَعْ أُذُنِي وَبَطَلَ حِسِّي. قَالَ: وَجَاءَنِي كُلُّ شَيْءٍ وَفِي يَدِهِ حَرْبَةٌ، وَهَذَا الْمَجِيءُ مَعْنَوِيٌّ: أَيْ كُلَّمَا حَاوَلْتُ اعْتِبَارَ الْأَشْيَاءِ، وَالْحَالَةُ هَذِهِ رَأَيْتُهَا كَأَنَّ فِي أَيْدِيهَا حِرَابًا، يَقُولُونَ لِيَ اهْرُبْ إِلَى الظُّلْمَةِ فَوَقَعْتُ فِي الظُّلْمَةِ: أَيْ فِي الْعَدَمِ أَيْ شَهِدْتُ أَنِّي عَدَمٌ.
So when the servant witnessed the absolute egoism and the realized reality at that time, his state encompassed everything in his sight, which is his saying: "So the sun eclipsed..." to the end. Then darkness enveloped everything other than Him, and by darkness he means non-existence, as if he said everything became non-existent in my view, then he himself was struck down in himself, which is his saying: "And my eyes did not see, my ears did not hear, and my senses ceased." He said: "And everything came to me with a spear in its hand," and this coming is metaphorical: meaning whenever I tried to give consideration to things, in this state, I saw them as if they had spears in their hands, saying to me "flee" into the darkness, so I fell into the darkness: meaning into non-existence, meaning I witnessed that I am non-existence.
Akbarian Commentary: On "The Eclipse/Annihilation" & Tajalli
In the deep Akbarian context of the eclipse and annihilation, when Niffarī states, "So the sun eclipsed, the moon eclipsed… and I fell into the darkness," Tilimsānī confirms that the "darkness" (ẓulma) Niffarī falls into is the fanā’ of the individual subject (the "I"). It is not a literal physical darkness, but the disappearance of the secondary ego (anāniyya) in the Presence of the Real. This aligns perfectly with Ibn 'Arabī's definition in al-Futūḥāt al-Makkiyya (Chapter 4):
الْفَنَاءُ هُوَ ضِمْحِلَالُ الشَّاهِدِ فِي الْمَشْهُودِ، فَلَا يَبْقَى شَاهِدٌ يَرَى الْأَغْيَارَ.
"Annihilation (fanā’) is the fading away of the witness into the Witnessed (al-mashhūd). No witness remains to see other-than-God."
When God asks "Who am I?" the question is so overwhelming that it annihilates every created light. The sun, moon, stars—none survive the unveiling. This is fanā': the witness dissolves into the Witnessed. As Ibn 'Arabī says regarding annihilation through Epiphany (Tajalli) in Al-Futūhāt al-Makkiyya (Chapter 73):
فَإِذَا تَجَلَّى الْحَقُّ لِلشَّيْءِ أَفْنَاهُ، لِأَنَّ الْوُجُودَ لِلَّهِ وَحْدَهُ، فَلَا يَبْقَى مَعَ ظُهُورِ نُورِهِ ظُلْمَةُ سِوَاهُ.
"For when the Real manifests (Tajalli) to a thing, He annihilates it, because existence belongs to God alone; so with the appearance of His light, the darkness of what is other than Him does not remain."
This doctrine is synthesised from Ibn Arabi's extensive discourses on Tajalli (Divine Epiphany) and Fanā' (Annihilation). Ibn Arabi explains that because the cosmos is a "shadow" or "darkness," the absolute, unveiled manifestation of the Divine Light does not illuminate the cosmos—it erases it. When God says "Who am I?", the sheer weight of His Reality shatters the illusion of the mystic's separate existence. The darkness Niffarī falls into is not evil—it is the extinction of every secondary self before the Absolute.
Ibn 'Arabī beautifully maps this ultimate paradox of fanā' in Contemplation 1. To "lose" one's secondary ego is the exact condition required to "find" the Absolute. The presence of the servant's ego is the absence of God, and the annihilation of the servant is the presence of God:
ثم قال لي: من وجدك فقدني ومن فقدك وجدني.
"Whoever finds you loses Me and whoever loses you finds Me."
ثم قال: إن وجدتني لم ترني، وإن فقدتني رأيتني.
Then He said, "If you find Me you will not see Me but you will see Me if you lose Me."
ثم قال لي: في الوجود فقدي وفي الفقد وجودي، فلو اطلعت على الأخذ لوقفت على الوجود الحقيقي.
"Finding is losing Me and losing is finding Me. Were you able to discover taking, then you would know real existence."
Part V: The Furthest of the Far
Niffari:
فَوَقَعْتُ فِي الظُّلْمَةِ فَأَبْصَرْتُ نَفْسِي، فَقَالَ لِي
So I fell into the darkness and saw myself, and He said to me:
Divine:
لَا تُبْصِرُ غَيْرَكَ أَبَدًا وَلَا تَخْرُجُ مِنَ الظُّلْمَةِ أَبَدًا
"You shall never see other than yourself, and you shall never exit the darkness.
فَإِذَا أَخْرَجْتُكَ مِنْهَا أَرَيْتُكَ نَفْسِي فَرَأَيْتَنِي
But if I bring you out from it, I will show you Myself and you will see Me,
وَإِذَا رَأَيْتَنِي فَأَنْتَ أَبْعَدُ الْأَبْعَدِينَ.
and if you see Me, then you are the furthest of the far."
Tilmisani's Commentary
وَمَعْنَى قَوْلِهِ: لَا تَخْرُجُ مِنَ الظُّلْمَةِ أَبَدًا، أَيْ لَا تَرَ نَفْسَكَ أَبَدًا إِلَّا عَدَمًا فَأَمَّا إِذَا أَخْرَجَهُ مِنْهَا بِإِشْهَادِهِ الْوُجُودَ فَقَدْ أَرَادَ نَفْسَهُ الْمُقَدَّسَةَ، لَكِنْ مِنْ حَقِيقَةِ رُؤْيَتِهِ إِيَّاهُ أَنْ لَا يَرَى نَفْسَهُ مَا دَامَ يَرَاهُ فَحَقِيقَتُهُ إِذَنْ هِيَ أَبْعَدُ الْأَبْعَدِينَ؛ لِأَنَّ التَّجَلِّيَ أَفْنَاهَا، وَمَا أَفْنَاهُ التَّجَلِّي لَنْ يَعُودَ أَبَدًا.
"You shall never exit the darkness" means you shall never see yourself except as non-existence. But if He brings him out of it by making him witness existence, He has intended His sacred Self. However, from the reality of his seeing Him, he does not see himself as long as he sees Him. So his reality then is "the furthest of the far"—because the manifestation (epiphany) has annihilated it, and whatever the manifestation annihilates shall never return.
Akbarian Commentary: On "Non-Existence" vs. "Potentiality"
In the deep Akbarian context of non-existence versus potentiality, the servant will never see anything but non-existence unless God shows him otherwise. As Niffarī states, "If you were not an existing entity, your existence would not be possible." Tilimsānī draws this from Ibn 'Arabī’s concept of the fixed entities (a'yān thābita), explaining that the servant’s "existence" is possible only because he was an established potentiality within Divine Knowledge before manifestation. Ibn 'Arabī hears these exact words regarding existence from the Divine in his vision in Contemplation 1, bridging Niffari's statement directly to God's speech:
قال لي: والعدم كيف يصير وجوداً؟! لو لم تكن موجوداً ما صح وجودك..
Then He said to me, "And how can non-existence change into existence? If you were not an existing [entity], your existence would not be possible and real."
As Ibn 'Arabī writes in Fuṣūṣ al-Ḥikam (Chapter of Solomon):
قَالَ تَعَالَى: (وَأَنْشَأْنَا بَعْدَهُمْ قَرْنًا آخَرِينَ) فَالْعَالَمُ ظِلٌّ، وَالْأَعْيَانُ الثَّابِتَةُ فِي حَضْرَةِ الْعِلْمِ نَالَتْ وُجُودَهَا مِنَ النُّورِ الْإِلَهِيِّ.
"The Truth, Most High, said: 'And We created another generation after them.' The world is a shadow, and the fixed entities (a‘yān thābita) in the Presence of Knowledge attained their existence from the Divine Light."
The fixed entities (a'yān thābita) had existence only in Divine Knowledge—never in themselves. This is codified in arguably the most famous single sentence in all of Akbarian ontology, from Fusūs al-Hikam (Chapter 8 — The Bezel of the Wisdom of Opening in the Word of Salih):
الأَعْيَانُ مَا شَمَّتْ رَائِحَةَ الوُجُودِ
"The immutable entities have never smelled the scent of existence..."
Ibn Arabi states this while explaining the Divine Command "Be!" (Kun). He argues that the Command does not grant independent existence to the entities; rather, God simply manifests His existence within their conceptual forms, while the entities themselves remain eternally in the "darkness" of non-existence.
When observing the "Two Descents" (Lordship & Servitude), Niffarī remarks: "I exist in the parts, although I do not exist... You are named by the name." Tilimsānī explains this as the "Gathering Station." The mystic is the Human Presence because he gathers within himself both the transcendence of God and the limitation of the servant. As Ibn 'Arabī notes in the Fuṣūṣ al-Ḥikam (Chapter of Adam):
وَلَمَّا كَانَ الْإِنْسَانُ الْكَامِلُ هُوَ الْحَضْرَةُ الْجَامِعَةُ، كَانَ الْحَقُّ يَتَجَلَّى فِيهِ بِجَمِيعِ أَسْمَائِهِ.
"And since the Perfect Human (al-insān al-kāmil) is the Gathering Presence (al-ḥaḍra al-jāmi‘a), the Truth manifests in him through all of His Names."
In Contemplation 1, Ibn 'Arabī addresses this exact dynamic of the Gathering Presence—the interplay between the differentiated reality of the cosmos and the integrated reality of the Absolute:
ثم قال لي: الوجود المفروق لي بك، والوجود المجموع لك بي.
"Differentiated existence, which is Mine, is through you, and integrated existence, which is yours, is through Me."
Metaphysically, as the "Gathering Presence," the Perfect Human acts as the bridge. The Divine's "differentiated" existence (mufāraq)—manifesting across the multiplicity of the cosmos—happens through the forms of the servants. Conversely, the servant's "integrated" existence (majmū')—their return to the absolute unity of the Divine—is achieved only through God.
The servant will never see anything but non-existence unless God shows him otherwise. If God brings him out of the darkness, He shows him His own Self—and in that seeing, the servant becomes "the furthest of the two far ones." Why? Because as long as you see God, you cannot see yourself. Your individual reality is pushed to the furthest distance into the integrated whole. The Perfect Human is the Gathering Presence where all these shadows collect as mirrors for the One Light. But when the Light itself appears, even the mirrors dissolve.