God and the World In Ibn Tufayl’s Philosophy

Placing the importance of its content and contentions aside, Ibn Tufayl’s philosophical fable Hayy Ibn Yaqzan illustrates the workings of its author’s mind and the methodology he employed in attempting to dissect the Muslim West in order to, perhaps, resolve the theosophical debates that tore the Muslim lands apart. However, Hayy Ibn Yaqzan is much more than just a piece of symbolic expression and is regarded as a philosophical discourse which relies greatly on the use of metaphors prompted by Ibn Tufayl’s ability to utilise his imaginative literary form[i]. Hayy Ibn Yaqzan’s significance lies mainly due to the fact that, excluding his works of poetry, it was Ibn Tufayl’s only extant work. This surely amplifies the hardship for anyone who endeavours to fully understand the life and work of Ibn Tufayl. However, the limitation caused by the existence of no other literary source limits the occurrence of contradicting arguments and ensures a safer analysis; although no treatise is exempt from containing contradictions within its substance. This is clear in Hayy Ibn Yaqzan, where Ibn Tufayl’s views on the eternity of the world seem contradictory at instances, perhaps due to pressure coming from the Orthodox populace. Another example of contradiction is when Ibn Tufayl concluded that the uniqueness of his book could be described as ‘taking up a line of discourse not found in books or heard in the usual sort of speeches[ii]’, while initially stating that the work is an elaboration of Ibn Sina’s oriental wisdom.

The fundamental point of the story is that scientific knowledge, which leads to the highest form of human knowledge, can be achieved by human reason. This human reason is unaided neither by society’s conventions nor by religion. There is no ambiguity that religion, in the context of the story, is viewed as a means created by man in an attempt to convey the truth.  In Hayy Ibn Yaqzan, Ibn Tufaylintends to distinguish between the religious truth and that of philosophy with a conviction that philosophy, as a product of human reason, is able to achieve knowledge or truth without the need for the symbolism; that which religion depends on. Ibn Tufayl admits, however, that religious symbolism is suitable for the understanding of the multitude, since different people have different conceptions of life and therefore require the assistance of different instruments. Religion is simply one of many instruments that have been created and utilised by man in order to find the truth. Certainly, truth carries different meanings amongst different people, and is affected by different contexts, and can be described as rarely pure and never simple[iii]. In exploring Hayy Ibn Yaqzan, where truth is a focal element of the story, Ibn Tufayl demonstrates the relativity of the meaning of truth by showing the contrary conceptions of Hayy and Absal. Truth is shown to be found only when one reaches an understanding of the existence of God and his role as creator, the existence of the Universe and the eternity of the world. How one arrives at comprehending those concerns relies on the individual’s context and surroundings, as demonstrated by the differing environments in which Hayy and Absal lived. From the interaction of those two characters, one can witness the philosophical dialogue between faith and reason and hence understand the instrumentation of religion and the methodology of its application by different people. However, it is more rational to attempt to, firstly, comprehend Ibn Tufayl’s pantheistic doctrine and his understanding of the eternity of the world and God in order to understand his definition of truth.

            Throughout any attempt to understand Hayy Ibn Yaqzan’s philosophical goal, one should construct an outline under which a comprehension of the treatise should be achieved. As a result, an important question arises; whether one should start by examining the issue of the existence of God or by answering the question on the eternity of the world. Regardless of the nature of the world, eternal or not, its existence as an environment is apparent and obvious because of human reception to matter, unlike God, whose existence is not sensed physically. Humans understand their belonging to their surroundings, understand their own existence and therefore understand the existence of the world. After all, the universe is at least an entity which humans can relatively experience[iv]. The next step is to understand Cause and Effect, and that is when humans start to question the eternity of the world and the existence of a creator of this world. Hayy, however, comes to understand the eternity of the world after realising that the existence of the world relies on God’s role as creator. Hayy’s intellect and intuition combine in order to recognise that his self and the Universal Self are one and the same[v]. The fusion of Hayy’s physical experiences with his mystical experiences was what eventually led him to experience God within his mind and soul. If one would assume that this means that God is a product of the world, rather than the world being God’s product, then it is more logical to explore the nature of the world prior to trying to answer the question concerning the existence of God. This, however, cannot be done due to the eternity of the world being directly affected by the eternity of God. If the eternity of God is to be assumed, then God’s existence is already acknowledged and the question regarding his existence ceases to be of any importance. In Hayy Ibn Yaqzan, Hayy establishes that God does in fact exist and that it is not whether he exists or not that is important, but how he came to that conclusion via a series of experiences. Hayy starts to question the eternity of the world based on his assumptions that God exists.

Ibn Tufayl’s stance on the eternity of the world holds commitment to neither emanationism nor Orthodoxy resulting in the treatise containing ambiguous statements and contradictory arguments[vi]. However, subtle indications of his belief of the eternity of the world occur throughout the treatise. Surely, this belief conflicts with al-Ghazali’s belief that the world is nothing more than the object of God’s generosity and that its existence is a borrowed one. In accordance with al-Ghazali’s premise, just like the world’s existence is one that is borrowed from God’s existence, the world’s eternity could also be one that is borrowed from God’s eternity.

“… He is the Cause of all things… If He did not exist, they would not exist. If He were not eternal, they could not have been eternal.”[vii]

Ibn Tufayl clarifies his disagreement with al-Ghazali by stating that the world’s existence and eternity are proportional to God’s existence and eternity, however stressing that regardless of that proportionality, the world itself is an effect whereas God is the cause because everything has a cause. Ibn Tufayl emphasises that only God does not have a cause, and from that he deduces that God is bound by neither a physical body nor time[viii]. Hayy continued to question whether the creation of the world was caused by God due to a change within him whereby the existence of the world became necessary[ix]. If one considered God’s eternity to mean that God is not bound by time, especially since time itself is a creation of God, then the same would apply to the eternity of the world. One can, then, argue that since both the world and God are not bound by restrictions of time, then they are both eternal and it can be concluded that the world, like God, does not require a cause. Following such assumptions, the argument that God is logically prior to the world but coexists with it becomes invalid, because the eternity of the world relies on the fact that it is neither bound by time nor an effect of a cause. Furthermore, Ibn Tufayl’s premise that a finite cause cannot produce an infinite effect such as the eternal motion of the world[x] would seem inaccurate, considering that the mere acknowledgement that the motion of the world is infinite and that therefore God is also infinite means that God and the world are equal.     

            Ibn Tufayl’s treatise relied chiefly and focally on the assumption that God’s existence did not require questioning and that the universe, as a consequence of God’s causality is merely an item of logical necessity. Hayy came to this conclusion after examining the environment surrounding him and then realised that there is a cause to every effect. Hayy observed how cold water changed in form when subjected to heat caused by fire or sunlight[xi] and thus concluded that the water’s physical change he witnessed was an effect of a cause; that cause being either fire or sunlight. Hayy depended on this approach in order to understand that everything around him is empowered by a much greater cause and that none of those physical things is exempt from change[xii]. It was at this point that Hayy proceeded to study the universe with reference to his notions on cause and effect. His conviction that the stars were physical bodies led him to the conclusion that they could not possibly extend forever and therefore are finite[xiii]. This made Hayy ponder whether the body which contained those heavenly objects is eternal or created. Nevertheless, although Hayy presented two conflicting views on the world, he eventually established that the world was eternal. Hayy’s assumption that the heavenly bodies in the skies were finite conflicted with his derivation that the universe itself was eternal. According to Hayy’s thought process, the universe is created by God but nevertheless is eternal like God. If the world is eternal in time then it is not bound by it and therefore not bound by space either. This is where Ibn Tufayl presented two conflicting arguments about the world, one that stated that the world is eternal while the other maintained that it is an effect which is subject to change and is corruptible[xiv]. If the world is eternal then, unlike the physical bodies that surrounded Hayy, it should not be affected by change, since it is ungenerated and incorruptible[xv]. Ibn Tufayl however justifies his stance by exclaiming that the existence of the world is a necessary process created by the necessary being of God[xvi]. Is the existence of God then necessary because the existence of the universe is also necessary? Why is the existence of the universe necessary? Hayy’s understanding of cause and effect is what led him to rationalise his own existence by tracing causality back to a mysterious being whose power was absent from Hayy’s perceptual field. But if Hayy declared that the world was eternal, then why did he not define it as the Necessarily Existent? Perhaps it is because Hayy regarded the universe as something that was present in his perceptual field and therefore not mysterious, leading him to presume the existence of something that was even greater. However, if Hayy possessed inborn talent and brilliance as described by Ibn Tufayl[xvii], then clearly he would have realised the enormity of the world as well as his incapability to understand its entirety. Being able to observe a section of the universe through his perceptual field does not mean that Hayy could assume that the heavens were limited to that field of vision. Hayy’s conclusions on the eternity of the world cease to be based on his observations and rather become generalisations based on observations[xviii].

Hayy practiced meditation in order to see the Necessarily Existent by means of isolating himself from his sensory perceptions and trying to abolish his dependency on his bodily organs[xix]. Hayy felt that this meditative process helped cleanse his mind, and was vital in order to attain the desirable state of ecstasy that is usually disrupted by his bodily powers[xx]. This meditation reflected Ibn Tufayl’s definition of Hayy’s mystical experience which led him to a state of intuitive awareness of God. Since mystical intuition is an experience of God then mystical experience presupposes God’s existence[xxi]. The outcome of evaluating this argument is negative seeing as Hayy’s conclusions on the being of God are based on Ibn Tufayl’s presupposition of God’s existence; thus establishing God as a purely conceptual being[xxii]. On the basis of being conceptual, God is known and seen only by those who have experienced him, and Hayy’s attempt to prove God’s existence, which sometimes seems to capitalise on a scientific approach, is founded solely on his intuitive awareness of God, and ceases to pose any validity to a philosopher in comparison with a rational and empirical analysis[xxiii]. However, Ibn Tufayl’s combination of rational and intuitive analyses was necessary in order to contrast his conception of God from that of the Orthodoxy, but still maintaining a belief in the existence of God. A harmony of faith and reason was affirmed by Ibn Tufayl with the purpose of disbanding philosophy from being categorised as un-Islamic[xxiv].

Ibn Tufayl proceeded to distinguish his conception of God from that of traditional Islam, where God was spoken of with reference to his attributes. Ibn Tufayl negated those attributes that he deemed productive of a multiplicity in God’s nature and explained that ascribing some qualities to God are attributable to the limitations in the human language; conclusively, the only possible description of God is the negation of description itself[xxv]. Hayy saw what was physically good, beautiful, strong or perfect in anyway to reflect the perfection that God the Maker already possessed[xxvi]. At this point, Hayy saw the goodness in the physical beings to reflect the greater goodness of God, and thus God’s existence. This conflicts with Ibn Tufayl’s ultimate negation of attributes since God himself becomes no more than those attributes and his identity becomes no more than what Hayy expects of God’s goodness. Undoubtedly, Hayy’s experience of God is what led him to know God in a way which only he can understand. Using the method of elimination, Hayy comes to the realisation that God could not be experienced by means of sensory perception and therefore transcends physical attributes in every respect[xxvii]. Furthermore, Hayy comprehends that what brought him his awareness of God were not his sense organs but rather his true self, which, like God, was non-corporeal[xxviii]. It is vital to make a connection between three things that are presented by Ibn Tufayl: a) God, who is immaterial, non-contingent and self-caused, b) The world, which is eternal but created by God, and itself a cause which is responsible for the containment of non-eternal physical bodies, c) True self, by which one can apprehend the Necessarily Existent, is possessed by a physical being and caused to develop by that physical being’s bodily senses. Apprehending the Necessarily Existent means to apprehend the world as well as God, since the world as Ibn Tufayl stated was necessarily created by God.

Ibn Tufayl withholds crucial clarifications about God, the world and the true self, but subtle allusions may lead one to simply argue that ostensibly, those three things appear to be the same thing. This seems logical when one realises that Hayy Ibn Yaqzan depends on a focal theme which is the possibility of the soul’s unaided ascent[xxix], where the soul is the true self. If the ascent of the soul need not be aided then the purpose of God becomes obsolete, unless God is considered to be the true self, and in such case the world’s existence is explained by means of an awareness of the true self as well as an awareness of the surroundings, which are perceived to be embodied in an infinite and non-physical body. To Hayy, the eternity of the world is a valid statement to make, since he contemplated what would happen to his true self after his death and inferred that it will remain to be existent, regardless of what will be inflicted on it.

“If he knows the Necessarily Existent before departing the body, and turns to Him with his whole being… then on leaving the body, he will live on in infinite joy… unbroken because his experience of the Necessarily Existent will be unbroken.”[xxx]

If the true self has experienced God, then it will no longer be marred by the demands of the bodily powers for the sensory things. This clearly differentiates between the true self and the bodily powers, for they are completely separate from one another. However, Hayy himself admitted that the development of his true self resulted from knowledge he accumulated by means of his sensory organs, meaning that the demands of the bodily powers need to be satisfied in order for the true self to progress. If this means that those demands can become surpassed after death, then the true self reaches a state of perfection and becomes equal to God, since infinite perfection becomes an attribute of the true self in a similar way to the infinite perfection ascribed to God; this attribute classified with accordance to the human language is not a divine one but implies the greater divinity of God. Hence, since infinite perfection is used to describe the true self as well, it is wondered whether this means that the true self is a divine being. If that is true, then the true self as an eternal and non-corporeal being becomes equal to God in perfection. The true self is immune to multiplicity and is a logical guarantee for the existence of the Necessarily Existent, becoming itself necessarily existent.   

            Hayy underwent an ongoing struggle in order to gradually understand the meaning of his own existence but finally resolved the intellectual predicaments that he had experienced by means of a scientific hunt for physical knowledge as well as a desire to reach a status of mystical understanding of the world. It is safe to say however, that in this scavenge for truth a presupposition for the existence of God was already established, which contributed to the evolvement of conflicting arguments and ineffective proclamations. This was clear, for example, in Ibn Tufayl’s uncertainty in answering the question concerning the eternity of the world, regardless to the occurrences of insinuating indications to his own belief that the world is eternal. Ibn Tufayl’s adoption of pantheism as a doctrine, on which Hayy Ibn Yaqzan was based, supports the totality of God and that in existence there is nothing but God. This implies the amalgamation of God and his creations, the world and the true self, which all become eternal and infinitely perfect and thus all necessarily become necessary beings.