Since truthfulness calls for likeness, although it is praiseworthy, God's men disdained being qualified by it, despite its ruling within them and its effect appearing upon them. It is not, however, witnessed by them.
Then they considered it as a divine description and found no entity for it there. They saw that divine truthfulness attaches to what He promises, rather than every threat He makes, while a divine description's condition is unrestrictedness in what it attaches to. They knew it was a relative description, particular to some of its objects. Seeing it thus, they made leaving its witnessing obligatory: they were like those looking upon a nonexistent matter without existence.
Although truthfulness is a relation with no existent entity, it has degrees: one hundred and ninety-five among the knowers of innermost secrets, two hundred and twenty-five among the knowers of lights, one hundred and sixty-four among the People of Blame of innermost secrets, and one hundred and ninety-four among the People of Blame of lights.
(A General Principle for Interpreting Leaving)
I give you a general principle applying to everything I mention about leaving what we affirm: I mean leaving its witnessing, rather than leaving its effect.[44] One cannot say of its ruling that it is not, for it exists, witnessed by every eye. Understand everything I mention in this book concerning acts of leaving in this way. Know this.
Notes
[44]
(This is the author's explicit rule in the chapters on “leaving” stations: what is meant is leaving witness of the attribute while its ruling and effect remain. This explanation applies to the places in the book to which he refers.)
Translator’s note TN4210-1: The four degree counts are 195, 225, 164, and 194 in the supplied order. The author then states a general rule for this book: leaving concerns witnessing the attribute, not abolishing its ruling or effect.
