午夜剧场

Table of contents

1. Introduction
2. 鲍辫腻测补 and Repentance
3. Hell and Divine Mercy
4. Footnotes
5. References

Introduction

In various places in his monumental commentary on 艢膩ntideva鈥檚 叠辞诲丑颈肠补谤测腻惫补迟腻谤补 (2019), Perry Schmidt-Leukel draws attention to a particularly thorny eschatological problem, one which, in modern times, has painfully pricked 鈥� if not fatally wounded 鈥� the intellectual credibility of conventional Christian doctrines pertaining to the hereafter. The problem is the apparent eternity of hell depicted in various biblical verses routinely cited as irrefutable evidence substantiating this doctrine (such as Matthew 18:6鈥�9; 25:31鈥�46; Mark 9:42鈥�48; Thessalonians 1:5鈥�10; Revelation 14:9鈥�11; 20:10鈥�15).¹ Schmidt-Leukel emphasizes that the Buddhist soteriological schema, by contrast, generates the conviction that all beings will ultimately be saved, and asserts that this conviction is undergirded by compelling philosophical arguments. To the irresistible saving power of the infinite compassion of the bodhisattva is added the principle that all beings are already saved at the deepest level of reality, and that their suffering in 蝉补峁僺腻谤补 is but an illusion born of ignorance and desire. The 鈥渇ire鈥� of bodhicitta (Buddha-mind, 鈥渁wakened mind鈥�) is not only more powerful, it is more real 鈥渢han the fire created by the most vicious sins (vss. 1:13f). Bodhicitta originates from the ultimate nature (辫补谤补尘腻谤迟丑补) of reality and becomes manifest through the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. Its essence is compassion鈥� (Schmidt-Leukel, 2019, p. 345, italics in the original).

This compassion, flowing from the heart of reality, effaces the sins that are born of desire and terminates the hellish suffering to which those sins lead. Through total trust in, and absolute reliance upon, the compassion of the bodhisattvas, 鈥渙ne escapes the infernal outcome of one鈥檚 negative karma.鈥� For its part, hell 鈥渋s seen as a symbolic reality within the dimension of 鈥榬elative鈥� or, better, 鈥榲eiled鈥� or 鈥榦bscured鈥� (蝉补峁僾峁泃颈) reality鈥� (Schmidt-Leukel, 2019, p. 345, italics in the original). Following on from this, he puts to Christians a 鈥渨holesome challenge鈥� 鈥� a provocative invitation to engage in a potentially fruitful discourse in comparative soteriology:

Though most Christians happily share the confidence that the redeeming love of God as it has become manifest in Jesus Christ is of a similarly all-embracing nature, excluding none, the Bodhisattva ideal may still present a wholesome challenge: Has Christian trust in the boundless love of God produced a similarly strong soteriological optimism, or has it found far too often an insurmountable restriction at the gloomy and desperate belief in eternal, irredeemable damnation 鈥� as expressed in Dante鈥檚 Divine Comedy where he infamously supplies the gates of hell with the inscription: 鈥淎ll hope abandon, ye who enter here鈥�? Can Buddhism encourage Christianity to increase and widen its hope? (Schmidt-Leukel, 2019, pp. 156鈥�157)

This chapter will outline a brief Muslim response to this 鈥渨holesome challenge.鈥� It will be based on certain Koranic verses, together with strongly attested sayings of the Prophet (补岣ツ乨墨迟丑, s. 岣诲墨迟丑Lit. 鈥榬eport鈥� or 鈥榥arrative,鈥� used for the traditions of the Prophet Muhammad and in Shi鈥榠 Islam also for those of the Imams.), pertaining to eschatology and soteriology. Our main question here is whether divine mercy (谤补岣补) performs, within the Muslim cosmos, a soteriological function akin to the saving compassion (办补谤耻峁嚹�) of the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas in Buddhism. In essence, the argument we present is as follows: the 鈥渕etaphysical logic鈥� inherent in the infinitude of 谤补岣补 strictly precludes the possibility of an eternal hell; on the contrary, the principle of infinite nmercy strictly implies the ultimate salvation of all beings. The invincible infinitude of divine mercy is made explicit in the following two Koranic verses and a 鈥渉oly saying鈥� (岣诲墨迟丑 quds墨), that is, a saying in which God speaks in the first person, on the tongue of the Prophet:

My mercy embraces all things (谤补岣补t墨 wasi士at kulla shay示; Koran 7:156).²

Your Lord has inscribed mercy upon Himself (or: 鈥渦pon His own soul,鈥� nafsihi; Koran 6:12).³

Truly My mercy vanquishes My wrath (inna 谤补岣补t墨 taghlibu gha岣峚b墨).⁴

Three points follow logically from the metaphysical premises enshrined in these texts:

1. If hell were eternal, it would be a 鈥渢hing鈥� subsisting outside the sphere of 谤补岣补, escaping forever from its all-encompassing reality, thus contradicting the unequivocal affirmation at Koran 7:156.
2. It is not only illogical but also unimaginable that a Lord whose very essence is defined by 谤补岣补 could allow sentient beings created by Him to suffer for all eternity.
3. Were hell to be eternal, it would be a partner (蝉丑补谤墨办) with God, sharing with God the divine attribute of eternity. This is tantamount to violating the foundational 鈥渢estimony鈥� of Islam: 鈥渢here is no divinity but the One divinity (l膩 il膩ha illa鈥橪l膩h).鈥� This theological affirmation can be read metaphysically as: 鈥渢here is no eternal reality but eternal Reality.鈥�

鲍辫腻测补 and Repentance

We intend to substantiate these points in the light of the Hindu/Buddhist concept of 耻辫腻测补. The word 耻辫腻测补 can be translated as 鈥渟oteriological strategy鈥� or, in Robert Thurman鈥檚 more evocative construct, 鈥渓iberative technique鈥� (Thurman, 2006, p. 129). It is a 鈥渟killful way鈥�⁵ of imparting, intimating, or initiating: the 耻辫腻测补 opens up a path leading to a transcendent mystery, one which may be inexpressible in essence, but whose reality can be glimpsed, sensed, or intuited through spiritual modes of cognition catalyzed by the impact, or the 鈥渟hock,鈥� of the 耻辫腻测补 鈥� an impact reverberating on the ethical, intellectual, aesthetic, and metaphysical planes of consciousness (see Coomaraswamy, 1977a). An 耻辫腻测补 is an idea, a narrative, a teaching, or a myth that does not necessarily correspond to some empirically verifiable, objectively true 鈥渇act,鈥� but which can nonetheless be an effective way of triggering a spiritual power capable of unleashing decisive re-0rientations or transformations of consciousness in the heart of the seeker.⁶ The acts generated by the 耻辫腻测补 are both cognitive and volitive, resulting in a radical metanoia, a 鈥渃hange of mind,鈥� a 鈥渞epentance鈥� in the moral and also the intellectual sense⁷: in the words of Plato (ca. 428/7鈥�348/7 BCE), it is a 辫别谤颈补驳艒驳脓 or life-changing orientation, an existential and philosophical 鈥渢urning around.鈥� In Plato鈥檚 Republic, the prisoner in the cave must physically 鈥渢urn around鈥� to see the source of the deceptive shadows dancing on the wall of the cave. This is analogous to what must be done metaphysically: the spirit 鈥渕ust be turned around from the world of becoming鈥� in order to contemplate 鈥渢he essence and the brightest region of being鈥� (see Republic 7:518c, Plato, 1980, pp. 750鈥�751).

This leads us to our main theme, for both of these ideas 鈥� ethical repentance and spiritual re-orientation 鈥� are discernible in the Arabic word tawba, literally 鈥渢urning,鈥� and, by extension, 鈥渞epentance鈥�: the soul 鈥渢urns鈥� to God in repentance, God 鈥渢urns鈥� to the soul in acceptance, the same word being used for both sorts of turning: 迟腻产补/测补迟奴产耻. As the English saying has it, 鈥渕an repents, God relents.鈥� The soul 鈥渢urns鈥� to God seeking forgiveness, and God 鈥渢urns鈥� to the soul with mercy, whence the divine Name 补濒-罢补飞飞腻产 (鈥渢he Ever-Relenting鈥�), the one who perpetually forgives. The change of mind produced by human tawba at once surpasses and presupposes the moral domain; there is here a 鈥渢urning around,鈥� a reorientation of intention, aspiration, and disposition. The result is the 鈥渢urning鈥� of the soul away from illusion and suffering and towards the path of enlightenment and beatitude.

The descriptions of heaven and hell in the Koran can be read as soteriological narratives, 耻辫腻测补s, intended to instill fervent hope (迟补谤驳丑墨产) of divine mercy and provoke fear (迟补谤丑墨产) of divine wrath, the two conspiring to bring about a sincere tawba. Looking carefully at the relationship between mercy and wrath elucidates the fundamental distinction between the eternal reality of heaven and the transient reality of hell. Let us begin by considering the logic expressed in the following Koranic verse: 鈥淲hoever comes [before God] with a good deed will receive ten like it; but whoever comes [before God] with an evil deed will only be requited with its like; and no injustice will be done to them鈥� (6:160). We observe here that the scales of eschatological justice are calibrated by the superabundant generosity of divine mercy. This is not surprising, given that it is 补濒-搁补岣腻苍, the infinitely Compassionate, who, according to the chapter entitled 鈥�础濒-搁补岣腻苍鈥� (Koran 55:7), has 鈥渆stablished the Balance (补濒-尘墨锄腻苍).鈥� The implacability of divine justice is tempered and 鈥� in the final analysis 鈥� overcome by the infinity of divine mercy.

Furthermore, the divine quality of mercy outweighs the human capacity for sinfulness. It is thus impossible for any sinner to deserve an eternal hell, inasmuch as it is impossible for a sin to be committed ad infinitum: the unavoidable relativity of sinful acts strictly implies the equally unavoidable relativity 鈥� hence non-eternity 鈥� of the punishment provoked thereby. Now, whereas a sinful act which is finite and temporal cannot deserve a punishment which is infinite and eternal, acts of goodness, by contrast, have ramifications, reverberations, and resonances that are infinite, partaking as they do of the one and only quality of goodness, that of God: 鈥淚s the reward of goodness anything but goodness?,鈥� the Koran asks rhetorically (55:60). The metaphysical implication here is that the human quality of goodness is crowned by, and absorbed within, its angelic and ultimately divine archetype, 补濒-搁补岣腻苍, which is the Sovereign Good.

This emerges with clarity from the following verses, often cited by those theologians arguing against the possibility of an eternal or a perpetual hell (espousing a doctrine which came to be known as fan膩示 al-n膩r, 鈥渆xtinguishing of the fire鈥� ⁸):

As for the wretched, they will be in the Fire; sighing and wailing will be their lot, abiding therein for as long as the heavens and the earth endure 鈥� unless your Lord wills otherwise. Truly, your Lord is doer of what He will.⁹ And as for the joyous, they will be in the Garden [of Paradise], abiding therein for as long as the heavens and the earth endure 鈥� unless your Lord wills otherwise: a gift never to be cut off (士a峁伿� ghayr majdh奴dh). (Koran 11:106鈥�107)

The beatific essence of Paradise is 鈥渁 gift never to be cut off.鈥� Even if the paradisiac 鈥渁bode鈥� cannot but come to an end 鈥� God alone being eternal 鈥� the beatitude of the Garden is not so much terminated as sublimated, reabsorbed upwards and inwards, in the final return of all things to the infinite beatitude of God:

God has promised to the believers, men and women, Gardens underneath which rivers flow, to dwell therein; and beautiful mansions in Gardens of Eden. But the beatitude of God is greater (wa 谤颈岣峸腻苍 min 础濒濒腻丑 akbar). That is the supreme triumph. (Koran 9:72)

Just as all things begin with creative compassion, all things end with redemptive mercy. The 鈥済reatest spiritual master鈥� (al-shaykh al-akbar), Mu岣墨鈥檇-D墨n Ibn al-士Arab墨 (1165鈥�1240), describes this 鈥渃ircle鈥� of all-encompassing 谤补岣补 as follows:

The final issue will be at mercy, because the actual situation inscribes a circle. The end of the circle curves back to the beginning and joins it. The end has the property of the beginning, and that is nothing but Being. 鈥淢ercy takes precedence over wrath,鈥� because the beginning was through mercy. Wrath is an accident, and accidents disappear. (cited in Chittick, 2010, p. 2)

We will return in a moment to the idea of God鈥檚 wrath being 鈥渁ccidental.鈥� At this point, we should note that, in relation to the Koran (11:106鈥�107), both hell and Paradise are subject to a double limitation: they both last only as long as 鈥渢he heavens and the earth鈥� endure, and the duration 鈥渟pent鈥� in both posthumous abodes is likewise subject to the condition: 鈥渦nless your Lord wills otherwise.鈥� The 鈥渨ill鈥� of God 鈥� also expressed in the phrase, 鈥測our Lord is doer of what He will鈥� (fa士士膩lun lim膩 yur墨d) 鈥� takes us back to God鈥檚 mercy, for what God 鈥渨ills鈥� must be in harmony with the 鈥渓aw鈥� of mercy inscribed by Himself upon Himself, as expressed in the Koran (6:12, 6:54), and in the 岣诲墨迟丑 quds墨: 鈥淭ruly My mercy vanquishes My wrath,鈥� as noted above. What God wills is what God is by nature, and He has described His nature as infinitely merciful.¹⁰

Returning to the immense ontological disproportion between acts of goodness and acts of evil (and, a fortiori, between heaven and hell), let us also note the incommensurability between divine forgiveness and human sinfulness as revealed in the 岣诲墨迟丑 quds墨, where God declares:

O son of Adam, so long as you call upon Me and ask of Me, I shall forgive you whatever [sins] you have committed 鈥� O son of Adam, were your sins to reach the clouds of the sky, and were you then to ask forgiveness of Me, I would forgive you. (Ibrahim & Johnson-Davies, 1980, p. 126, translation modified; referring to the collections of Tirmidh墨 and Ibn 岣nbal).

Another important corollary of the 鈥渕etaphysical logic鈥� inherent in the principial triumph of mercy over wrath is revealed in the nexus of subtle relations connecting personal responsibility, spiritual accountability, and what we might call the 鈥渕echanics鈥� of judgement, manifesting principles that are at once divine, cosmic and microcosmic. The following verse of the Koran depicts an eschatological scenario which is not far removed from that conjured in the Hindu/Buddhist cosmos by the impersonal karmic law of cause and effect:

And We have tied every man鈥檚 augury to his own neck, and We shall bring forth for him on the Day of Judgement a book which he will find open wide. [It will be said to him:] Read your book. Your own soul suffices this day as judge (kaf膩 bi-nafsika鈥檒-yawma 岣s墨ban). (Koran 17:13)

From this point of view, it is not some anthropomorphically conceived divinity who judges the soul and condemns the unrepentant sinner to hellfire: the sinful soul is judged and condemned by nobody other than herself. In the clear light of the Day of Judgment, the infallible scales of divine justice will be rendered visible to the 鈥渆ye鈥� of the heart, allowing the heart to 鈥渞ead the book鈥� of the deeds committed by the psychosomatic substance in which it was temporarily encased on earth. The newly enlightened self will then serve as both judge and jury in its own cause. The scales according to which it judges its 鈥渟elf鈥� are of course those of divine justice. However, this justice is, as we have seen, determined by the superabundance of mercy, which decrees that goodness is rewarded ten-fold, while evil is punished only according to a one-to-one ratio. This does not mean that the suffering experienced by the sinner is unreal, only that it is strictly proportionate to the suffering inflicted by the sinner through his or her sins 鈥� no more, no less.

Hell and Divine Mercy

The following strongly-attested 岣诲墨迟丑 can be read as a direct response to Schmidt-Leukel鈥檚 challenge via 艢膩ntideva. We observe here another expression of the principle 鈥� logical and eschatological 鈥� of the all-encompassing nature of divine mercy. It describes the plight of those souls who are suffering in hell, subsequent to the Day of Judgment. The angels, prophets, and the faithful intercede for the sinners, and when hell contains only those utterly devoid of any iota of goodness or faith, God declares that 鈥渢he angels have interceded, and the prophets have interceded, and the believers have interceded, and none now remains [to intercede for the most abject sinners] save the Most Merciful of the Merciful (ar岣m al-r膩岣m墨n).鈥� God then takes them from the Fire and casts them into a purifying river at the entrance to Paradise.¹¹

The conception of hell as a purgative and purifying fire 鈥� which cannot last perpetually, let alone eternally 鈥� is further reinforced by a 岣诲墨迟丑 cited by the Koran commentator, al-峁琣bar墨 (839鈥�923). It is given by the latter as part of his commentary on the question desperately put to God by hell: 鈥淐an there be more?鈥� (50:30), as multitudes of sinners are pouring into her entrails. In the 岣诲墨迟丑, the Prophet cites this verse, and proceeds to describe how God places His foot into hell, causing it to collapse. Then, by contrast, He causes Paradise to continually expand, creating therein sufficient celestial 鈥渟pace鈥� as dwelling places for all those who were previously in hell. The vision here is one of the eventual contraction of hell to the point of non-existence, and the perpetual expansion of the 鈥渟pace鈥� of heaven to the point of accommodating all living beings. The vision evoked here is one of purified sinners being taken out of a hell collapsing into non-existence, and being integrated within a Paradise which is infinitely expandable (see al-Tabar墨, 2001, p. 198).

Let us return to Ibn al-士Arab墨鈥檚 daring definition of divine wrath as being accidental, as opposed to essential, substantial, or 鈥渞eal.鈥� This idea is fundamental to the 鈥渙ntology of mercy鈥� for which the school of wa岣at al-wuj奴d (鈥渙neness of being鈥�) of Ibn al-士Arab墨 is justifiably renowned. The articulation of this idea by a leading exponent of wa岣at al-wuj奴d, 士Abd al-Razz膩q K膩sh膩n墨 (ca. 1252/1262鈥�1335), makes it clear that whereas mercy emanates from the inmost reality of God, 鈥渨rath鈥� cannot be regarded as an ontologically real (飞耻箩奴诲墨) quality of God, rather, it is but a name given to the contingent (鈥渁ccidental鈥�, 士补谤补岣嵞�) consequences flowing from a lack of receptivity to the ontologically real quality of 谤补岣补. This quality embraces all things in principle, but in practice, it can be resisted 鈥� but not eternally rebuffed 鈥� by the sinful state of the unrepentant sinner鈥檚 soul. This mercy is therefore absolutely real, pertaining to the infinity of the reality whence it springs eternal, whereas wrath, the absence of mercy, is unreal, or has only a fleeting, evanescent reality, insofar as it is destined to disappear into the nothingness from which it mysteriously derives its illusory, momentary existence:

Mercy pertains essentially to the Absolute, because the latter is by essence 鈥淏ounteous鈥� (箩补飞腻诲) 鈥� Wrath, however, is not of the essence of the Absolute. On the contrary, it is simply a negative property that arises from the absence of receptivity on the part of some of the things for a perfect manifestation of the effects of existence [i.e., pure Being] 鈥� The absence of receptivity in some of the things for Mercy entails the non-appearance of Mercy (in those things), whether in this world or the Hereafter. And the fact that Divine Mercy is prevented from overflowing into a thing of this kind because of its non-receptivity is called 鈥淲rath鈥� in relation to that particular thing. (cited in Izutsu, 1983, p. 117)

The Koranic portrait of the mercy of God leaves no room, metaphysically speaking, for either the conception or the phenomenon of an eternal hell. God alone is eternal, and whereas the divine promise of granting eternal beatitude to the righteous will be kept 鈥� Paradise only coming to an end in the infinite beatitude (谤颈岣峸腻苍) of the divine Essence 鈥� the divine threat of casting sinners into perpetual hell cannot, in good logic, be literally carried out. For it is metaphysically impossible that a just and merciful God decrees an eternal punishment for a temporal act. In terms of the Islamic 耻辫腻测补, there is no common measure between a divine promise and a divine threat, and there is still less commensurability between the infinite goodness proper to the Essence of God, on the one hand, and the finite capacity for evil proper to the human being, on the other. These two incommensurabilities are alluded to in the following texts, a 岣诲墨迟丑 and a Koranic verse, respectively:

If God promises to recompense someone鈥檚 act with a reward (迟丑补飞腻产), He will fulfill the promise (Huwa munjiz lahu), but when He threatens to punish an act, He is free to do what He wishes (fa-Huwa f墨hi bi鈥檒-khiy膩r). (cited in Majlis墨, 1984, p. 334)

Whatever good comes to you is from God, and whatever evil comes to you is from your own soul. (Koran 4:79)

Goodness emanates from the essence of divinity perpetually and perfectly. It is the sinner鈥檚 refusal of, or lack of receptivity to, the divine goodness which results in what is provisionally designated as divine 鈥渨rath.鈥� But this wrath and the suffering in hell which manifests it cannot be eternal. It is, as the Sufis maintain, accidental and contingent inasmuch as it is the consequence of an action which is itself accidental and contingent: human sin. The purgation of sin 鈥� in Hindu/Buddhist terms, the exhaustion of negative karma¹² 鈥� is tantamount to the restoration of equilibrium (补濒-尘墨锄腻苍) between the soul and the whole of creation. This equilibrium is determined by the infinite mercy of God, for it is 补濒-搁补岣腻苍 who sets up the scales of infallible justice, as we have observed.

The divine restoration of an equilibrium ruptured by human sin perforce entails suffering. It may be called, in theological parlance, the 鈥減unishment鈥� of God, but it can nonetheless be perceived, in metaphysical perspective, as a function of the mercy which 鈥渆ncompasses all things.鈥� For this divine rectification is the means by which the sinful soul is given the grace to return to God, whether willingly in this world through sincere repentance, or unwillingly in the hereafter, albeit according to the judgement of her own conscience. However, in both cases, it is a question not so much of us being punished by divine wrath as being purified by divine grace. The impure substance of the soul burns in the purgatorial fire, as Frithjof Schuon (1907鈥�1998) says, 鈥渘ot because God wishes to hurt us, but because it [the soul] is what it is 鈥� because it is 鈥榦f this world鈥� and in proportion to its being so鈥� (Schuon, 2006, p. 128).

This understanding of wrath as the purification of the soul leads into the following stunning esoteric insights of Jal膩l al-D墨n R奴m墨 (1207鈥�1273), which will serve as our conclusion. We learn from this passage in the 惭补蝉苍补惫墨 that the end of hell can be conceived as being identical to the vanquishing of egotism. R奴m墨 discloses the subtle interweaving and dovetailing of the vices of the egotistic soul, on the one hand, and the states of suffering in hell, on the other; these relationships being disclosed as a result of waging the 鈥済reatest struggle鈥� (al-jih膩d al-akbar), the war of the divine spirit against the lower soul (al-nafs al-amm膩rah, see Koran 12:53), to which the Prophet referred in a famous saying. Note that R奴m墨 alludes to two texts which we have cited above: the verse of the Koran (50:30) in which hell asks God whether there can be any more souls to be poured into it, and the 岣诲墨迟丑 regarding God鈥檚 crushing of hell with His foot:

The self [nafsUsed in the Quran more than 300 times, where its primary meaning is the human self or person. In post-Qur’anic religious literature it came to mean the human ‘soul’ or…] is hell, a dragon wishing harm,
The sea can鈥檛 cool it down or keep it calm:
I drank the seven seas, was fully drenched,
That human-burner鈥檚 thirst was still not quenched!
The infidels, whose hearts are hard as stones,
Enter this fire, ashamed, with screams and groans,
But hell鈥檚 not sated by such food at all,
At least until the Lord should finally call:
鈥淎re you full yet?鈥� The glutton answers, 鈥淣o!
Can you not see from there my burning glow!鈥�
It makes the world a morsel, swallows it,
Then screams, 鈥�Is there not still another bit?鈥�
God stamps on it from Placelessness, before
Be! And it was, makes it feel full once more.
Our stubborn selfhood is a part of hell,
Parts show the nature of the whole so well,
It鈥檚 God who must deal out the fatal blow 鈥�
Who else can pull the string to fire this bow?
Straight arrows only will God鈥檚 bow admit,
Your bow holds arrows crooked, bent, and split:
To leave the bow the arrow must be straight,
It then won鈥檛 fail to fly and penetrate.
When from the outward fight I turned around
The war inside our soul was what I found:
鈥�The small jihad we have just left behind鈥�
For a jihad of a much greater kind;
The strength from God is what I long to win
Which can uproot Mount Qaf¹³ with just a pin,
Don鈥檛 overrate the lion which can kill!
The one who breaks himself is greater still.
(惭补蝉滩苍补惫墨 1375鈥�1389, R奴m墨, 2004, p. 87)

Footnotes

1. From the Old Testament, Isaiah 66:22鈥�24 and Daniel 12:1鈥�2 would typically be cited.
2. All translations from the Koran are based on Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall (with minor modifications), unless otherwise stated (see Pickthall, 1930).
3. The same idea is repeated, almost verbatim, at Koran 6:54. For a discussion, see Shah-Kazemi, 2007.
4. Found in the collections of Bukh膩r墨, Muslim, Nas膩示墨, and Ibn M膩jah, cited in Ibrahim & Johnson-Davies, 1980, p. 40 (translation modified).
5. The word derives from upa-i, 鈥渢o approach,鈥� so the idea of 鈥渨ay鈥� is heavily implicit (see B盲umer, 1997, p. 9). It should be noted that this concept is rooted in Hindu discourse and then came to play a more decisive role in Buddhism, where the notion of 办补耻艣补濒测补 (鈥渟killful鈥�) was added, so that the term 耻辫腻测补-办补耻艣补濒测补 can be translated as 鈥渟killful means.鈥�
6. Ananda K. Coomaraswamy (1877鈥�1947) tells us that the one who asks what the Buddha teaches (at Vinaya 1:40) is not so much concerned about the doctrine per se, rather, 鈥渨hat the inquirer really wants to know is 鈥榳hat he must do to be saved鈥欌�� (Coomaraswamy, 1977b, pp. 314鈥�315, italics in the original).
7. For a discussion of the metaphysical implications of metanoia, see Coomaraswamy, 1942.
8. In Islamic theology, this doctrine is associated with Ibn Taymiyya (1263鈥�1328) and his student, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (1292鈥�1350). For a discussion, see Khalil, 2012, pp. 74鈥�109; Lange, 2016, pp. 170鈥�171.
9. We follow the Arabic in referring to 础濒濒腻丑 as masculine. By the same token, we follow the Arabic in referring to the Essence of God as feminine (补濒-诲丑腻迟=hiya, 鈥渟he鈥�), likewise, the word for soul (nafs) is feminine.
10. See Schuon, 1970 for a persuasive argument against the 鈥渆ternity鈥� of hell, predicated in part on Koran 11:106鈥�107. See also Schuon, 2008, where the divine will is shown to be dependent on the divine nature, rather than vice versa.
11. This is found in many traditional compilations, see, for example, 峁岣ツ弗 Muslim, n.d., p. 94. See the beautiful translation of this 岣诲墨迟丑 in Lings, 1991, p. 94
12. According to the 惭补诲丑测补尘补办腻惫补迟腻谤补 (3:8), composed by the Indian Buddhist sage, Candrak墨rti (ca. 600鈥�650), 鈥渇orbearance 鈥� secures the exhaustion of negative karma鈥� (see Candrak墨rti, 2021, p. 141).
13. The idea here seems to be that the ego is the microcosm corresponding to the macrocosm, symbolized by the mountain of Q膩f. It is to be noted that the dialogue between hell and God comes in the chapter called 鈥淨膩f鈥� (ch. 50).

References

Al-峁琣bar墨, Ab奴 Ja士far Mu岣mmad b. Jar墨r (2001). J膩mi士 al-bay膩n (Vol. 26; M. Shakir, Ed.). Beirut: Dar Ehia al-Tourath al-Arabi.

B盲umer, B. (1997). The Four Spiritual Ways (耻辫腻测补) in the Kashmir 艢aiva Tradition. In K.R. Sundararajan & B. Mukerji (Eds.), Hindu Spirituality: Postclassical and Modern (pp. 3鈥�22). New Delhi: Crossroad Publishing.

Candrak墨rti. (2021). Illuminating the Intent: An Exposition of Candrak墨rti鈥檚 Entering the Middle Way by Tsongkhapa (T. Jinpa, Trans.). Somerville: Wisdom Publications.

Chittick, W.C. (2010). The Anthropology of Compassion. Journal of the Muhyiddin Ibn Arabi Society, 48, 1鈥�15.

Coomaraswamy, A.K. (1942). On Being in One鈥檚 Right Mind. The Review of Religion, 7, 32鈥�40.

Coomaraswamy, A.K. (1977a). Sa峁僾ega: Aesthetic Shock. In A.K. Coomaraswamy, Coomaraswamy 1: Selected Papers: Traditional Art and Symbolism (R. Lipsey, Ed., pp. 179鈥�185). Princeton; Guildford: Princeton University Press.

Coomaraswamy, A.K. (1977b). Some P膩li Words. In A.K. Coomaraswamy, Coomaraswamy 2: Selected Papers: Metaphysics (R. Lipsey, Ed., pp. 264鈥�329). Princeton;
Guildford: Princeton University Press.

Ibrahim, E. & Johnson-Davies, D. (Trans.). (1980). Fourty Hadith Qudsi. Beirut; Damascus: Dar al-Koran al-Kareem.

Izutsu, T. (1983). Sufism and Taoism: A Comparative Study of Key Philosophical Concepts. Berkeley; Los Angeles; London: University of California Press.

Khalil, M.H. (2012). Islam and the Fate of Others: The Salvation Question. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

Lange, C. (2016). Paradise and Hell in Islamic Traditions. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Lings, M. (1991). Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources. Cambridge: Islamic Texts Society.

Majlis墨, M.B. (1984). Bi岣ツ乺 al-anw膩r (Vol. 5; M.B. Behbudi, Ed.). Beirut: Al-Wafa鈥� Institute.

Pickthall, M.M. (Trans.). (1930). The Meaning of the Glorious Koran: An Explanatory Translation. London: Knopf.

Plato. (1980). Republic (P. Shorey, Trans.). In E. Hamilton & H. Cairns (Eds.), The Collected Dialogues of Plato (pp. 575鈥�844). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

R奴m墨. (2004). The Masnavi: Book One (J. Mojaddedi, Trans.). Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

峁岣ツ弗 Muslim (n.d.). Kit膩b al-墨m膩n, 产腻产Lit. 鈥榞ate鈥� or 鈥榙oor鈥�. In the vocabulary of Fatimid Ismailism, the term was used for the administrative head of the da士wa figures in Islamic history. ma士rifa 峁璦r墨q al-ru示ya. Cairo: 士莫s膩 al-B膩b墨 al-岣lab墨.

Schmidt-Leukel, P. (2019). Buddha Mind 鈥� Christ Mind: A Christian Commentary on the 叠辞诲丑颈肠补谤测腻惫补迟腻谤补. Leuven: Peeters.

Schuon, F. (1970). Some Observations on a Problem of the Afterlife. In F. Schuon, Dimensions of Islam (P.N. Townsend, Trans., pp. 136鈥�141). London: George Allen and
Unwin.

Schuon, F. (2006). The Cross. In F. Schuon, Gnosis: Divine Wisdom (J.S. Cutsinger, Ed., pp. 125鈥�129). Bloomington: World Wisdom.

Schuon, F. (2008). Dilemmas of Muslim Scholasticism. In F. Schuon, Christianity/Islam: Perspectives on Esoteric Ecumenism (J.S. Cutsinger, Ed., pp. 133鈥�168).
Bloomington: World Wisdom.

Shah-Kazemi, R. (2007). My Mercy Encompasses All: The Koran鈥檚 Teachings on Compassion, Peace and Love. Berkeley: Counterpoint.

Thurman, R.A.F. (Trans.). (2006). The Holy Teaching of Vimalak墨rti: A Mah膩y膩na Scripture. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.