he Indian monotheisits call the Vision of God, Sachlatkar, that is, to see God with the (Ordinary) eyes of the forehead. Know that the Vision of God, either by the Prophets, may peace be on them, or by the perfect divines, may their souls be sanctified, whether in this or the next world and whether with the outer or the inner eyes, cannot be doubed or disputed and the "men of the Book" (ahl-i-kitab) the perfect divines and the seers of all religions- whether they are believers in the Kuran the Vedas, the Book of David or the Old and the New Testaments- have a (common) faith in this respect. Now, one who disbelieves the beholding of God is a throughless and sightless member of his community, the reason being. if the Holy self is Omnipotent, how can He not have the potency to menifest Himself? This matter has been explained very clearly by the 'Ulama of the Sunni Sect.
But, if it is said that (even) the Pure Self (dhat-ibaht) can be beheld. It is an impossiblity; for the Pure Self is elegant and undetermined and as He cannot be determined, He is mainfest in the veil of elegance only. and as such cannot be beheld, and such beholding is an impossibility.
And the suggestion that he can be beheld in the next and not in this world, is groundless for if He is Omnipotent. He is potent to manifest Himself in any manner, anywhere, and at any time he likes. (I hold) that one cannot behold Him here (i.e. in this world) will hardly behold Him there (i.e. in the next world); as He has said in the Holy verse; "And whoever is blind in this, he shall (also) be blind in the hereafter."
The Mu'tazila and the Shia's doctors. Who are opposed to Ruyai (Beholding), have committed a great blunder in this matter, for had they only denied the capability or beholding the Pure Self, there would have been some justification, but their denial of all form of Ruyai (i.e. Beholding) is a grat mistake.
The author believed that beholding of the divine can be manifested, in all, except one form.
