[175] ارادت, “inclination, design, will,” According to _Jorjáni’s Definitions_ (see _Ext. et Not. des MSS._, vol. X. p. 37), _iradet_ is a quality which produces in a living being a state, the effect of which is that he acts in one manner rather than in another. In its exact sense, it is a faculty which has no other object in view but that which does not exist; for “the will” is an attribute, the special object of which is to give existence to any thing, and to produce it conformably with the words of the Koran: “_When he wills a thing he says to it: “Be,” and it is._” _Iradet_ is also interpreted an inclination to any thing which follows the opinion of utility, and in this sense I have translated it above “providence.” [176] كن فيكون. [177] I think it ought to be _Shabisteri_ instead of _Shosteri_, as I find in Baron von Hammer’s _Gulshen-raz_ (pp. 27-32) a treatise entitled _Hak ol yakin_, as above, attributed to the before quoted Mahmud Shebisteri (vol. I. p. 82), of whom more hereafter. The whole title of the above-mentioned work is _Hak ol yukin fi mâarifet-i-rebbil âalemin_, “the truth of conviction in the knowledge of the Lord of the world.” [178] The word _yakin_ signifies “an intuitive certainty,” produced by energy of faith, and not by arguments and proofs. [179] See page 217, note 2. [180] The original text has here باعتبار امر ادمى _ba itibár-i-amr âdemí_. _Itibar_ has in the Dictionary, among other significations, that of “reasoning or computing by comparison; considering with attention; calculating properly,” which appears to me the only meaning applicable in this place; _ba itibar_ may perhaps here be better interpreted by “in the acceptation (assumption) of.” This word occurs twice with امور, _amur_ (the plural of _amr_), in the following important passage of _Gulshen raz_: وجود اندر كالش حويش ساريست تعينها امور اعتباريست امور اعتبارى نيست موجود عدو بسيار و يكجيزست معدود جهانرا نيست هستى جز مجازي سراسر حال او لهوست و بازي Baron von Hammer interprets _amúri itibarí_ by “Gegenstande der Erscheinung,” that is “objects of appearance;” I dare differ somewhat in the expression, but not in the meaning of these words: “Existence manifests itself (see p. 222, note 9) in its own place; things perceived by senses are mere objects of acceptation; things of acceptation are not real. There are many numbers, but one only is numbered (that is, numbers are only one unit, repeatedly employed). The world has no existence but as a metaphoric image: its state is entirely a farce and a play.”