The distinction made by the Shaykhs between these two terms is mystical, and on the surface merely verbal, for they seem to be approximately the same. To be present with God is to be absent from one’s self—what is the difference?—and one who is not absent from himself is not present with God. Thus, forasmuch as the impatience of Job in his affliction did not proceed from himself, but on the contrary he was then absent from himself, God did not distinguish his impatience from patience, and when he cried, “_Evil hath befallen me_” (Kor. xxi, 83), God said, “_Verily, he was patient_.” This is evidently a judgment founded on the essential nature of the case (_ḥukm ba-`ayn_). It is related that Junayd said: “For a time I was such that the inhabitants of heaven and earth wept over my bewilderment (_ḥayrat_); then, again, I became such that I wept over their absence (_ghaybat_); and now my state is such that I have no knowledge either of them or of myself.” This is an excellent indication of “presence”. I have briefly explained the meaning of “presence” and “absence” in order that you may be acquainted with the doctrine of the Khafífís, and may also know in what sense these terms are used by the Ṣúfís. 10. SAYYÁRÍS. They are the followers of Abu ´l-`Abbás Sayyárí, the Imám of Merv. He was learned in all the sciences and associated with Abú Bakr Wásiṭí. At the present day he has numerous followers in Nasá and Merv. His school of Ṣúfiism is the only one that has kept its original doctrine unchanged, and the cause of this fact is that Nasá and Merv have never been without some person who acknowledged his authority and took care that his followers should maintain the doctrine of their founder. The Sayyárís of Nasá carried on a discussion with those of Merv by means of letters, and I have seen part of this correspondence at Merv; it is very fine. Their expositions are based on “union” (_jam`_) and “separation” (_tafriqa_). These words are common to all scientists and are employed by specialists in every branch of learning as a means of rendering their explanations intelligible, but they bear different meanings in each case. Thus, in arithmetic _jam`_ denotes the addition and _tafriqa_ the subtraction of numbers; in grammar _jam`_ is the agreement of words in derivation, while _tafriqa_ is the difference in meaning; in law _jam`_ is analogy (_qiyás_) and _tafriqa_ the characteristics of an authoritative text (_ṣifát-i nuṣṣ_), or _jam`_ is the text and _tafriqa_ the analogy; in divinity _jam`_ denotes the essential and _tafriqa_ the formal attributes of God.[130] But the Ṣúfís do not use these terms in any of the significations which I have mentioned. Now, therefore, I will explain the meaning attached to them by the Ṣúfís and the various opinions of the Shaykhs on this subject. Footnote 130: For the distinction between _ṣifát-i dhát_ and _ṣifát-i fi`l_ see Dozy, _Supplément_, ii, 810.