I enjoy the society of God? Let the Shaykh go in peace, for I will mix my dust with the dust of this spot, that I may rise at the Resurrection from this dust which is the abode of my delight.’ No man can attain to the reality of “time” by exerting his choice, for “time” is a thing that does not come within the scope of human acquisition, that it should be gained by effort, nor is it sold in the market, that anyone should give his life in exchange for it, and the will has no power either to attract or to repel it. The Shaykhs have said, “Time is a cutting sword,” because it is characteristic of a sword to cut, and “time” cuts the root of the future and the past, and obliterates care of yesterday and to-morrow from the heart. The sword is a dangerous companion: either it makes its master a king or it destroys him. Although one should pay homage to the sword and carry it on one’s own shoulder for a thousand years, in the moment of cutting it does not discriminate between its master’s neck and the neck of another. Violence (_qahr_) is its characteristic, and violence will not depart from it at the wish of its master. _Ḥál_ (state) is that which descends upon “time” (_waqt_) and adorns it, as the spirit adorns the body. _Waqt_ has need of _ḥál_, for _waqt_ is beautified by _ḥál_ and subsists thereby. When the owner of _waqt_ comes into possession of _ḥál_, he is no more subject to change and is made steadfast (_mustaqím_) in his state; for, when he has _waqt_ without _ḥál_, he may lose it, but when _ḥál_ attaches itself to him, all his state (_rúzgár_) becomes _waqt_, and that cannot be lost: what seems to be coming and going (_ámad shud_) is really the result of becoming and manifestation (_takawwun ú ẕuhúr_), just as, before this, _waqt_ descended on him who has it. He who is in the state of becoming (_mutakawwin_) may be forgetful, and on him who is thus forgetful _ḥál_ descends and _waqt_ is made stable (_mutamakkin_); for the possessor of _waqt_ may become forgetful, but the possessor of _ḥál_ cannot possibly be so. The tongue of the possessor of _ḥál_ is silent concerning his _ḥál_, but his actions proclaim the reality of his _ḥál_. Hence that spiritual director said: “To ask about _ḥál_ is absurd,” because _ḥál_ is the annihilation of speech (_maqál_). Master Abú `Alí Daqqáq says: “If there is joy or woe in this world or the next world, the portion of _waqt_ is that (feeling) in which thou art.” But _ḥál_ is not like this; when _ḥál_ comes on a man from God, it banishes all these feelings from his heart. Thus Jacob was a possessor of _waqt_: now he was blinded by separation, now he was restored to sight by union, now he was mourning and wailing, now he was calm and joyful. But Abraham was a possessor of _ḥál_: he was not conscious of separation, that he should be stricken with grief, nor of union, that he should be filled with joy. The sun and moon and stars contributed to his _ḥál_, but he, while he gazed, was