And the visible image—even if witnessed as perceived, as is apparent, and the cause lies within the onlooker—the capability that appeared from it is unperceived and unlimited. The image is for us, not for Him; He manifested through it because of our incapacity to see Him in the light of absolute divinity (lahut); whereas the capability belongs to Him, pointing toward Him, and through it we recognized Him.

And the likeness of the Sublimed Essence—while It transcends similarity and exemplification—and Its preclusion from being witnessed in the light of pure divinity, is like the meaning subsisting in the mind of one of us, such as the meaning of “knowledge”; for others around him do not understand what meaning subsists within his mind. And the likeness of the visible image through which the Essence appeared is like your writing the word “knowledge” upon a piece of paper; at that moment, that meaning is understood, and the written word stands as the image for it. Just so, our vision of the Essence through an image does not mean that we have encompassed It in perception—just as our merely standing upon the meaning of knowledge subsisting in the mind through writing does not mean that we have perceived knowledge in its entirety.