فصلنامه اندیشه دینی
پیاپی 45 (زمستان 1391)

This paper tries to study the function and the role of religion in different fields of society from the viewpoint of Ibn Sina. Since the perspectives and explanations of sociologists and philosophers in relation to religion and society differs from one another, first it seemed necessary to define religion and society from the viewpoint of Ibn Sina and then to explain the functions of religion in relation to the community. It is concluded that Ibn Sina recognizes religion as a spiritual subject revealed by God and he believes that because of its different function religion is necessary to protect the life and to improve the community and the other world luckiness.

Karl Barth in the middle period of his theological life, influenced by the views of Kierkegaard, believed in a contrast between God and man. This contrast was based on the existential crisis of faith between God and bewildered man. But in revising his book, Church Dogma, he changed his view, being inspired by the Bible; he talked not about the contrast between God and man but about the union of them. According to the teaching of the Bible concerning God's reincarnation in Jesus Christ, there is not a contrast but rather a union between God and man.

The concept of "The Sacred" is the most central concept on which traditionalists emphasize such that we can say that it is one of the main themes of this school. In this article we attempt to explain this notion and its relations to some other notions such as tradition, modernity, and transcendent unity of religions, nature, man and perennial philosophy. Moreover we try to explore traditionalist's world-view and their approach to religion. This investigation is confined to the opinions of three wellknown traditionalists: Rene Guenon, Frithjof Schuon and Seyyed Hossein Nasr. The ultimate conclusion of this explanation would be an understanding of traditionalist's invitation to return to tradition and search for the Sacred in the modern world.

What can we say about the relationship between God and his creatures after creating them? In response to this question, some people have denied any connection between God and his creatures after the act of creating. They believe that the world will remain independent of its creator. There are others who acknowledge a relationship between the creator and the creature. Plato and some Muslim theologians, although differently, believed that the relationship between God and the world is the same as the relationship between the builder and the artifact. Aristotle says that this relationship is the same as the relationship between a moving thing and the one who cause it to move. Stoicism believed that the relationship between God and the world is the same as the relationship between soul and body. This view is in some ways, similar to the view of Muslim mystics. Plotinus speaks of the emanation. His view had a large impact on future theological, philosophical and mystical schools. Reincarnation and the incorporation is also another interpretation of this relationship that is attributable to Christians and a group of Sufis. This paper reviews and criticizes the mentioned theories and then, in terms of dependent and independent beings, offers another explanation for the relationship between God and the world. So the creatures are completely dependent on God, otherwise, they will have some kind of independence in the face of God and this is unacceptable. This view is based on the transcendental philosophy and also is compatible with the teachings of religion.

In Islamic tradition we find lots of descriptions concerning poverty of possible existents. Among the different schools of Islamic philosophy, the transcendent wisdom has a closer relationship with Sufism. Poverty has an important role in sufi's viewpoints. In the transcendent wisdom (philosophy of Mulla Sadra), possible creatures are poor essentially such that they have no idenity but pure relations to God as their cause. In both schools, poverty of the possible existents leads to a kind of oneness of being: there is no thing in the cosmos but God. Therefore, possible existents are so poor that we can say that they are no things; they are only God's self disclosure. In this paper we compare the notion of poverty and its implications from the viewpoints of these two schools.

In this paper, firstly we will have a brief report of characteristics and the content of Upanishads to answer main questions concerning the nature of knowledge and its fundamental role in salvation. So we will divide this paper into three parts. In the first part we will have a review of the great period of wisdom in India. In the second part we will have a brief review of the great period of wisdom in India. In the second part we will discuss the history of writing and contents of Upanishads. We will show that these contents are the product of revelation and unveiling rather than reasoning and argument. In the third part we will show that according to Upanishads, knowledge of Atman is fundamental for salvation. We should distinguish between two kinds of knowledge: 1- the higher level knowledge (para jnana), 2- the lower level knowledge (Apara jnana). The lower level knowledge is a learned knowledge which deals with mortal things and pleasures and so it lacks important role in salvation. The higher level knowledge is the fundamental part of the knowledge of Atman. In attaining this knowledge we must purify our hearts from selfish desires, because freedom of these desires guides us to salvation. In Upanishads, reaching Moksha is a kind of epistemological revolution.

Belief in resurrection is one of the certain teachings of Judaism. Concepts such as resurrection, appearance of Messia, Day of Judgment, resurgence, heaven and hell are found in the Old Testament and other holy texts of Judaism. Also in Christianity we can see that belief in resurrection, salvation and eternal happiness is emphasized. Christianity was formed based on Judaism's belief in Messia in addition of believing in crucifying of Jesus Christ, and his revival and rising from grave. This idea was continued by belief in his returning and kingdom of the heaven.This paper has a glance on some main subjects concerning resurrection and hearafter from the Judish and Christian viewpoints. These subjects consist of believing in resurrection, isthmus or the period between death and resurrection, heartafter and its characteristics and corporeal resurrection. We try to base our discussions on the original texts of these two traditions.

In this paper we will study the problem of correspondence of the mental subject to the existent object from Ibn Sina's and Mulla Sadra's viewpoints. Following peripatetic principles, Ibn Sina believed in a kind of abstraction and correspondence in quiddity but in the last chapter of his Isharat, accepting a kind of intuitive perception, he considers the soul as a dynamic and evolutionary entity. So he acknowledges that the theory of abstraction is inefficient in justifying intuitive perception. He says that the soul by ontological and epistemological evolution can reduce its doubtfulness and acquire some true knowledge without abstracting it from objective reality. This problem finds a better discipline in Mulla Sadra's approach. He explicitly acknowledged the ineffectiveness of the abstraction process. Based on the thery of corporeal formation of the soul, he considers doubtfulness and indistinction of perceptions as a result of ontological defect of the soul. Having a different view on knowledge and its nature, he considers essential evolution of soul as the ladder of its improvement in knowledge. He believes that to the extent that the soul improves in essential evolution it acquires clearer conceptions.

With due respect to the verbum of Master of Ishraq’s the term “soul” holds the two superior and interior aspects, thus holding two types of acts: an act known as “controlling of body” and an act that would guarantee the mystic knowledge and journey. The nature of the soul is of light, based on the deferent definitions of illumination that is “Self-revealed” and then it “reveals other than itself”. Therefore, Master of Ishraq in proving the in corporeality of the soul discusses the “the continual apperception” or the “self-consciousness” and then discusses the different kinds of intuitive knowledge. Presenting this kind of intuitive knowledge among others of its kind indicates its necessity for other division of knowledge, in a sense the acknowledgment of the soul is a product of the intensity and the weakness in this very kind and has priority to intuitive knowledge