جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « احدیت » در نشریات گروه « فلسفه و کلام »

Comparing the intuitions and thoughts of Muslim mystics and Suhrawardī regarding the existence of God and the Light of lights and extracting the differences and commonalities of their views provide the ground for promoting their thoughts and also the optimal use of their works. This article, with a descriptive-analytical method, tries to prove the states of inclusive unity (wāḥidiyya) and exclusive unity (aḥadiyya) in the essence of the Light of lights and argue for the ontological primacy of existence in the Illuminationist philosophy of Suhrawardī. Two questions are dealt with in this article. The first is whether, despite his lack of explication, the intuitive divine states of inclusive and exclusive unity of mystics' God can be ascribed to Suhrawardī's Light of lights, too. The second issue is whether according to Suhrawardī's implicit endorsement of the primacy of existence, the existence of Suhrawardī's God is the same as the existence of mystics' God, and according to his endorsement of the primacy of quiddity, they are not the same. The result is that Suhrawardī has implicitly accepts the mystic states of inclusive and exclusive unity of God and renders the existence of God and the Light of lights identical, not their quiddities.

Although Plotinus and Ibn Arabi are two separate and independent schools of thought, their ideas about God are very similar. In such a way that some aspects of the similarity of Plotinus's unity refer to descriptive unity and others to intrinsic unity. For this reason, from both of them, the nature of God is not recognizable and does not become known to man or any other being; Also, the essence of God has true unity and other beings have unreal unity. Despite these similarities, there are also differences between the principles and ideas of these two thinkers. Plotinus considers the knowledge of one to be purely negative, and in his view positive perception is generally excluded. Ibn Arabi, on the other hand, proves positive cognition as a unit by distinguishing between descriptive unity and unity. This article is innovative in terms of examining and analyzing the differences and similarities expressed between Plotinus and Ibn Arabi's school.

“Simple reality” rule states the relation of its true instance, that is, God to the universe. The similarity of this relationship in transcendent wisdom and mysticism, and Mulla Sadra's stipulation of mystics' intuitive perception of the content of this rule, makes thought seek its counterparts in mysticism. The closest mystical interpretation to the meaning of the above-mentioned rule is the statement of Ibn Arabi that "The essence of God is oneness in his essence, everything in the names", as far as it can be considered as a counterpart in the mysticism of the “simple reality” rule. The meaning of this phrase is the negation of plurality by the inherent oneness of God and the justification of plurality by the effusion of the universe from divine names. This mystical belief, results such as; The attribution of all positive and negative rulings to God, unity at the same time as multiplicity at the same time as unity, and simultaneous correctness of similitude and purification. An analytical study of these cases shows that the positive content of the “simple reality” rule in in knowing God "all things" is the mystical expression that the totality of the existence of God with the existence of others does not stand, in the sense that the existence of the God as appearance is different from the universe as his manifestations.

Being touched by theoretical mysticism, Mulla Sadra used mystical terms for specific meanings and concepts as per his own constituted principles. Throwing light on the limits and scopes of meanings of mystical terms in transcendent theosophy helps us specify Mulla Sadra’s intended meaning and avoid the fallacy of equivocation. One of the mystical terms spotted in Mulla Sadra’s works is ahadiyyat (the Absolute One). Ahadiyyat, according to the most researchers on theoretical mysticism, concerns the manifestation and determination of the One Almighty in His own Divinity. The study of his works proves that, like other mystics, Mulla Sadra considers the Holy Essence as the absolute existence none-conditioned at the stage of division. Contrary to most mystics, however, he does not consider Ahadiyyat as the manifestation of the Holy Essence. Rather, he regards it as a consideration mingled in the Essence, not as a determination outside the Essence. That he unified Ahadiyyat with the Essence made him introduce the Essence of the Mystery of Mysteries none-conditioned at the stage of division as the real existence (Ens Realissimum) negatively-conditioned. He explains “negatively-conditioned” in a way that it is compatible with “none-conditioned at the stage of division” of the One; thus, the prima facie contradiction between “negatively- conditioned” and “none-conditioned at the stage of division” disappears.

Present paper is comparative search of point of view of Ibn Arabi, and Moses De Leon, well-known author of zohar, about nature and invisible manifestation of God. In ontology approach of two thinkers, about making clear nature of God and Him manifestation in creation ranks, there is considerable proximity. Nature of God is beyond existence in non-existence darkness. A light radiate of it and creation ranks one by one appear. Point of view Ibn Arabi and De Leon in invisible ranks two realms, absolute invisible manifestation and relative invisible manifestation, are discernible. these two realms are called with special phrases that demonstrate their realm particulars. In absolute invisible manifestation God has not relation to creation and relative invisible realm is the place of relation to creation.

This study seeks to examine the mystical view of Haji on how the multiplicity have been emanated from one unfolded being. By “al-fayd• al-aqdas,” the Sacred Effusion, the mystics mean the cognitive manifestation of things without any multiplicity in divine knowledge and by the holly emanation they mean objectifying the objective unmoved being that exist only in divine knowledge. Haji believes that the essence, the nouns and the attributes appear at Ahadiyat level (non – numerical oneness) but at Vahediyat level (numerical oneness) they are distinct. He identified the name as a noun plus an adjective, and the mystics believe that divine names are effective in generating plurality through co-operation, and contradiction. In addition, we can explain how multiplicity has been emanated from divine names through the Leading names (al- Ahematol asmah) and their adjunct and the principles of names and  their persons, on the basis of intuitive method of truth seeker.

Miftāḥ al-qayb is the first work which was formally written on theoretical gnosis by Ṣadr al-Dīn Qūnawī. Miṣbāḥ al-uns by Shams al-Dīn Fanārī, which is a detailed commentary on the mentioned book, has also had a significant role in granting a demonstrative nature to gnostic discussions. Some gnostics, such as Imām Khomeīnī, are among the researchers whose glosses have been extremely useful in explaining and clarifying the concepts discussed in Miṣbāḥ al-uns. This study intends to explain the levels of the order of being in the view of Imām Khomeīnī based on his glosses on Miṣbāḥ al-uns. The level of the existence of the Truth in the arc of descent is the same chain of existence in the order of being, which consists of the mentally posited attributes and determinations, i.e. stations of essence, henas (aḥadiyyat), and monas (waḥdāniyyat). In other words, Almighty Truth enjoys certain determinations which are initially manifested at the station of essence, which is nameless and attributeless, and then descends to the level of henas, following which they descend further to the level of monas. The station of monas is a level at which the names and attributes of the Truth are explained in detail. Immutable essences are the forms and manifestations of such names and attributes; in the same vein, external essences or real affairs are the manifestations of immutable essences. This study was carried out to review, analyze, and evaluate Imām Khomeīnī’s views regarding the levels of the order of being.

Explaining multiplicity and its relation to unity is one of the oldest problems of philosophy and mysticism. Peripatetic Philosophers have solves this problem by introducing the vertical hierarchy of transcendent causes. Mystics have explained the multiplicity with the gradation of manifestations and returning it to the second manifestation. In its ultimate view, Transcendent wisdom with transition from particular gradation to more particular gradation, justifies the mystical relationship between unity and multiplicity. But it seems that these two types of gradation have failed to explain the connection of multiplicity to simplicity of being. Using an analytical method, this study introduces a new kind of gradation in the unity itself which is not only compatible with necessity and simplicity of being, but also confirms them. According to this new explanation, gradation is transformed from being to unity and the gradation of exoteric and esoteric is incorporated in unity. So the necessity of divine essence can be compatible with multiplicity, and this multiplicity in divine essence can be regarded as the principle of succinct multiplicity in the first manifestation.

The reality and quiddity of Divine revelation is among the complicated problems in Islam. Scholars and thinkers have presented different theories in order to clarify and analyze this issue. Ibn-E-Arabi’s explanation of revelation is of great importance and has been of special interest to thinkers. This paper first reviews, some issues about revelation, such as the meaning of revelation, necessity of revelation, levels of revelation and the relationship between revelation and mystical intuition. Ibn-Arabi's analysis of the manner of descent of revelation is based on an ontological perspective; so the paper initially explains this issue briefly and then, presenting four basic features of divine revelation which are derived from Ibn -Arabi’s ontological view, it analyses and clarifies how the descent of revelation occurs and what according to Ibn- Arabi's view, its reality is.

With a mystical approach, the paper briefly elaborates the difference between the two methods of mysticism and philosophy in dealing with the issues of the creation of the universe, the individual unity of existence, the concept of multiplicities as an unreal phenomenon in mysticism (‘irfan) and how the individual existents exist before they come into the realm of determinations and the physical realm. According to the mystico-philosophical principles, multiplicity logically cannot emerge from Absolute Unity. The paper attempts to show how this can be justified by mystics and philosophers. It also discusses their different approaches to the issue of the manifestation of God’s names and attributes in the realm of multiplicity. In this comparative discussion, some of Ibn Arabi’s ideas will be examined as well. It worth to note that the ‘irfani and mystical principles examined in this paper are mainly based on Ayatullah Jawadi Amuli’s explanations and very rarely the arguments of other mystics are examined unless where their arguments are required for more clarification. As for the principles of the peripatetics, the paper focuses solely on Ibn Sina’s thought on the relevant issues.

The holy Quran has confirmed God's attributes and the Quranic verses which represent the referece for explaining how to ascribe attributes to the Essence of the Divine, what evidence can be given for the fact that they are ascribed to God and whether or not these attributes have reality and whether they are mere name's even though the Essence of the Divine does enjoy their effects. The article is intended to discuss the subject of the attributes of the Divine in a systematic and logical way from an ontological angle. This article, in fact, seeks to explore how God has perfect attributes and to examine whether or not they are finite on the basis of the rule " Necessary Being in Essence is Necessary Being in all aspects" and secondary items derived from this rule. The mistakes which are made in the way of ascribing attributes to the Essence of the Divine is also discussed.