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

This study addresses the separation and lack of alignment between truth and the various levels of human knowledge. The levels of knowledge referred to here are the types of cognition Ayn al-Quzat discusses, namely: sensory, imaginative, rational, and mystical knowledge. The aim of this study is to assess the extent to which each type of human cognition corresponds to reality and the ultimate truth of the world. For this purpose, a descriptive-analytical method has been used. Ayn al-Qadat primarily views rational and mystical knowledge as the core forms of human cognition, whereas sensory and imaginative knowledge serve mainly as preliminary steps towards rational cognition. With respect to correspondence to reality, rational knowledge is capable only of grasping sensory objects as they appear, while its understanding of the metaphysical realm and human states remains allegorical and cannot be considered to truly correspond to reality. With respect to mystical knowledge, while it enables the perception of truths beyond the sensory world, this correspondence is from a human perspective and does not fully coincide with the ultimate truth of the world. This misalignment can be seen in Ayn al-Quzat’s discussion of the relation between divine attributes and God’s essence, the evaluation of the attributes, the status of Iblis, and the perception of God’s love for His servant. Exiting this human perspective and reaching the stage of annihilation (fana) leads to the perception of the truth of the world, although in this state, attributing cognition to the human being becomes very difficult.

In Avicenna’s epistemological framework, knowledge is attainable solely through rational intuition, not mystical intuition. Avicenna emphasized intellectual knowledge and the connection to the active intellect, grounded in theoretical reason and rational intuition, as the ultimate aim of knowledge and happiness. However, Mulla Sadra posited that certain transcendent truths surpass the grasp of theoretical reason, necessitating intuition and innate knowledge beyond the bounds of reason. Scholars who advocate for Avicenna’s mystical tendencies can be divided into two groups: the first group, including traditionalists like Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Henry Corbin, and Gholamhossein Ebrahimi Dinani, consider Avicenna a pioneer of mystical thought within the Islamic philosophy tradition, following the footsteps of earlier Islamic, Iranian, and Eastern mystics. The second group comprises recent researchers who argue that Avicenna’s philosophy exhibits dual aspects. By examining his epistemological system and philosophical psychology, they seek to distinguish between the mystical and peripatetic facets of Avicenna's thought. In the upcoming discussion, we will compare Avicenna’s and Mulla Sadra’s perspectives on intuitive knowledge. It will become apparent that neither the claims of the first group nor those of the second group can be substantiated. Even if Avicenna mentioned mysticism in his works, his views consistently emanated from a rational perspective, and he remained firmly rooted in his peripatetic style throughout his philosophical journey.

Undoubtedly, any single truth and phenomenon can belong to diverse and plural perceptions and observations. How one can have diverse perceptions and observations of a single truth and phenomenon in such a way that on the one hand we consider all those perceptions and observations as having the dignity of "reality" and on the other hand we do not get caught in the trap of epistemological "relativism" is a mystery that It seems that the key to opening should be sought among the foundations of transcendental wisdom. Existential view of the category of "perception", occurrence of doubt in "perceptions" and "observations", existential union between "science" and "universal" and "known", existential congruity between "science" and "universal" and "known", limitation And the inherent and possible determination on the part of the "evidence", the limitation and the inherent and possible determination on the side of the "evidence", "identity of the manifestations of the truth of existence" and "unity of connection of existence" are considered as bases that can be used as a justified solution and He found a methodical method for the diversity of perceptions and observations based on the principles of transcendental wisdom. The application of the aforementioned principles will show us how all the different "levels", "levels" and "layers" of knowledge that can be identified and imagined for a single "truth" or "evidence" can be in the "level", "level" And the "layer" itself has an epistemological value in the sense of "narrative of reality".

A number of mystics believe that in the mystical evolution some particular rituals, manners, and religious commandments are not necessary. They also rely on some Quranic verses to defend their position against divine law. The current research has used rational evidence outside the religion, scriptural evidence, and Quranic verses to criticize mysticism without divine law and support true mysticism.  It is concluded that adherence to divine rules is a necessary prerequisite for obtaining mystical knowledge. It was also found that the reasons submitted by advocates of mysticism without divine law are incorrect and groundless. Library note-taking is used to collect data. Also, critical analysis is used to interpret data.

Considering the principality of being and the gradation of being, the mystical particular unity, 'motion in substance of and the intensifying motion of the soul, return of all sciences to immediate knowledge and [finally] the necessity of the unity of intellect, intellectual and the intelligible, Sadr al-Mutiallihīn believes that human being gradually and through a gradual graded process and the 'motion in the category of substance' becomes intensified, being promoted in the degrees of practical reason and by increasing his/her knowledge and becoming united with them; he/she becomes united with the external referents of his/her real knowledge and thus achieves the first degrees of mystical knowledge which is fulfilled with the partial unification of human with some existential aspects of the active intellect (or some of the existing forms of the active intellect) and continues this path until he/she gradually becomes completely united with all the existent forms and aspects of the active intellect; at the same time besides profiting the two existences (soul and the active intellect) from their own [independent] self in-itself, they become united with each other and will profit from the same degree of being due to the communicational aspect of the soul with active intellect. Along with the complete annihilation of the initial individualization of the mystic, in the annihilation positions, and the intuition of the mystical personal unity in that position, mystical knowledge will imply the complete unity of the mystic with his/her subject of mysticism (personal unity) and will have a single-aspect structure (consisted of only the knowledge or only the known). This perspective of Sadrā is in contrast with the background of this discussion in Islamic philosophy and he is affected by Ibn-Arabī and his followers in this regard.

Mysticism (or gnosis, ÝirfÁn) is multi-dimensional. Its primary and most important dimensions are cognitive (vis-à-vis theoria) and conative (vis-à-vis praxis). A study of the various dimensions of mysticism has led to the formation of a number of branches of science, which can be called “mystical sciences.” The most important branches of science of mysticism in the Islamic tradition are: theoretical mysticism and practical mysticism. With the advent and currency of second-order philosophies in the West—those supra-speculative philosophies that survey matters from the outside—the phenomena of mysticism was also considered and intellectually examined from the outside, leading to the appearance of a branch of knowledge called the ‘philosophy of mysticism.’ This new science applies itself to the nature and methodology of mystical experience and its principles. Alongside this branch, another independent branch of science can be envisioned that studies the quiddity and manner of theoretical mysticism, asking the relevant questions as regards it subject matter, bases, issues, methodology and structure. We call this branch of knowledge the ‘philosophy of theoretical mysticism.’ While this type of discussion has traditionally and generally been treated of in the introductions of some relevant books in the field, the expansion of this branch of knowledge and the tabling of fundamental questions and doubts with regards to its nature, bases, and premises calls for independent treatment. The article at hand is a general survey of some of the most important lines of inquiry in the philosophy of theoretical mysticism.

In this part, the author seeks to prove that mystical knowledge is a referent of the knowledge by presence and not acquired knowledge. To explain this, at first he mentions fundamental differences between knowledge by presence and acquired knowledge; and then he goes to make distinction between mystical knowledge on the one hand and interpretation and conceptualization of this knowledge on the other. In what follows, he makes a comparison between Plato's intellectual "vision" and mystical knowledge, and then between mystical knowledge and religious knowledge.