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

One of the characteristics of the second period of the history of Islamic philosophy, which began with the emergence of the Illumination wisdom Sohrawardi and continued with the transcendental wisdom of Mullasadra, is the integration of Islamic philosophy with the mysticism of the unity of the Iranian intuitions and the mysticism of the unity of the senses of Ibn Arabi. With the intention of revitalizing the true wisdom and by criticizing the wisdom of Masha, Suhrvardi showed that the word philosophy is not synonymous with the conventional philosophy of Masha and is exclusive to Aristotelian thoughts, but that true wisdom is another source that is consistent with the source of revelation and inspiration of prophets and saints. Therefore, the origin of the meaning of "wisdom", in the sense of "divine wisdom", has been the focus and emphasis of Suhrawardi and later sages such as Mullasadra. The problem of this research is to investigate the method, approach and basis of the course of change and development of the meaning of "wisdom" in the eyes of Suhrawardi and Mulla Sadr. How has wisdom gradually approached Islam and Shiism in this way? Findings Changing the method, expanding the meaning of reason and expanding the intellectual method with intellectual intuition, the Qur'an and hadiths, and the basis of the theory of Anwar in Sohrawardi and the theory of names and attributes in Mulla Sadr. Based on this, Suhrawardi intensified the path of localization with the intention of reviving Iranian enlightenment and Mulla Sadra achieved that goal by connecting with Ibn Arabi's mysticism and the theory of velayat.

The review of the works of Mir Sayyid Sharif Jurjani (1816 AH) indicates that the theory of the unity of existence (waḥdat al-wujūd) was one of his main questions. Jurjani has tried to bring reasoning and intuition closer together in this matter as much as possible. According to his point of view, the correct understanding and recognition of the unity of the existence of mystics can only be achieved through the way beyond the way of reason, i.e. intuition. Reason can prove the "unity of existence", but not as the mystics believe, because the denial of plurality in "existence" is in conflict with the verdict of reason that the existence of multitudes is self-evident. Influenced by his predecessors, based on Ibn Sina's argument on divine monotheism, he has tried to argue on a kind of existential monotheism, which of course is accompanied by many fallacies that make it impossible to accept it. In this article, based on documentary method, Jurjani's statements about existential monotheism have been collected and then described and analyzed philosophically.

The present study aims at comparing the unity of existence and the unity of intuitions in Khajeh Abdollah Ansari’s codes of conduct and Ghiasuddin Mansour Dashtaki’s philosophical and mystical works. The study is a qualitative basic research using the descriptive-analytical method. Khajeh’s views regarding these issues are not attainable directly from his works and can only be deduced from his words about mystical positions, but Dashtaki’s views have been expressed through deep mystical comments. Khajeh Abdollah describes the unity of existence in the position of oneness and the unity of intuitions in the position of mortality, poverty, loneliness, monotheism and similitude in the form of examples. Dashtaki, however, has a comprehensive view of these issues and has clearly explained them. He has interpreted the unity of existence as the unity of intuitions and considered the unity of intuitions as unity with truth in such a way that he also recognized many existences and considers them as the shadow of true existence (i.e. God). Of course, Dashtaki could not differentiate well between the unity of existence and the unity of intuition. These two views are different in terms of perspective, but they do not differ much in terms of fundamental concepts.

Monotheism is one of the most important issues addressed by scholars of different Islamic sects and schools. Although in most of these schools, monotheism is a multifaceted truth, there are different views about the highest level of monotheism. This research, which has been written in an analytical-descriptive method, tries to compare and evaluate the true monotheism or the monotheism of the people of knowledge in their views after interpreting and analyzing the true monotheism from the perspective of Mulla Sadra and Ghazali. The result obtained from the studies is that despite the apparent similarities in the expressions of Mulla Sadra and Ghazali as well as the numerous references of the mullah to him in matters related to personal unity of existence, monotheism has different faces for these two thinkers. Mulla Sadra, in his final view, believes in the unity of existence, but al-Ghazali's view on this is not clear. However, the evidence is more based on the fact that from al-Ghazali's point of view, monotheism is the unity of intuition. Based on this difference, the reason for Mulla Sadra's numerous citations to Ghazali in the discussions of monotheism should either be due to Mulla Sadra's lack of attention to the difference between the unity of existence and the unity of intuition, or Sadr al-Muta'allehin's shrewdness in persuading the enemy

Some the opponents of the theory of "Unity of Existence" is completely rejecting it, and some have some interpretation of it. Ghias ad-Din Mansour Dashtaki is one of those who interpreted it as the "Unity of intuition". It means that the mystic arrives in a state becoming unaware of all things but God. However, one can find, in his works, cases he defends the unity of existence too. We can conclude that his prevailing theory is the unity of intuition, and his confusion between the unity of existence and unity of intuition is the result of some matters such as his failing to distinguish between different views, being influenced by the dispute occurred between him and Jalal al-Din Dawani and his try to deal with the ignorant Sufis of his time.

In monotheistic religions, the interpretation of the principles and beliefs of the sharia (in particular the issue of unity) from an intellectual perspective has been among the major concerns of the followers\ of these religions. In the meantime, a group of thinkers have imposed (a second group is suspected to have imposed) their own views on religious beliefs, and this has created deep-rooted differences among religious scholars. One of the monotheistic controversial issues among the religious propositions, as delineated by scholars (such as theologians and Jurisprudents) is the proposed monotheistic explanation in theoretical mysticism (Islamic) under the name of unity of existence (or unity of personal existence). With studies done, we can acknowledge that there are a large number of articles and academic books on the topic of unity of existence, however, with regard to the affinities between the unity of existence and the Islamic traditions and revealed verses, the intellectual scholarship is patchy. Therefore, the present study is aimed at examining the commensurability of this mystical issue with the Quranic verses and Islamic traditions adopting a rationalistic perspective along with reflection on the traditional sources and Quranic verses. The conclusion stresses on the lack of validity of the alleged incoherence between the mystical issues and sharia.

One of the most important discussions in Islamic philosophy, kalam, and gnosis is speaking of God. The “unity of being” and “unity of intuition” have been proposed as two approaches to the quality of the relationship between the wayfaring gnostic servant and God and speaking of Him. Each of these approaches has some representatives in the tradition of Islamic gnosis and each has specific beliefs regarding gnostic unity. In this paper, through explaining the theories of the unity of being (based on Ibn Arabi’s ideas) and the unity of intuition (based on ‘Ala al-Dawlah Semnani’s views), the writers initially discuss their differences concerning unity. Then they explore the concept of “personal God” as one of the necessities and basic principles of the theory of the unity of intuition as opposed to the Absolute God of the theory of the unity of being.

The oneness of being is one of the most famous and, at the same time, most controversial problems in theoretical gnosis. It is also considered to be the most fundamental problem of this field. Researchers in the fields of philosophy and gnosis have always asked the question of whether the oneness of being is a gnostic problem, a philosophical problem, or both. Some believe that the theory of the “oneness of being” is a purely intuitive one related to revelation and unveiling and has no meaning for anyone except for the gnostic who feels it and perceives it by means of mystic taste. In fact, the human intellect and wisdom are incapable of perceiving it. Sometimes, it is referred to as “something beyond the level of the intellect”. Some others say that, if it is merely an inner and taste-related problem, why have its defenders tried so much to demonstrate it based on philosophical arguments and logical syllogisms and borrow the terminology of philosophers, mutikallimun (theologians), and logicians when explaining and interpreting it? On the other hand, if the theory of the “oneness of being” is a purely intuitive problem, what is the difference between a gnostic believing “in intuitive unity” and a gnostic believing in “ontological unity”? Another question is: what is the difference between the gnostics before the rise of Ibn Arabi and those after him? In this paper, the writer has presented the ideas of those who are for and against this issue and provided the answers to some of the related ambiguities. He has also indicated that this problem is both gnostic and philosophical.

This Paper will discuss theological views of two great Muslim and Christian mysics, Alaal-Dowla Simnani and Bonaventure. Simnani has a special view on the problem of unity which can be called "Unity of Vision" which is in opposition to Ibn Arabi's "Unity of Being". Also he insists on a kind of negative theology. These are the very same views for which Bonaventure is famous. In this paper we will try to show how these two mystics from two different traditions can represent a theological mysticism based on their own experiences and the holey texts of their traditions.

Ibn Arabi’s thoughts about the unity of being, especially in the phrase "سبحان من اظهر الاشياء و هو عينها", excited many opponents. The most famous of these aversions is Ala al Dowla Semnani’s letter to Abdol Razzaqh Kashani. These discords between the two theories brought Semnani and his followers to opposition with Ibn 'Arabi, which is quite manifested in the ideas of authorities such Sayyed Gisudiraz and Shaykh Ahamad Serhendi specially after the presence of Semnani's well- known disciple, Amir Sayyed Ali Hamadani in India. Traces of the Unity of Being in the Upanishads, and the insistence of Indian Islamic authorities in making a distinction between Islamic and Hindu beliefs are among other important factors which brought about the criticism of Ibn 'Arabi's theory of Unity of Being in India and on inclination towards the Unity of Witness. This article is an explanation of Serhendi’s opinions, one of the greatest critics of Ibn 'Arabi and a believer in the unity of witness, whose ideas not well- known in Iran.

The basis of true knowledge of monotheism and mysticism is established on the reality of existence and its unity, which is divided into the unity of existence, on the one hand, and the unity of essence, attributes and actions, on the other hand. They result in annihilation in the Divine dwelling in the Light of His Existence.In confirmation of this heavenly meaning, the believers in ‘the unity of intuition’ are of the opinion that as the seekers of divine truth reach this stage of dignity, they will see all the divine qualities and attributes dissolve into the unity of essence of the Lord, and any observation other than that unity of essence will refrain from their souls. Anything else disappears, whereas pure monotheism comes into existence. It is at this stage of dignity that they will utter ‘There is no one but Him.’The believers in ‘the unity of existence’ hold that as the conjoined mystic and the passionate devotee, after reaching this stage of dignity, find that there is nothing but the united existence of the Lord Almighty, which is reflected in the mirror of existential manifestations. The true monotheist is the one who believes in the unity of plurality and singularity while conjoining the higher position of collective dimension.Admitting that both of these ranks belong to the conjoined mystic, the present study examines the difference between these two approaches, namely whether it is a single rank with two names or two separate ranks. To arrive at a conclusion one has to, first, briefly consider the meaning of unity, existence, plurality, intuition, and theosis, i.e. the annihilation in the Divine, then examine the grounds that give rise to such approaches. Finally, the study provides responses to the questions posed.

In this article, first, Semnani’s view of the mystical unity has been discussed. Then, his oppositions to the theory of “unity of being” is explained, and then, in answering the question that how he could be a mystic and at the same time criticize “unity of being”, five possibilities and justifications, from the weakest to the strongest, have been discussed. The author has preferred the fourth and the fifth ones and has concluded that Semnani emphasizez "unity of vision" rather than " unity of being".