نشریه حکمت سینوی
پیاپی 28-29 (بهار و تابستان 1384)

One of the aims of this article is to present a comparative study on Whitehead and Mulla Sadra’s cosmology with a brief reference to “renewal of likes” according to mystics. After surveying the historical background of the concepts “motion” and “time” in ancient and modern philosophy respectively, Whitehead’s view about “time” and “necessity” are being dealt with. In the meantime, the author will introduce four major principles of his “process philosophy” and the place of “time” in his philosophy. Incidentally, we deal with his particular view on the presence of past in the present as well as the presence of future in the present. Then we proceed with the concept of “time” and “transubstantional motion” in Mulla Sadra’s philosoply and his arguments as well as the principles which play an important role in this respect. There after, we refer to the conclusions of “transubstantion of motion” and will have a brief look at the “renewal of likes” according to the mystics.

The aim of the present article is to familiarise the reader with a brief outline of two prominent Muslim philosophers thinking, i.e Ibn-Sina and Farabi. The author intends to show that these two well-known Muslim philosophers have many similarities in their most basic assumptions. The reason for this similarity is due to the influence of two philosophical and theological doctrines that in the former both philosophers owe much to Aristotelian ideas and in the latter both of them are influenced by the sacred law of the Prophet of Islam, peace be upon Him.To achieve the above – mentioned goal, in the main boby of the article, the subjects under discussion are divided into three general headings: God, God and the world, God and man.In each section, the author has tried, on the basis of these two philosophers sayings to show their similar views about the subject. Although these two philosophers have many similarities in their basic tenets, it is not the case that one follows the other without any reservations. This claim, with a closer study of the works of these two highly respected philosophers will be proved very clearly. But since the aim of the this articte is to show the affinities between them, the author has tried not to mention their different views on philosophical issues.

The nature of body or corporeality with two different approaches has always been of interest for philosophers. One group has considered this subject a part of Physics (tabieiyat) and has tried to offer a natural explanation for it. Another group has considered the body or corporeality a metaphysieal subject and sees it a purely philosophical topic. At such a general approach and by putting aside the differences of theologians, Aristotle and Ibn-Sina are among the first group, while Plato, Suhrawardi and Mulla Sadra belong to the second group. An example of the conflict between the two outlook can be clearly seen in Aristotle’s criticisms to Plato’s philosophy who maintained that it is necessary to examine the nature of body with reference to nature itself, and not to seek its relation to the world of Ideas. The present study intends to investigate into the nature of body with regard to the above mentioned distinction and tries to explain this subject from view point of some prominent philosophers (Greek and Islamic) as well as theologians.

One of the authentic concerns of every individual has always been a true knowledge of his existence as a human being.It is evident that a definition of man depends on one’s general outlook toward creation as a whole and necessarily this outlook affects both one’s view of himself and the world around him. To define the nature of man is not a simple and easy task that can be put into short sentences and be satisfied with it. To look into the complex and many sidedness of human nature needs such a rigorous thinking and quest that prevents the researcher from falling into the trap of reductionism and sophistry. Frankl and Heidegger, two major existentialist thinkers, have dealt with this delicate subject on the basis of modern European philosophy, but M.Mutahari, the prominent Muslim thinker, has studied the subject on the principles derived from the Holy Quran.

Knowing the nature of soul and understanding its unknown dimensions has always been one of the major concerns of Islamic philosophers. Simple and immaterial nature of soul are among the most important characteristics of it, because if the existence of soul as an immaterial substance, which survives after the death of body, cannot be proved, to speak of the life after death would be meaningless. This article deals with the ideas of three prominent Muslim philosophers (Ibn Sina, Shaikha-Ishraq and Mulla Sadra) on the immateriality (hence immortality) of soul. Ibn Sina subsumes discussion about soul under the Physics (natural scienee) of Shifa, because in his view soul is the first perfection of the natural body and is created devoid of matter. Of course, if we accept this view this question will be raised: How can we explain the relation between an immaterial entity like soul and a material entity like body? Then he proceeds to give a number of proofs for the immateriality of soal, the most important of which are introduced in the article. Unlike the peripatetics who have dealt with ilm al - nafs (psychology) in Physics, Shaikha-Ishraq has given a divine form to this problem. According to him, soul is a light of divine lights which has been trapped in the prison of body and people should try to free themselves from the imprisonment of body and the world of darkness. Some of Suhrawardi’s reasons for the immateriality of soul are derived from peripatetics, but others are characteristically his own.According to Mulla Sadra the definition of soul on the basis of first perfection for natural body is an indication of soul’s self - consciousness, not its belonging to any thing else except supervision and controlling the body.

Unity of existence, one of the most important subjects common between philosophy and mysticism, which lies at the foundation of Mulla Sadra’s philosophy has been discussed in some of the mystical writings of Imam Khomeini. Imam in his book, Commentary on Morning Prayer (Sharhe Doayie Sahar) according to the definition of Mulla Sadra which in Asfar explains the unity of existence on the basis of the rule of simple truth, after defining the name tries to describe the relation of the existents of the universe to Godhead. In a further step, by considering the existents as nothing, he sees nothing except the manifestations of Divine Names in the world. According to this view, the existents of the world which are in one aspect mere imagination, on another aspect are considered pure multiplicities for the manifestation of pure and simple being which is hidden. In his Misbah al-hedayat (the Lamp of Guidance) Imam describes the various stages of the manifestation of the Real and then gives some accounts of the relations between manifestations with the stage of Hidden of Hiddenness as well as the relation between Names and Attributes to Godhead. On this basis, Imam sees all the manifestations as a veil for the stage of Hidden of Hiddenness. Again, in his commentary on Surah-al-hamd after giving some explanations about Divine Names and the definition of the annihilation of name in the named, he declares that the human being only through the stages of the divine names can obtain some imperfect knowledge of the holy essence of the Real. In the same book, when Imam defines the meaning of Rabb (the Lord) mentions that everything becomes something with the name of Rabb, and universe begins with name of Rabb and ends with it.