صرف الوجود

In his divine hiddenness argument, John Schellenberg argues that God's Intentional negligence to provide convincing evidence has put some of his sincere seekers in a state of reasonable nonbelief. According to Schellenberg, this is violate evidence of the absolute love of God, and further concludes from the absence of such an attribute, the absence of that essence. According to him, reassuring religious experiences and providing more empirical evidence can prevent such a situation. But Mulla Sadra, in his transcendental wisdom, by analyzing the characteristics of existence and essence and finally proposing the argument of the “Sedighin”, believes that God is existence and not existent, and according to the causal relationship between existence and existent, all beings are manifestations of existence. Analyzing the negative rules of existence such as not having other, not having essence not having opposite, and not have the same and some positive rules such as simplicity, limitlessness and conceptuality of existence, can reveal the secret of divine Hiddenness. Therefore, contrary to Schellenberg's view of orginality of essence, human beings are faced with a multitude of evidences and manifestations of the existence of God and Presentation of some arguments such as divine Hiddenness argument due to the lack of proper knowledge of God's attributes and consequently incorrect epistemological expectations about Him. The advantages of Sadra's view include explain the divine appearance at the same time as his hiddenness, Using self-evident and rational foundations, matching with the traditional theology of religions, introduce some positive and negative attributes of God, presenting a proper picture of the relationship between God and the world, correcting and modifying human epistemological expectations from God and ease of understanding. In this article, an attempt has been made to present two novel deductive interpretation based on Mulla Sadra's views so that based on their results.

The doctrine of pure existence is one of the initiatives of Islamic philosophy, which has a significant place in the history of philosophy, especially Transcendental wisdom. Transcendental philosophers have proved the essential unity of true and real unity by applying it on the preliminary stages. Finally, they deal with the unity of being individual. On the contrary, some scholars have contrasted pure existence doctrine with unity of being individual. With superficial and hasty interpretations of expressions, this contradiction is shown in the Aqa Ali Modarres’ viewpoint. Transcendental philosophers believe that those who accept the unity of being Individual have considered God nonconditioned and as the source of division. But sages, including Aqa Ali Modarres, can never accept the unity of being Individual, because they consider God almighty to be pure existence, which is conditionally negatively-conditioned existence and one of the types of non-conditioned as the source of division. The Comparison of this claim with the statements of Aqa Ali Modarres has shown its inconsistency with his views and reveals the alignment of the stages of existence with the theory of unity of being Individual.

One of the epistemological innovations of Ḥakīm Gharawī Isfahānī entails his gnostic and intuitive approach in practice and theory. Based on the fundamental principles of the Transcendent Philosophy, Muḥaqqiq Isfahānī has proposed an innovative view regarding the levels of the determinations and manifestations of Almighty Truth. He emphasizes the “graded unity of existence” instead of the “individual unity of existence”, “copulative existence and illuminative relation” instead of “manifestations and epiphanies”, and “simple truth and pure existence” instead of “absoluteness of the source of division”. Ḥakīm Isfahānī introduces three specifications for the truth of existence: the “negatively conditioned” level of non-existential limits or pure existence, the level of “non-conditioned” from contingent limits or holy blessing, and the level of “conditioned-by-something” in the sense of the act of Almighty Truth. This division is different from the related division in theoretical gnosis. In this study, the author initially analyzes the levels of manifestations in the view of Muḥaqqiq Isfahānī and then evaluates them.

Paul Tillich is one of the most influential Christian philosophers and theologians in the twentieth century. His new theory about speaking of God is known as the theory of symbolism. He shows in this theory that we cannot speak of God literally because religious language is the language of symbols. Tillich established his symbolism theory on his ontological assumptions. According to them, although God as a being-itself and transcendent being is different from any human, but the human participates in existence with God. This assumption requires using of religious symbols in speaking of God. For assert this view, Tillich shows at the first the properties of symbols and then defines the religious symbols. Finally he argues that religious symbols have two features that face us with two different aspects, because with using these symbols we can introduce Gad as being itself and the wholly other on the one hand and we can contact with him personally on the other hand.

The issue of the unity of existence is one of the major ontological issues which has come into being in mystic atmospheres and has gradually entered philosophy as well and influenced it to the point that accepting or rejecting it would overshadow all philosophical issues; this is because by accepting the unity of existence, the world takes on a new meaning as causality would depart this world and all creations. Moreover, the unity of existence will provide a different interpretation of Allah Almighty and the religion. Though the philosophers before Mulla Sadra have made arguments in this regard, Mulla Sadra claimed to have made a demonstrative reasoning about it and have defined it exactly and precisely. After Mulla Sadra, the followers of his school of thought also argued about such an issue, the most important of whom is Allameh Tabatabaaii. This paper seeks to present and study the statements of Allameh Tabatabaaii and his argumentations with regard to the unity of personal existence. Allameh Tabatabaaii has proved the unity of existence through the three ways of “copulative existence”, “pure being”, and “infiniteness”.

Qûnawî in his interpretation of Sura Fatiha، maintains that the God’s absolute being is a developing absoluteness of His Being without Qualification and free from the shackles of the composition and plurality. In his view this being is a mere existence، not a plurality، not a hybrid، not adjective، not descriptive، no name، and no formal، no relation، no predication، it is just a pure existence. Fanaari، the commentator of Miftaah al-qaib، considers His existence as an absolute one without any valid adverbial، though it can be taken with or without constraints. However، the discussion is not unconditional although derived bound constraint is applied. Qûnawî provides five arguments to prove that the Necessary Being is the Absolute، and then discusses some doubts and criticisms which have been presented against the proofs. Imam Al-Khomeini in his commentating on Mesbah، seeks to answer the problems. He argue that except the first three arguments، the other arguments don’t establish the claim، so he rejects them and thinks that the main mistake and fault of the invalid arguments are the confusion between concept and extension، the primary essential predication and common technical predication، the conceptual meaning and external reality، and between absolute being and being as a being

Oneness (tawhid) is a fundamental principle in all divine religions; however, neither do all monotheists have the same perception of oneness, nor do all divine religions present the same picture of the reality of oneness. The Holy Qur’an has introduced oneness in its most sublime and extensive sense of the word. One of the Qur’anic verses descended in this regard is the noble verse 18 in chapter al-Imran. According to it, Almighty God Himself testifies to His Oneness. This noble verse has inspired many Islamic scholars in the presentation of various interpretations and explanations of the quality of God’s testimony to His Oneness. A study of these interpretations and explanations some of which are compatible with a theological approach, some with a philosophical approach, and some with a gnosic approach, on the one hand, represent the hierarch of the perception of the truth of oneness and, on the other, are based on the meanings of the exterior, interior, and interior of the interior of the Noble Qur’an so that each perception corresponds with a specific level of meaning. This paper is a study of the various interpretation of verse 18 in Chapter al-Imran based on the above approaches.

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.

The issue of God’s knowledge is one of the key topics in Islamic philosophy, and philosophers have presented various ideas about it. One of the well-known ideas in this regard has been propounded by Shaykh al-Ishraq. On the one hand, he introduces Almighty Necessary the same as light and the manifestation of infinity and equates knowledge with manifestation. On the other hand, he believes that the truth of Almighty Necessary is “Pure Existence”, “Universal Existence”, “Absolute Needlessness”, “Infinite”, and “the Giver of all things and their truths”. Therefore, we can say that, in line with his philosophical system, he believed in the absolute and a priori Knowledge of Almighty Necessary and tried to demonstrate it based on the fundamental principles of his school of philosophy. Accordingly, one cannot base criticism of him and his philosophical system on the negation of God’s a priori and differentiated knowledge of objects.Moreover, Shaykh al-Ishraq considers God’s knowledge of the objective existences of all objects, including material and immaterial things, to be of the type of presential knowledge based on illuminative force and domination. He also believes that no existent and particle is hidden from God’s knowledge and vision. Therefore, all possible existents are also included in the presential knowledge and all-inclusive vision of Almighty Necessary after they are created.The present paper aims to analyze Shaykh al-Ishraq’s view concerning the above issues, report contemporary philosophers’ objections to his view, and criticize those objections based on Ishraqi (Illuminative) philosophy.