unity in multiplicity

One of the major criticisms of the individual unity of being (wahdat shakhsi wujud) is that it’s acceptance leads one into sophistry or contradiction. By illustrating the dependent existence (bil-araz) of multiplicity, this study aims to respond to some of the issues, proposed by current scholars, on the aforementioned topic. The approach of the present research will be expressed in two modes. Initially, a reading of the doctrine of the individual unity of being will be made with attention to the understanding and distinction between intellectual trope (majaz ‘aqli) and linguistic trope (majaz itibari). Secondly, a thorough analysis on all modes (haysiat) will be made on the subject of unity of being (wahdat al-wujud) in order to express the hypothesis that the true existence (not essential) of multiplicity is due to its quality of limited mode (haysiat taqidi sh’ani) of the Divine. Thus, multiplicity, in truth, in and of itself (nafs al-amr) is dependent in its mode of existence. That being said, it should not be confused with being pure nonexistence (ma’dum mahz) or nothingness. With this finding, it appears that the mentioned conflict has been addressed and it has been proven that the acceptance of the dependent existence of multiplicity, does not pose any faults towards the theory of the individual unity of being. Moreover, a reasonable explanation of the stated theory is deemed possible only from such pursuit.

In his discussion of God’s oneness, Mullā Ṣadrā, by presenting an argument based on the rule of Simple Truth (baṣīṭ al-ḥaqīqa), attributes the true simplicity to God. This argument seems to be in line with the argument of negating the combination of Essence and besides other arguments for God’s oneness, but in fact its purpose is to present a monotheistic system distinct from all philosophical schools in terms of the relation between the unity and multiplicity at the level of Essence and levels lower than Essence. The purpose of this article is to explain the co-existence of God’s unity with the multiplicity of creatures and to explain how it can be reconciled with His transcendence based on this rule. For this purpose, the position of the argument of Simple Truth in the arguments of God’s unity is explained because it is one of the necessary premises of the explanation of God’s oneness. The study of the simplicity of God or the reconciliation of infinite multiplicity with unity at the level of Essence and also the unity of the Divine attributes in Mullā Ṣadrā's philosophy, which completes the meaning of simplicity, is among the issues discussed in this research. Finally, the special co-existence resulted by the simplicity of God is explained. This co-existence can seemingly lead to multiplicity in Essence as well as the violation of His transcendence. However, the result of the research is that Ṣadrā, on the basis of true simplicity of God or the fact that He is the totality of all things, establishes such a relationship between God and creatures that does entail His transcendence.

"Unity in multiplicity and multiplicity in unity" is an effectual doctrine in explaining the purposes of transcendental wisdom, particularly the unification (tawhid) of existence. Transcendental theosophers like mystics have emphasized this doctrine. For clarifying the different features of this issue, they have put the explanation of the monistic worldview in variegated expressions. Individual unity of existence utilizes justification, explanation, and argumentation to emphasize both unity and multiplicity in the same way. Each of These justifications is illuminating in divine wisdom under abbreviations or fundamental principles. Provided good explanations, essence (haqiqah) and thinness (raqiqah), apparent (Zahir) and manifester (Muzhir), and Simple Essence (Basit al-haqiqah) are those doctrines which are very illuminating in transcendental wisdom. Besides, the principle of "unity in multiplicity and multiplicity in unity" with distinct formulation, has been developed and led the audience to individual unity of existence. Picking some passages from Aqa Ali Modarres' writings and abrading them together, some amateurs in transcendental wisdom expressed that this doctrine in his philosophy is restricted to the gradation of existence and is in contrast to individual unity of existence. Reviewing the claims in these articles and finding the explanation of this doctrine among explicit sayings of Aqa Ali Modarres will pave the way for the sound understanding of transcendental theology.

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.

In this paper, while demonstrating the representativeness of the concept of the one based on the single referent and rejecting the possibility of abstracting the single concept from multiple referents, the writer refutes Ibn Kamuneh’s paradox regarding the argument of the oneness of the Divine Essence and explains the essential unity of Almighty Truth. His paradox holds true based on the principiality and heterogeneity of existences and the principiality of quiddity; however, it is refuted based on the principiality and particular gradation of existence. This study was carried out following the descriptive-analytic method and a critical approach. Its most important conclusions include: 1) Concept and referent are essentially one; 2) Abstracting a single concept from multiple referents in terms of multiplicity is impossible; 3) Common truth is the origin of abstracting a single concept; 4) The unity of concept represents the unity of the referent; 5) Attributing the title of the necessity of existence to its truth is the same as attributing an essential entity to the essential thing, and the concept of the necessity of existence is derived from the innermost of the necessary existence without a determining and causal mode; 6) Ibn Kamuneh’s paradox regarding the argument of the Oneness of the Necessary being is rejected based on the impossibility of deriving a single concept from multiple referents, and 7) If the Necessary Being is considered to be pure existence or simple, no objection will be leveled.

The root and source of the unity of existence is mysticism، and it has been entered into philosophy from this realm. Perhaps the first philosophical explanation of the mystics’ unity of existence doctrine has been done by Dawwani. But this philosophical explanation has some unjustified and irrational consequences and accessories. Sadra، also، makes his best efforts to give a philosophical explanation of mystics’ unity of existence of doctrine. He did that through abandoning the theory of analogical unity of existence and suggesting a new philosophical system، whose pieces have been mentioned in Asfar (Volume II) and other places of the book and also in the book of Igaz an-naimin (Awakening the sleepers). By this way، he not only has not ended philosophy، but has brought it into a new realm of philosophical thoughts. So، we must design this new philosophical system to understand this important stage of his philosophy، especially to understand his philosophical explanation of personal unity and its valuable accessories. In this paper we describe briefly the philosophical system and the ontology of Dawwani’s approach، and attempt، as much as possible، express his philosophical explanation of unity of existence through an optimistic outlook. Then we will show that even though there are some the similarities between this explanation and Sadra''s philosophical explanation، Dawwani’s approach is self-inconsistent and that is why we will criticize it ultimately. Afterwards، we continue to express the Sadra''s philosophical explanation of mystical unity of existence. So the object of this paper is to compare these two philosophical explanation، reveal their strengths and weaknesses، also the relationship between these two explanations. It will be clear that Sadra''s philosophical explanation is worthy and reasonably defensible through a new philosophical system which has been followed by Sadra and he has referred to it in his books، not in the analogical unity of existence

One of the most important philosophical issues for all doctrines such as those which consider the divine and unique source for all creatures is clarification of the world emergence and the ways of processing numerousness from the unique. Mean while, Muslim philosophers have discussed the first emanated effect based on monotheism principle and compatibility between cause and effect and also based on the rule of “The unique”. Sadrolmotealehin is one of the Muslim philosophers who know the first effect as the existence, for the first time. Among western philosophers, the basic centric problem for neoplatos is the ways of unique excessiveness (i.e. how a unique existence become the source of multiple beings). Proclus (Abarqoles- Broqles. 485-410) is one of the most important Neo-Platonist of the Plotinus who lived in fifth century A.D. He was in charge of Aten district for many years. Proclus considered the being as the first effect. This study is a comparison between Molasadra and Proclus point of view about the first effect.

The subject of the present article is the problem concerning the unity of attributes and its relation to the unity of referent and multiplicity of concepts. In this problem، the theory of non-revealingness (‘adam-i kāshifiyat) of the multiplicity of concepts from multiplicity of referent is proved; and the rival theory، i. e.، the revealingness of the multiplicity of concept from the multiplicity of referent is disproved. The main purpose of bringing up the above issue is to elucidate the unity of attributes theory. The research method of the article is conceptual and propositional analysis and the approach is logical-analytical. The most important outcomes that this article has achieved are: 1. The concept of wāḥid (one) denotes referent only in terms of its meaning and not in other terms; thus، applying of multiple concepts to a single (wāḥid) referent of one is permissible; 2. The referent of existence integrates and originates the abstraction of multiple concepts; 3. Application of contradictory concepts to one essence would not necessitate contradiction in referent، except in modal difference or real contradiction.

One of the issues which have always been controversial in the history of philosophy is the essential movement in nature or in a more general term nature’s change and becoming. In the history of philosophy, philosophers have been always undecided between the idea of change and the idea of stability. Some have entirely denied the reality of movement and considered the obvious changes and revolutions as the unreal constructions generated by mind. Some others, however, have talked about movement and change as an undeniable truth and set it as the foundation of their philosophical system. Heraclitus is the first Greek philosopher who has denied immovability and spoken about the permanent change and movement of natural objects. Among the Muslim philosophers it is Mulla Sadra that more than all others has discussed the substantial movement of objects and considered it as one of the most important principles of his transcendental theosophy. Heraclitus elucidates change and becoming in nature based on four important principles of his philosophy namely logos, change, opposition and unity within multiplicity. He views change as the fundamental, general and influential principle in nature. Mulla Sadra also basing on important principles of his philosophy such as priority of being and gradation of being has deemed movement as an analytical accident of being, and proved that the motional aspect of objects could not be separated from their ontological aspect. This article, after analyzing Heraclitus’ thoughts and comparing them with those of Mulla Sadra, concludes that despite the obvious differences which exist between the worldviews of these two philosophers, it is possible to give an interpretation which reveals similarity of their ideas about the substantial movement in nature.

Causality and God's relation with possible beings is regarded as one of the important problems in the realm of ontology, which overshadows other philosophical problems. Philosophers and theologians are said to believe in the idea of causality, but mystics credited with its denial in such a manner that they are said to have unanimity on the rejection of causality, because they do not believe in any being except the absolutely unitary being so that speak of the relation between them. In order to find out the place of this principle in the words of mystics and MullaSadra, we need to proceed in the first place to their viewpoints concerning unity and multiplicity. By the examination of mystic's viewpoint on the unity of being (which apparently suggests the denial of causality) and on the other hand, by surveying the more precise Sadra's theory on this issue, turning from graded unity of being to the particular unity of God, we first realize that MullaSadra in his ontological thoughts has totally inclined to the way of mystics. In his famous work, Al- Hekmat Al-Mutaaliyeh, after explaining graded unity of being, he promises to prove the particular unity of being, the pivotal Idea of mystics. Second, we may argue that embracing particular unity of being does not result in the denial of causality, because the particular unity of being does not require the negation of possible beings; they really exist and play a role in the universe.

The focus of this paper is to explore a few important mystical points in the Chapter of Wisdom of Malikiyyah in Fusus al-Hikam which deals with the concept of Lutiyyah.The chapter of Luti in Fusus al-Hikam consists of a wisdom revealed to the Prophet Loath (as). This wisdom was the result of his intense longing for God referred to in the Qur’an. Dawud al-Qaysari introduces the main four topics which are examined in this chapter: 1- weakness of existence in human beings and other creatures is inherited in their essence. 2. Being perfect knowledge as obstacle for mystic’s free activities 3. Revealing the secrets of Divine DeterminationAnother important issue in this chapter is natural genetic contradiction in natural things on the one hand and intellectual contradiction among believers and unbelievers on the other. Here, the author of the book explains the concept of Unity and how multiplicity is the cause of all contradictions in the physical world.

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.

Gnostic theology is in contrast to rational-natural and revelatory-historical theologies. Natural theology, rational theology, revelatory theology, transmitted theology, and gnostic theology are all intuitive. While being intuitive, gnostic theology in Islam benefits from rational analysis, on the one hand, and uses the light of the guidance of revelation, on the other. The result of using the intellect is the transmission and discovery of a theology that, while having its own method, structure, concepts, and explanations, is in harmony with the intellect and Shar‘. In the light of a mystic journey rooted in Shari‘ah, the gnostic attains a kind of direct hearty knowledge and insight of God, and, in this way, becomes needless of any rational argument on the demonstration of the existence of God. He reaches such a level of certainty upon which there is no stain of doubt and ambiguity. Since God’s Essence is pure and infinite, and since it is impossible for anyone to reach it, most of the discussions in gnostic theology center on the names and attributes of Almighty Truth. Therefore, the main task of Islamic gnostic theology is studying His Names and Attributes. Since the world is nothing but the manifestation of the names of the Truth, gnostic theology is cosmology at the same time. In this paper, the writer has tried to present a brief analysis of this divine school.