نشریه حکمت اسرا
سال هفتم شماره 2 (پیاپی 24، تابستان 1394)

It is the claim of mysticism that the being is one and that one is the necessary Being. It has been tried to present arguments for this claim (existential unity of God). The question of the present study is that according to Ayatollah Javadi Amoli what deficiencies could be found in these arguments and is there any way to demonstrate this claim or not. In this paper we shall investigate the arguments for the unity of all being, then we will explain their deficiencies according to Ayatollah Javadi Amoli, and finally his solution for this problem will be presented. He believes that the solution is the very Proof of the Veracious addressed by Allameh Tabatabai that by adding a comment to it about the infinity of the necessary being the claim for unity of all being will be proved.

There are many arguments formulated for the existence of the necessary Being. In a general categorization, one can divide them to three groups: conditioned to the infinite regression, indifferent to the condition of infinite regression, conditioned to the invalidity of infinite regression. In this way, the majority of the arguments for the existence of God belong to the second and third groups. The subject of this study is an argument presented in an article in the 21th issue of this journal titled “Proof for the Necessary Being Using the Infinite Regression Principle: Looking at Avicenna's Argument and the Formation of a Novel Argument.” Presupposing the infinite regression and using some other philosophical principles, the authors of that article tried to present a novel argument categorized in the first group. In the present article, that argument is examined by a logical analysis. The findings of this article firstly show that the argument, regardless of the truth value of its premises, has some formal deficiencies, and secondly has a premise that generally is not true and needs revision. Formal deficiencies of the argument could be resolved by modifying some of the premises and fine-tuning the formal structure of the argument; but unless the false premise of the argument being replaced by another premise, or being modified in a way, the argument will remain incomplete.

In transcendent theosophy, soul are in the lowest stages of his existential perfection when it is created. Then its completion course begins in the stages of perfection from the material to intellectual world. A conceptual and existential analysis is needed to truly understand this completion. Conceptual analysis indicates the process of soul perfection which has three main elements: (1) substantial motion, (2) gradation, and (3) the necessity of completion in relation to consciousness and purpose. Existential analysis of soul indicates the pivotal position of latent reality in the soul completion. Soul completion is the objective appearance of the latent reality and the intellectual existence of the soul in the creation and the objective appearance of the divine names. So the voluntary actions of soul in the course of its completion are the cause of the appearance of perfections hidden in the latent reality of each soul.

According to Suhrawardi, human knowledge about material beings, the knowledge of soul about the body and its faculties, and the knowledge of all visual things are innate. For Suhrawardi, the innate knowledge means that if man wants to know anything he will find it innately and there is no need to the mediation of forms, and only the illuminationist relation is enough. While he acknowledges that the innateness of the visual knowledge about the material world and the innate knowledge of soul about the body and its faculties are based on the soul’s inner intuition and with the help of rational argument, this theory apparently disagrees with some of his teachings and principles. Hence, he confronts with some objections: innate knowledge has no effect on soul; percipient hasn’t existential mastery over the perceived; innateness would be restricted to the abstract beings; and some of the sciences would be acquired. In the present paper we will try to reply to these objections by appealing to the elements of Suhrawardi’s philosophy and proving the following cases: effect includes mental form but is more than that; the condition of percipient existential mastery over the perceived is not limited to causal mastery; the cause of material perception is not material existence; soul can get a form from its innate knowledge and convert it to acquired knowledge.

The embodiment of actions is the best justification for explaining the reward and punishment in the afterlife, because it is based on the illuminationist relation. According to the illuminationist relation, the heterogeneity between actions and soul disappears and replaced with the identification of the afterlife forms and soul, because the afterlife forms are among the requirements and characteristics of the soul. The aim of this study is the analysis of actions embodiment according to Molla Sadra’s principles for illuminationist relation. In his works, we find two interpretations of actions embodiment: (1) in the afterlife, the effects and results of actions reveal; in the afterlife, the very actions reveal, but in an afterlife form. They are not at a same level in his thought; one of them is his middle theory and another is his final theory about the matter. It is the second theory that makes the focus of this study. Our findings show that, in the actions embodiment theory, perceptions are as decisive in the afterlife as the actions themselves; that is, human perceptions and actions as a result of repetition become habit and make the inside of man. In the afterlife, the inside of man embody in one of the afterlife forms and human resurrection conforms to these forms.

The Mutazila and Imamiyah regard the word as limited to the verbal mode and believe that the words of God are the sounds and letters that He makes; they regard the Quran verses as the best signs of God’s speaking. Asharites regard the true word as the meanings that are based on the speaker’s self, which has an independent reality and is something different from will and knowledge; they also regard the Quran verses as the best reason for God’s speaking and believe that God’s self-based word in the nature of God is eternal and self-existent. But Mulla Sadra believes that word is the expression of something that implicate the inside of the speaker. According to him, divine word includes all of the beings and God’s actions and God is a speaker in this meaning of the word. He explains the hierarchy of the divine word as follows: the world of divine command, the superior word; the world of soul, the middle word; and the world of institution, the lowest word. Despite the agreement between the Imamiyah, Asharites, and Transcendent Theosophy about the verbal word, Mutazila regard the word as something limited to verbal word; but Asharites and Transcendent Theosophy believe that there is another level for word; however they disagree about the characteristics of this level. In addition to demonstrating the comprehensiveness of the transcendent theosophy, this study has concluded that the utterances of some Quran verses and hadiths is more consistent with the Sadra’s explanation, while the explanations of the other two approaches about the verses concerning the word of God are not established and complete and remain ambiguity in these verses.