kheradnameh51

Perhaps, based on what we have said so far, we can conclude that not a lot of time passed between the writing of al-Mabda' wa'l ma'ad and the beginning of writing al-Asfar. Mulla Sadra decided to put his ideas on the paper because he intended that his fundamental philosophical principles should not vanish or be forgotten because of potential threats and calamities. Since he had programmed a heavy and extensive discussion of issues in al-Asfar, he required many years to bring it to completion. Therefore, in addition to beginning to write this book, he also began to write al-Mabda' wa'l ma'ad. The closeness between their content and the writer's intentions was, perhaps, the reason for choosing the title "The Transcendent Philosophy" for both of these two books.[1]

We must assume that he wrote Sharh al-hidayah, whether we assume or are sure that it is was written in Shiraz and not in Qum, close to his departure from Shiraz and residence in Qum. However, it must have been completed in Qum. Therefore, these three books must have been written between about 1015 AH and 1018 AH.

Another problem here is that, as we understand from his glosses on the issue of the unity of the intellect and the intelligible in al-Masha'ir and al-Asfar, these two books were written simultaneously through receiving hidden emanation and blessing and unveiling reasoning in order to solve the problem of the intellect and the intelligible. As emphasized explicitly by the writer, this unveiling must have occurred in 1037 AH (when the writer was 58 years old; therefore, it was not in about 1020 AH).

On the other hand, as mentioned before, al-Mabda' wa'l ma'ad which discussed the unity of the intellect and the intelligible, was written in 1019 AH, and al-Asfar was written before that. Apparently, because of the eighteen year interval between them, it is not easy to bring these two dates (1037 and 1019 AH) together. Therefore, one of them must be wrong!

In al-Asfar (chapter 7: issues related to the intellect and the intelligible), Mulla Sadra writes, "At the moment that I am writing, a new piece of knowledge from God's treasure of knowledge was given to me as a gift."[2] In his glosses on this part he writes, "The time of this blessing was Friday morning, 7^th of Jamadi al-awwal, 1037 AH, when I was 58 years old."

Given the above, we can conclude that al-Asfar and, at least, its third volume, which discusses the unity of the intellect and the intelligible, was not written between 1015-1019 AH and the decades immediately before or after them. This point is not in contrast with a starting date of 1019 AH or before that for al-Asfar because he might have added the problem of the intellect and the intelligible after discovering its solution.

Based on some evidence, there was a large interval of time between writing the first journey of al-Asfar (the issues of existence and quiddity) and its third volume (issues of motion). This is because, concerning the issues related to motion, as well as the intellect and the intelligible (chapter 10, 'Aqbat wa'l hal), in al-Asfar, he refers to the idea of his master, Mir Damad, in order to demonstrate the objectivity of cutting movement and says, "All contemporary philosophers have also followed the same way except my prominent master, may he enjoy a long life."[3] Mir Damad discussed this issue extensively in his famous book, al-Qabasat, which was written in 1034 AH.[4]

The other volumes of al-Asfar were written at the end of 1020's or in 1030's, i.e. when Mulla Sadra was staying in Qum. He wrote at least to the end of the seventh volume (issue of theology) of this book during Mir Damad's life (1041 AH), and it appears that he wrote the part on the soul of al-Asfar (volumes 8^th and 9^th) during his residence in Shiraz (second Shiraz, in about 1042 AH), which was at the same time as the murder of Imamqulikhan.

In our study of the chronological order of Mulla Sadra's books and works, as well their contents, we will also deal with his other works, and, by resorting to available evidence, we will try to estimate their time of writing. Before his other works, we will cast a glance at his Huduth al-'alam, treatise of al-Hashr, Sharh-i hikmat al-ishraq, and al-Shawahid al-rububiyyah.

No specific date has been mentioned for Huduth al-'alam or Risalah al-huduth. However, available evidence suggests that it was written in the time interval between the writing of the parts on existence and quiddity and between those on motion and the intellect and the intelligible of al-Asfar. This is because in several places in al-Huduth reference has been made to al-Asfar and vice versa. The references made to al-Asfar in this treatise are related to the parts on existence and quiddity (the first and second volumes), while the parts of al-Asfar in which reference has been made to Huduth al-'alam are on motion (volumes three and following). Therefore, we can conclude that the latter was written after the discussion of quiddities in the former (volume 2) and before the discussion of motion (volume 3) and roughly between 1020 and 1030 AH.

In Huduth al-'alam, when discussing gradation in substance, motion in substance, the principiality of being, and the quiddity's dependence and subordination, Mulla Sadra refers to al-Asfar and says, "As we demonstrated this in al-Asfar..."[5] These issues have been dealt with in the first volume of this book.[6] In the same part,[7] he refers to the first volume of al-Asfar, and, in another place in Huduth al-'alam concerning the types of activity, he says, "We have explained these types and meanings in al-Asfar."[8] As we know, this issue belongs to the discussion of quiddities of al-Asfar (first journey).

Nevertheless, when in al-Asfar he refers to Huduth al-'alam, it pertains to the issues that are discussed in its third (and fifth) volumes.[9] For example, in another place in al-Asfar,[10] after quoting pre-Socratic philosophers, he says, "In Huduth al-'alam, reference has been made to al-Shawahid al-rububiyyah."[11]

Another point concerning Huduth al-'alam is its relationship with Sardar Imamqulikhan. In one of the manuscripts of this book, after referring to his own name, Mulla Sadra dedicates this book to Imamqulikhan and says the following in this regard:

When I saw great attention to philosophical books and dissemination of rational virtues on the part of someone who has gained victory over the sultans of the time and is superior to all the rulers of the time in terms of generosity and beneficence; one who, in the light of his farsightedness and prudence, has created peace on earth and motion in the spheres and spread security and justice all over the world; one whose generosity has benefited both near and far places; one who has captured the hearts of scholars with his abundance of benevolence and virtue and has shone in gatherings of knowledge and literature with his rays of logical ideas and brilliant wisdom, as he has appeared like stars with this glowing weapons in battle fields; one who, like a cloud, sends the rain of kindness to the lands of friends' hearts and, when aiming at a city, faces open gates; one to whom, before the guards are alerted, all castles and towers surrender when he wills at conquering a place; I decided to dedicate this treatise, which comprises the essence of wisdom, to him and decorate it with his name.

He is the very son of the Sultan, Imamqulikhan; may God grant him a long life abounding in justice and happiness in the Hereafter.

I hope that this treatise remains as a gift until the Day of Resurrection, is not destroyed with the passage of time, and becomes his best friend.[12]

We have previously referred to the close and friendly relationship between Mulla Sadra and Imamqulikhan. Evidence suggests that, in addition to the respect that Allahwirdikhan and his son, Imamqulikhan, paid to Mulla Sadra's family, they were deeply devoted to Mulla Sadra himself, and it even appears from the deed of endowment of the Khan School in Shiraz that Imamqulikhan and perhaps his father - were both good rulers and masters of philosophy.[13] It is said that the former, following the method of some aristocrats, probably studied philosophy and wisdom under Mulla Sadra during his first period of residence in Shiraz.

The history of the Safawid period reveals that, unlike the Qizilbash Turks, this originally Georgian family behaved admirably, were of sound judgment, and spread justice. During their reign Fars was a safe island far from the corruption and cruelties of Shah Abbas's government.

It appears form Mulla Sadra's words that Imamqulikhan tried to consolidate the bases of wisdom and philosophy and disseminate them. One of the reasons for this idea is devoting half of the spiritual lessons of the Khan School to wisdom and rational sciences.[14] As mentioned before, he built that school mainly in order to bring Mulla Sadra to Shiraz and spread the Transcendent Philosophy.

Here, the reason for dedicating Huduth al-'alam to the supreme ruler of Fars becomes clear. This act was not motivated by flattery or the love of wealth, position, and status, which were quite common in all older times; rather, Mulla Sadra believed that he had to pay his debt to Imamqulikhan in this way so that his name would become immortal; the pure soul of this great ruler is known to everyone, and the spiritual bond between him and the writer is revealed to future generations.

The point that is useful concerning the date of writing Huduth al-'alam here is the very introduction of this book and his reference to Imamqulikhan's battle and his victories over enemies. These victories were attained sometime after he succeeded his father and became the ruler of Fars and its islands and continued until 1030 AH, when he defeated the Portuguese and freed Bandar Abbas and its shores from their reign.

Therefore, we can say that it was written in about 1030 AH or perhaps between 1025 and 1030 AH, which conforms to what was mentioned before.

The writing of this book or treatise, based on the statements at its end, which were apparently written by the writer, came to an end in 1032 AH.

In two places of this treatise reference has been made to al-Asfar: first, in the first chapter when he says that pure intellects are existences that have absolutely no quiddity. Concerning this issue, he states, "They have reasoned in this regard in philosophical books, particularly in al-Asfar."

Second, in the fourth argument of the same chapter, concerning the issue of the unity of the intellect and the intelligible, he refers to al-Asfar (vol. 3) and writes, "Research in this regard requires extensive discussion, and we have commented on it with some reasoning in the part on the intellect and the intelligible of al-Asfar, as well as in other parts."

In al-Asfar, in the part on corporeal resurrection, reference has been made to this treatise: "We have an independent treatise on this point in which we have explained the resurrection of all existing objects, even inanimate things and vegetables, in the Hereafter."[15]

From this introduction we can conclude that the discussions of the intellect and intelligible (vol. 3, al-Asfar), whose time of emanation was 1038 AH, as Mulla Sadra himself wrote, were written before 1032 AH (the time of writing Risalah al-hashr) and were available to all.

Since al-Asfar frequently referred to Ta'liqat 'ala sharh-i hikmat al-ishraq, we can conclude that the latter was written before the former. We can see the references clearly in three places in al-Asfar: first, in the part on the causality of the compound cause for the simple effect. His words in this regard are, "In the glosses that I wrote on Hikmat al-ishraq and its commentary, I reminded that ..."[16]

Second, in the part on the "reality of light" we read, "As we explained in Sharh-i hikmat al-ishraq, ...",[17] "We say that these aspects are extremely weak, as we explained in our writing concerning Hikmat al-ishraq",[18] and "We have spoken of it in our glosses on the principles of Illuminationists..."[19]

Third, in the discussion of the existence of the soul before the body in Islamic hadiths and Suhrawardi's idea in this regard, Mulla Sadra says, "We have provided a response to this question in our Ta'liqat 'ala sharh-i hikmat al-ishraq..."[20]

As mentioned before, the second volume of al-Asfar was written at the end of the second decade of the 11^th century (before 1020 AH). Apparently, this means that Ta'liqat 'ala sharh-i hikmat al-ishraq should have been written before 1019 AH (the time of the completion of al-Mabda' wa'l ma'ad). However, this leads to some doubt when we see that there are some references in Ta'liqat to al-Asfar. For example, in the part called B'adh al-hukuma on matter and its differences from accident, he says, "Each of them has some superiorities and inferiorities to the other, which we have explained in al-Asfar." Concerning the discussion of hyle and form, he writes, "It is not possible to explain this issue more than this here. In order to attain more information and remove all ambiguities refer to al-Asfar."[21]

Here, reference has also been made to al-Mabda' wa'l ma'ad: "There is a specific argument for the nullification of each of them, which we have mentioned in al-Mabda' wa'l ma'ad."[22]

Mulla Sadra has referred to the name of Huduth al-'alam in Ta'liqat 'ala hikmat al-ishraq and said, "As we have completely demonstrated it in the treatise Huduth al-'alam..."[23] Surprisingly enough, he has even referred to al-Shawahid al-rububiyyah (although some believe that he wrote it towards the end of his life) in Ta'liqat. For example, in one place he says, "For many reasons, elemental motions indicate the existence of the rational angels which have been referred to in al-Shawahid al-rububiyyah."[24] In another place he says, "As explained in al-Shawahid al-rububiyyah while discussing corporeal resurrection ..."[25] In some places of this book, Mulla Sadra also refers to Mir Damad on some occasions by titles such as "our lord and master, may he enjoy a long life", in the book al-Taqdisat,[26] and "our master, the lord of distinguished gnostics and jurisprudents, may he enjoy a long life."[27] This shows that he wrote it during Mir Damad's lifetime.

Based on the above evidence, we can conclude that he wrote his glosses on the commentary of Hikmat al-ishraq of Qutb Shirazi at the same time with or very close to the time of writing al-Mabda' wa'l ma'ad, al-Shawahid al-rububiyyah, Sharh al-hidayah, and the first journey of al-Asfar.

Here, only the exact date of writing al-Mabda' wa'l ma'ad is known to us (1019 AH, when the writer was 40 years old). However, this might not be when he finished writing this book because it has been written in the middle of it (1^st technique, 3^rd essay - Divine Acts - Providence and Administration), and might have taken some time for the writer to finish it.

On the other hand, he has referred to the interpretation of al-Hamd chapter in Ta'liqat, which was most probably written after about 1030 AH (Mafatih al-qayb was most probably written in 1030 AH and the interpretation of al-Hamd chapter after it). This shows that Ta'liqat was written before it.

One of the possibilities here is that Mulla Sadra began to write this book not because of the necessities of time, but because of the needs of his addressees. He wrote Sharh al-hidayah for students of discoursive and demonstrative philosophy and novice philosophers, Ta'liqat 'ala hikmat al-ishraq in the course of teaching it, which might have been simultaneous with teaching Sharh al-hidayah athiriyyah. He wrote al-Asfar in order to leave a philosophical encyclopedia inclusive of all philosophical views, schools, ideas, and problems. Moreover, he wrote al-Mabda' wa'l ma'ad for those who sought his wisdom and those seminary students who were in a hurry to learn about their master's philosophical and theological principles and ideas. Finally, he wrote al-Shawahid al-rububiyyah for those who were not interested in discussion and argumentation and kept away from commotion, as well as those who sought the leftovers of his revelations and inspirations. Since Mulla Sadra was a hardworking and prolific writer, and also because of his powerful memory, he apparently did not need to refer to other books and documents much and, therefore, managed to write all these works at the same time during three to five years.

Some people claim that this book was written in the last years of its writer's life, e.g. during his last decade in Shiraz. However, we disagree with this idea for the following reasons:

First, because of some the phrases in this book, such as "What our dear master, the lord of great researchers (may he live a long life) said ..."[28], we can be certain that this book was written during Mir Damad's lifetime (died in 1041 AH), and at a time when the writer had not moved from Qum to Shiraz.

Second, in some books such as al-Mabda' wa'l ma'ad, the first volume of al-Asfar, and the like, references have been made to this book, which we talked about previously.

Third, there is no trace of some of his specific ideas and principles which he wrote later in this book. For example, concerning the issue of the resurrection of animals and vegetables,[29] he does not refer to the resurrection of objects or even inanimate things, which he discussed extensively in al-Hashr treatise. Therefore, it might have been written before this treatise, which was finished in 1032 AH. Moreover, in the part on the unity of the intellect and the intelligible,[30] he does not say anything about his treatise on the unity of the intellect and the intelligible or its emanation in 1037 AH. Besides, concerning the subject of the hadith, "Spirits were created before bodies,"[31] his explanations are different from those in his other books in this regard and appear immature.

Fourth, all of his references to al-Asfar in this book are limited to the first journey,[32] which was written before 1020 AH or about this year most probably in Qum. Therefore, this book is the product of the period of his return from seclusion, his move from contraction to expansion, and his evolution in the course of his way from his third spiritual journey to the fourth one.

In this book, as well as in his other books and treatises, there are some references indicating their precedence to al-Asfar, such as:

Some have claimed that the title al-Hikmat al-muta'aliyyah (The Transcendent Philosophy), which Mulla Sadra has used for a book other than al-Asfar, refers to this book (al-Shawahid al-rububiyyah). However, this is not justified because in this book reference has been made to The Transcendent Philosophy in some places,[36] which shows that they are two different books.

This book, which is a summary of his other books and a non-demonstrative work, as the writer himself says, is about a wisdom that he has attained through revelation, illumination, and divine inspirations from the Qur'an and Sunna. He wrote this book in order to familiarize the followers of the gnostic path and the seekers of divine love with scientific and scholarly principles and some of his spiritual intuitions. Since its content is beyond the "discoursive" and demonstrative philosophy, which is the concern of most philosophers, he called it al-Hikmat al-'arshiyyah, which brings its opposite meaning, i.e. earthly wisdom (hikmat), to the mind.

We do not know the date of writing this book, either; however, existing evidence suggests that it belongs to the 3^rd and 4^th decades of the 11^th century, i.e. after 1030's, when he quit seclusion and began collecting students, guiding his followers, and writing greedily and prolifically.

In this book, we see references to al-Asfar, al-Shawahid, al-Huduth al-'alam, al-Hikmat al-ishraq, and the interpretation of al-Fatihah chapter.[37] This shows that they have influenced the content of this book, which, as mentioned before was written between 1020 and 1030 AH.

In the parts on resurrection, no reference has been made in this book to al-Hashr treatise, which was written in 1032 AH. This can prove that it had not yet been written at that time. al-'Arshiyyah was written during the years between 1025 AH and the year of writing al-Hashr treatise (1032 AH).

Mulla Sadra says in al-Shawahid al-rububiyyah,[38] "In order to refute what Ibn Sina wrote in al-Shifa on rejecting the theory of early philosophers concerning the demonstration of hyle's enthusiasm for form, we have provided some extensive arguments in al-Asfar and written an independent treatise in this regard."[39]

Mulla Sadra initially referred to this issue in the first journey of al-Asfar; therefore, we can conclude that this treatise was written at the same time with the first journey (volumes 1 to 3 of present al-Asfar) or very near to its time of writing, which was before or about 1020 AH. Accordingly, this treatise was also written at about the same time or before it.

Since it has been referred to in al-Shawahid, it must have naturally been before it. Inevitably, it was also written before Ta'liqat 'ala al-hikmat al-ishraq, al-Mabda' wa'l ma'ad, al-Huduth al-'alam, and al-Hashr treatise. It was even written before 1019 AH (the year of writing al-Mabda' wa'l ma'ad). It is also possible that he wrote it before going to Qum.

The Transcendent Philosophy and the Demonstration of Plurality in the World of Imagination

Reza Akbarian and Hasan Moradi

The present paper consists of three parts. The first part deals with the oneness-plurality relation and provides an answer to the question of what Mulla Sadra's idea concerning the subject and abode of oneness and plurality is, and how it differs from those of early philosophers. Apparently, he is the only person who has specified one thing as their abode, i.e. the very reality of being. In the view of the Transcendent Philosophy, the reality of being, whether in the outside or in the mind, enjoys oneness while being plural, and plurality while being one. Peripatetic philosophers believe that the abode of plurality is matter and quiddity. In order to justify plurality, Ishraqi philosophers, too, have to resort to darkness and dark configurations.

The second part discusses the realization of plurality in disconnected images and tries to provide an answer to the difficult question of how it is possible for the plurality of individuals to come into existence without the presence of matter, and how all these material individuals could enjoy ideal forms. The answer is that, based on the precedence of being to quiddity and the gradational oneness of being, plurality is established through existence and the agent, rather than through quiddity and recipient. This is because a quiddity that causes the plurality of individual at a specific level is one that originates in existence and is merely the manifestation of existence and the sign of its plurality rather than its source.

The third part deals with two types of plurality: the plurality of the connected imagination of each individual and plurality in the world of connected images, which is a collection of those connected imaginations. It also concludes that the plurality of each individual's connected imagination is due to both the plurality of their worldly bodies and the plurality of the forms existing in each connected imagination; those forms the origin of which is sometimes the world above and the world of intellects, sometimes the lower world and the world of matter, sometimes the forms existing in the disconnected imagination, and sometimes the creativity of the faculty of imagination. Whenever any of the connected imaginations enjoys plurality, it will also be created in the world of connected imagination. The subject and abode of oneness and plurality in connected imagination is one thing, i.e. the existence of the soul at the imaginal level; a level that Mulla Sadra considers to be disengaged. The demonstration of this disengagement demonstrates the realization of the plurality of particular souls after death. In this way, a world formed by the collection of intermediate state bodies before or after death, i.e. the world of connected imagination, is a world enjoying plurality of individuals. In this way, through demonstrating this type of the disengagement of the soul and this kind of individual plurality, the problem of Peripatetic and Ishraqi philosophers regarding the demonstration of the survival of intermediary souls after death is solved.

Muhammed Ali Nawidi

Most of the people who are involved with research on the Transcendent Philosophy have dealt with Mulla Sadra's specific anthropology merely within the framework of the book "Soul" of al-Asfar al-arba'a (4^th book, 4^th journey). They have, in fact, limited themselves to his explanations in that book and their relation with early philosophers' discussions of the soul. Mulla Sadra himself has referred to them all through al-Asfar's book of Soul, which is itself a kind of translation rather than a research book and source of reference for the issue of absence of effect. Neither is it an independent work or research reference on the anthropology of the Transcendent Philosophy.

In this paper, based on a comprehensive and general study of the Transcendent Philosophy and Mulla Sadra's philosophical method, as well as through resorting to his particular works and methodology, the writer has tried to explore his anthropology.

The main purpose of this inquiry is, firstly to develop a deeper and more thorough understanding of philosophical anthropology in the Transcendent Philosophy, secondly, to explain the relations between Mulla Sadra's philosophical anthropology and the other parts of his philosophy; thirdly, to infer and derive the related philosophical terminology, concepts, and meanings and, in other words, the ontological realities of anthropology in order to use them for man's perfection at present and in future, and, fourthly, to propound a number of principles and laws that can be useful in learning about the fundamental features and elements of Mulla Sadra's philosophical anthropology.

Rasul Bergisian

The present paper deals with Wittgenstein's influence on theology considering the concept of "logical atmosphere", which connects his earlier and later philosophical ideas.

It reveals that the concepts underlying his earlier and later philosophies have had numerous impacts upon theology. Accordingly, they have been discussed under two groups of actual and potential ones.

Ibn Arabi believes that there is a perceptive power in human beings which is other than the intellect and whose domain of activity is the realm of "imagination". Although empirically and rationally impossible, the gathering of opposites is possible in this realm. The world of imagination is the clearest indication of the Truth, since He is the First, the Last, and the Appearance, and the Hidden. Therefore, a gnostic is not known unless through the gathering of two opposites. Ibn Arabi maintains that imagination is an all-embracing station of affinity for the Truth and creation. He also believes that it is the very form based on which man has been created and considers this knowledge the most powerful one by which gnostics perceive the Oneness of the Truth in the Plurality of creation.

According to him, imagination only keeps what enjoys a sensible form or is a composite of sensible parts which are combined by the form-giving faculty. In this way, it provides a form that does not exist in the senses but is sensible for the viewer. He refers to the world of imagination as the way of knowing God in his gnostic theory. In this paper, we try to portray this world in a systematic manner.

Seyyed Muhammed Manafiyan

Ethics is one of the cognitive branches of practical wisdom. This field examines the quality of human behavior and provides some recommendations concerning how to attain the sublime ends of ethics. Like other branches of knowledge, ethics is based on a number of conceptual and judgmental principles. However, since it is not a universal science, some of its premises are theoretical and discussed in different sciences.

The philosophy of ethics is a theoretical deliberation upon "ethics". The development of ethics and its underlying basis is possible only when we can answer certain questions and analyze certain concepts. Since the principles of a science represent a kind of theoretical deliberation upon it, we can say that what is known as the "principles of ethics" in Islamic philosophy conforms to what is known as the "philosophy of ethics" in Western philosophy. Accordingly, we can seek for a kind of philosophy of ethics among Islamic philosophers which is based on their views of the principles of ethics. Mulla Sadra is no exception in this regard, either. In many of his works, we can find the answers to many of the fundamental questions about ethics upon which is formed the Sadrian philosophy of ethics. Of course, a review of Mulla Sadra's ideas in this regard can never provide the answers to all the related questions. This is because the formation of the philosophy of ethics belongs to the contemporary period, and there are certain questions to which he has not given an explicit answer. However, through a study of Sadrian principles, we can provide a kind of philosophy of ethics which is quite necessary. Considering this purpose, the writer has examined Mulla Sadra's ideas concerning virtue and happiness.

A Study of the Oneness of Being in Spinoza's Philosophy with a Look at Mulla Sadra's Philosophy of Existential Oneness

Fahimah Shari'ati

In his philosophical book called The Ethics, Spinoza has extensively discussed God. In his view, God is a unique substance with infinite attributes. He is self-subsistent and has no cause. He believes that because of His being infinite, there is nothing in the world in which there is no trace of God. Otherwise, His infinity would be challenged. There have been various judgments concerning this idea. After presenting a brief but clear explanation of Spinoza's idea and clarifying the existing views concerning the oneness of being, the purpose of the present paper is to acquit him of the charge of believing in "pantheism" and "the oneness of existent" and attribute to him the belief in a kind of oneness of being which has not yet attained the necessary maturity. This feature is the result of the unidimentionality of Spinoza's rational approach.

Ali Akbar Afrasiyabpur

In this paper, a number of general issues have been presented in order to familiarize readers with Mulla Sadra's philosophy of beauty and aesthetics and, in this way, clarify his gnostic views. It reveals that, like other prominent figures of Iranian and Islamic gnosis and sufism, particularly those of the school of love and beauty, Mulla Sadra also dealt with the issue of beauty and viewed the Almighty Truth as absolute beauty. He also maintained that love is born out of beauty. He considers God to be the true love, the true lover, and the true beloved and, following the theory of the "oneness of being", introduced the whole being as the manifestation and image of that Infinite Beauty. He believed that, like in existence and light, there are certain levels that are manifested in the perfect man after the Truth and continue down to the lowest levels of being. For him, every single particle of being enjoys beauty. He also believed that all terrestrial and metaphorical loves and beauties, provided that they walk in the divine route, are valuable.

[1]. Hopefully, we will later explain that Mulla Sadra's philosophy is mainly based on two fundamental principles, namely, the demonstration of the Origin and the demonstration of Resurrection. He believes that the rest of the issues in philosophy and theology are superfluous. However, his purpose behind writing al-Asfar was to present a philosophical and, in his own words, discoursive and demonstrative, book including the ideas of all philosophers and theologians in order to guide the seekers of the truth through all the theories, ideas, and methods of previous sages, philosophers, and theologians and, after having completely familiarized them with their words, introduce them to his own principles and their deeper layers. Therefore, he also wrote al-Shawahid al-rububiyyah and al-Mabda' wal ma'ad after a short interval of time and, at the same time brought al-Asfar and Sharh al-hidayah to an end. These four books, in fact, represent four different styles and methods.

[2]. al-Asfar, vol. 3, p. 313.

[3]. al-Asfar, vol. 3, p. 27.

[4]. This issue has also been discussed in his Ufuq al-mubin.

[5]. Huduth al-'alam, Publication Center of Sadra Islamic Philosophy Institute, p. 75.

[6]. al-Asfar, vol. 1, p. 43.

[7]. Huduth al-'alam, p. 112.

[8]. Ibid., p. 35.

[9]. al-Asfar, vol. 2, p. 222.

[10]. Ibid., vol. 5, p. 210.

[11]. Huduth al-'alam, Publication Center of Sadra Islamic Philosophy Institute, pp. 75, 181, 233.

[12]. Collection no. 4652, Malek Library, Huduth al-'alam, p. 7, Publications Center of Sadra Islamic Philosophy Institute.

[13]. Mulla Sadra's Life, Character, and School, Seyyed Mohammed Khamenei, vol. 1, p. 254.

[14]. Letter of endowment of the Khan School in Shiraz.

[15]. al-Asfar, vol. 9, p. 198.

[16]. Ibid., vol. 2, p. 197.

[17]. Ibid., vol. 4, p. 89.

[18]. Ibid., p. 90.

[19]. Ibid., p. 92.

[20]. Ibid., vol. 8, p. 353.

[21]. Ibid., p. 233.

[22]. Ibid., 485.

[23]. Ibid., p. 513.

[24]. Sharh-i hikmat al-ishraq, Qutb Shirazi, p. 429.

[25]. Ibid., p. 535.

[26]. Ibid., p. 238.

[27]. Ibid., p. 318.

[28]. al-Shawahid al-rububiyyah, ed. Ashtiani, pp. 50, 74.

[29]. Ibid., p. 332.

[30]. Ibid., p. 242.

[31]. Ibid., p. 283.

[32]. al-Shawahid al-rububiyyah, vol. 1-2, pp. 13, 22, 34, 65, 71, 78, and one case of the intellect and the intelligent in the 3rd volume of al-Asfar.

[33]. Ibid., p. 78.

[34]. Ibid., p. 92 (From the writer's complaints against his contemporaries we understand that it was written in Shiraz during the years after 1010 AH).

[35]. Ibid., p. 118.

[36]. al-Shawahid al-rububiyyah, pp. 34, 54.

[37]. al-Asfar, pp. 127, 134, 144, Huduth al-'alam, pp. 127, 166, Glosses on sharh al-hikmat al-ishraq, pp. 133, 136, al-Shawahid al-rububiyyah, p. 144, interpretation of al-Fatihah chapter, Shaykh Ahmad Shirazi, p. 166, 169, 199.

[38]. al-Shawahid al-rububiyyah, ed. Seyyed Jalal al-Din Ashtiani, p. 78.

[39]. al-Asfar, vol. 2, pp. 232-233, vol. 7, p. 158, Tehran.