Mulla sadra and the proof of the truthful
- Updated On Thursday, 03 July 2014
- Written by Dr. Mohammad Ali Shomali
- Editor Kawther Rahmani
- Supervisor Sayyed Roohullah Musavi
- Published on Saturday, 05 February 2011
- Hits: 2902 views
- Hits: Please explain the way that Mulla Sadra introduced the proof of the truthful (burhan al-siddiqin) in proving the existence of God? What privileges does it have in comparison with Ibn Sina's version?
Mulla Sadra says: 'The paths towards God are multiple, for He possesses innumerable excellences and aspects. And for every one is a direction to which he turns. However, some paths are more trustworthy, nobler and more illuminating than others, and the strongest and the noblest of demonstrations in relation to Him is that in which nothing other than Him is the middle term. Therefore the path towards the desired object is the very desired object itself, and it is the path of the sincere who attest to Him, the Exalted, through Him, and then they attest to His attributes through His Essence, and to His acts through His attributes one after the other, and others (such as the theologians and naturalists) seek to know Him, the Exalted and His attributes by adopting a path other than that [adopted by the sincere] (such as the contingency of the essence, the temporal beginning of creation, the motion of bodies and so on). They are also proofs for His Essence and provide evidence of His attributes. However, the former is stronger and nobler. A reference was made in the Divine Book to that [the former] path as He says, "Soon We shall show them Our signs in the horizons and in their own souls until it becomes clear to them that He is the Real, and in reference to this [the latter] path, He says: Is it not sufficient that your Lord is witness to all things?"' (41:53). 'As has been said, existence is a single simple objective reality, between whose individuals there is no essential difference save in perfection and deficiency, strength and weakness or in additional matters [as has been said regarding the instances of specific essences (mahiyyah naw'iyyah)], and there is nothing more complete than its ultimate perfection, and it is that which depends upon no other than itself, and nothing is conceived of that is more complete than it, because every imperfect thing relies on something other than itself, and is in need of all of its completion and it has already been made clear that the complete is prior to the imperfect, actuality prior to potentiality, and existence prior to non-existence, and it is also clear that the completion of a thing is that very thing and what is additional to it. Therefore, existence is either needless of other than itself or essentially in need of other than itself. The first one is the Necessary Being and It is the Pure Being and there is nothing more complete than it. Non-existence and imperfection are not mingled with it. The second is Its acts and effects, which are other than It and nothing other than It can subsist except through It. This is because, as mentioned earlier, the reality of existence is free from imperfection and if deficiency occurs, it is in virtue of its being an effect because the caused cannot be equal to the cause in virtue of existence. Therefore, if existence were not made by a dominant power that brings it into existence and actualises it (as it requires), it would not be conceivable that it would have any sort of deficiency, because the reality of existence is simple, indefinable and indeterminate, except for pure actuality and obtainment.' 'Otherwise, it would be composite or it would have an essence other than being existent (mawjudiyyah). As has already been said, if existence were caused, it would be made itself by the kind of making that is simple. Its essence by itself is in need of a maker, and it substantially and essentially depends on its Maker.' 'Therefore, it has been proved and clarified that existence is either a complete reality and necessary in its selfhood, or it is essentially in need of [the Necessary Being]. Substantiality depends on it and is based on each of the two divisions. We have therefore proven that the Necessary Being is in itself needless of what is other than this is what we have intended.' An Explanation of the Version of Mulla Sadra The argument of the truthful is a proof for the existence of God that proceeds from the reality of existence to its eternal necessity. In this proof, the argument proceeds from existence to existence, and the path is the same as the object of desire. In the other proofs, the argument proceeds from creatures to the Creator, from contingency to necessity, from the created to the Creator, or from the subject of motion to the agent of motion. In this argument nothing save God is the middle term. Thus, Mulla Sadra's version of the proof of the truthful, without relying on contingency or the falsity of a vicious circle, is based on two distinctive features of existence. These two features which underlie Mulla Sadra's argument, and are considered to be its two premises, consist of the principality or fundamentality of existence and the unity of the reality of existence. In order to understand Mulla Sadra's argument, we should take into consideration certain principles, some of which are self-evident and others that are quasi-evident: 1. The distinction between the concept and the reality of existence. According to Mulla Sadra, there are two levels of reference with respect to existence: the conceptual level and the level of reality. Mulla Sadra makes a distinction between the concept of existence and the reality of existence. The concept of existence which is self-evident is of a mental nature. It is also of an irreducible nature, while all the other concepts are reduced to it. In contrast, the reality of existence, which is of an extra-mental nature, is the most difficult to understand or define. Existence as such, which is independent of all objects or existents, is beyond human understanding. As Hajji Mulla Hadi Sabzawari says: 'Its notion is one of the best-known things, but its deepest reality is in the extremity of hiddenness.' 2. The fundamentality of existence. The fundamentality of existence means that essences are mental constructs of a subjective nature and, by contrast, existence is the only extra-mental reality and actualisation itself. The unity of the reality of existence as the second premise that, based on the fundamentality of existence and on the doctrine of the gradation of existence, consists of the fact that first, existence is a single fundamental reality, which is essentially one. Second, the reality of existence consists of degrees and is graded and whatever exists are the levels and manifestations of existence, that is, the unity of existence and the multiplicity of existents. At this point, it is worth noting that the graded unity of existence based on the transcendent theosophy of Mulla Sadra contrasts with the view that existence consists of entities essentially disparate or disparate in their entirety from each other as held by the Peripatetic, and with the individual unity of existence as espoused by the Gnostics ('Urafa). Third, existence has no second. In other words, existence in its absoluteness does not yield to reduplication or repetition. Thus, no fundamental reality except existence is conceivable. Based on the two premises put forth, it can be concluded that the single fundamental reality of existence is either essentially independent of the other or dependent on the other. The first assumption, the necessity of existence, is our object of desire and the point is proved through accepting it. The second assumption, the dependence of existence, means that its acceptance is tantamount to accepting that existence subsists through something else. This assumption is not consistent with the second assumption, because, in conformity with the latter, existence has no second, and in the domain of existence, there is no reality conceivable except the single reality of existence. Furthermore, other than existence, there is no reality conceivable, and other than existence, there is no second to the existence of the Real apart from the loci of manifestations of this very existence of the Real, and they are the very need and dependence. Therefore, the second assumption is false, and existence is the single fundamental reality of the Necessary Being. Thus, based on Mulla Sadra's doctrine of the fundamentality of existence, first, the Necessary Being is proved, and then, based on this very existence of the Necessary Being, the existence of contingents as the loci of manifestation of the existence of the Real is proved, and hence, the meanings of the Quranic verses mentioned above have been clarified.