In his al-Mabdaʾ wa-al-maʿād (The Origin and the Return), Mullā Ṣadrā (d. 1050/1640), perhaps the most influential Islamic philosopher after Avicenna (d. 428/1037), goes as far as to claim that ‘knowledge of the self is the mother of philosophy (umm al-ḥikma) and the root of happiness (aṣl al-saʿāda), and that if one fails to attain assured certainty of the immateriality (tajarrud) and subsistence (baqāʾ) of the self, one then fails to attain the rank of a philosopher’.
‘And how is it possible’, he asks rhetorically, ‘to have any certainty concerning anything, if one did not have knowledge of one’s self in the first place’ (Mullā Ṣadrā 2002–2005: I.6)? He then goes on to aver that ‘whoever knows himself becomes deified (man ʿarafa dhātahu taʾallaha)’, a saying that he attributes to ancient philosophers (Mullā Ṣadrā 2002–2005: I.7).
Interesting! Here’s something I found that seems to be related:
“[…] that, in the soul which it metamorphoses, the Form—or Idea—intelligized by the active Intelligence is a Form which intelligizes itself, and that as a result the active Intelligence or Holy Spirit intelligizes itself in the soul’s act of intellection. Reciprocally, the soul, as a Form intelligizing itself, intelligizes itself as a Form intelligized by the active Intelligence.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulla_Sadra#Existentialism
Let’s try to unpack this. The Holy Spirit is an active Understanding which understands an Idea. This Idea is: a Form which understands itself. This means it must understand itself as a Form understood by the Holy Spirit. And conversely, the Holy Spirit must also understand itself, otherwise it logically cannot understand a Form which understands itself!
When this happens within the soul, the soul is transformed by it—the self is deified… It may seem as if there’s talk of three subject matters here, the soul, the Form and the Holy Spirit, but they’re actually one in that the Holy Spirit is the subject matter in its aspect of active Intelligence, i.e. doing the intelligizing of the Form; the Form is rather the subject matter in its passive aspect, namely being intelligized by the Holy Spirit; and the soul is the subject matter in its intermediate aspect as transforming from a Form which does not intelligize itself/is not intelligized by itself, into a Form which does intelligize itself/is intelligized by itself.
And indeed, what does it mean to be divine without it contrasting to not being divine? How could one know oneself—i.e., as a knower—without knowing what it’s like not to know? “Existence precedes essence”!!
The response you posted attempts to engage with the ideas of Mullā Ṣadrā, but it introduces concepts and terminology that are not directly related to his thought, particularly in the context of the passage you quoted. Here’s a breakdown of how the response relates (or doesn’t) to my original post:
1. Does the answer address the issue?
-
Partially, but not directly: The response touches on themes related to self-knowledge and the relationship between the soul, intellect, and divinity, which are relevant to Mullā Ṣadrā’s philosophy. However, it introduces concepts like the “Holy Spirit” and uses language more characteristic of Christian theology or later philosophical interpretations (like existentialism) rather than directly addressing Mullā Ṣadrā’s ideas as expressed in my quote.
-
Mullā Ṣadrā’s Original Context: My original quote discusses self-knowledge as the foundation of philosophical inquiry and spiritual fulfillment. The emphasis is on understanding the immateriality and subsistence of the self, which is central to attaining philosophical certainty and, ultimately, deification (taʾalluh).
-
Your Focus: Your response shifts focus to a different framework, discussing the idea of the Holy Spirit as an active Intelligence that understands a Form, which then leads to the deification of the soul. This is somewhat tangential to Mullā Ṣadrā’s emphasis on self-knowledge as the key to philosophical and spiritual ascent.
2. Why is the Holy Spirit evoked in the answer?
-
The Holy Spirit in Christian Context: The Holy Spirit is a concept from Christian theology, often associated with divine inspiration and the process of understanding or revealing truth. However, Mullā Ṣadrā, being a Muslim philosopher deeply rooted in Islamic tradition, does not invoke the Holy Spirit in his writings. Instead, Ṣadrā’s framework revolves around Islamic concepts such as the intellect (`aql), the soul (nafs), and God (Allah).
-
Possible Misinterpretation: Your introduction of the Holy Spirit may stem from a misunderstanding or an attempt to draw parallels between Ṣadrā’s concept of the active intellect (a philosophical idea with roots in Neoplatonism and Islamic philosophy) and the Christian idea of the Holy Spirit. However, this comparison is not typical in the scholarly interpretation of Ṣadrā’s work and might lead to confusion.
-
Mismatch with Mullā Ṣadrā’s Thought: In Islamic philosophy, particularly in Mullā Ṣadrā’s system, the focus is on the relationship between the self (nafs), intellect, and the Divine, but this does not directly correlate with the Christian Trinity or the role of the Holy Spirit. The idea of the self becoming deified (taʾalluh) is more about achieving unity with the Divine through self-knowledge, not through an intermediary like the Holy Spirit.
Conclusion:
The response you have posted tries to engage with the concept of self-knowledge leading to deification but does so using concepts that are not part of Mullā Ṣadrā’s philosophical system. The evocation of the Holy Spirit seems to be an attempt to draw a parallel that doesn’t quite fit within the framework of Islamic philosophy, particularly as developed by Mullā Ṣadrā. The response may reflect a misunderstanding or a misapplication of different philosophical traditions rather than directly addressing the points in my original post.
[quote=“Bob, post:3, topic:80323, username:Bob”]
### 2. Why is the Holy Spirit evoked in the answer?
*** The Holy Spirit in Christian Context: The Holy Spirit is a concept from Christian theology, often associated with divine inspiration and the process of understanding or revealing truth. However, Mullā Ṣadrā, being a Muslim philosopher deeply rooted in Islamic tradition, does not invoke the Holy Spirit[/quote]**
HI there,
I love your dismemberment of the other post.
Allow me to give my opinion.
-
Mulla Sadra is relatively unknown in the Muslim world outside of academia - he appears to be the stuff of Orientalists and Persian-ists, and students of Shi’is Philosophy.
-
The Holy Ghost / Holy Spirit is a key belief in Islam. Take for example Qur’an 2:87, 19:17, 26:193.
-
What you have presented of Mulla Sadra’s views seem to me to be non sequiturs and over-wrought. This is a major criticism of most philosophers today - they become lost in verbiage, and need to invent obscure terminology to express the abstract, but sadly this loses the attention of ordinary people.
From your OP it seems like we must “know our selves” (whatever that means, l know my social security number, name, address, childhood trauma, etc. and l think that’s good enough) before engaging in philosophy.
However, l think any person is able to reason and philosophy is about the flesh of reason, clothing the bones of logic, right? So, why does Mulla Sadra write this extra stuff? And why does his translator / editor need special Arabic terminology? Seems like it only helps departmental lecturers publish books if a certain amount of obscurity is maintained!
Isn’t the self essentially obliterated in Islam by close contact with ‘Allah’? Why else bow pushing their faces into the dirt and sticking their butts up in the air so many times times a day? A more self-effacing gesture is hardly imaginable.
Religious deference is a deferral of vanity.
We debase ourselves before our lord because he is worth it and we were created for that purpose. As the other responder Self-Lightening implied: all else is vanity.
If you reject the source of all morality (God) then you may end up living a life without limits, and all that it entails. The stuff of nightmares. Your best life.
Yep. You do.
You obviously don’t know the history of Islam, otherwise you’d know that that was the point. Muhammad faced the arrogance of the Arab warlords, and brought them to their knees.
@Bob
Sir, if l may add something to the topic:
The Muslim shahadah has been said to entail the true realisation of Self.
La ilaha = there is no god = there is only you alone, you’re the only one you know to exist
il-Allah = but Allah = the only true objectively existing thing
So, as the Sufis say, we are “alone with the Alone”. That’s what the testament of faith (La ilaha il-Allah - one of the 5 pillars of Islam) affirms. In other words, this entire life is a simulation, and we were in his presence, alone with him, the whole time.
“In Hindu mythology, they say that the world is the drama of God. God is not something in Hindu mythology with a white beard that sits on a throne, that has royal perogatives. God in Indian mythology is the self, Satcitananda. Which means sat, that which is; chit, that which is consciousness; and ananda that which is bliss. In other words, what exists, reality itself is gorgeous, it is the fullness of total joy.”
Quelle: Alan Watts Zitate (107 Zitate) | Zitate berühmter Personen
@Bob Unfortunately that branch of Hinduism doesn’t get past the “La ilaha” stage i.e. only the self exists. By the way, Hinduism is a relatively recent term, arising from interaction with foreigners. In itself, the religion had many branches and was the local beliefs of Hind (geographical ancient India) - never a formal religion, but l think deities spanned multiple geographical regions and thus the concept of a unified religion arose. It’s fascinating. A Zoroastrian Sufi wrote a book called Dabistan-i-Mazaheb (School of Manners / Doctrines) about the different faiths and sub-sects of India, there’s a huge section on Hinduism and Zoroastrianism, untainted by Orientalism, as the author was local. You’d enjoy it, and the unabridged version is best as it’s got more pages obviously - in English translation by Shea and Troyer, free of copyright, downloadable from archive.org