Hakim Mudarres Zunuzi and Banu Amin on the Unity of Essence A Comparative Study

• Main Authors: Nafiseh Ahlesarmadi, Maryamsaday Eizadi
• Format: Article
• Language: fas
• Published: University of Isfahan 2014-01-01
• Series: Comparative Theology
• Online Access: http://uijs.ui.ac.ir/coth/browse.php?a_code=A-10-293-1&slc_lang=en&sid=1

Tawhid (the belief in transcendent oneness or unity of divinity) is the culmination of all Islamic teachings and has a special place in Islamic sciences. The unity of essence begins by the unity of existential necessity and ends in unity of existence as many theosophers and mystics suggest. This essay discusses unity of essence as understood by two Sadraean thinkers (Hakim Mudarres Zunuzi and Banu Amin) according to Mulla Sadra's principles. Undoubtedly, these two theosophers have no discord as far as they speak about necessity of existence and unity of Necessary Existence. Dispute erupts when Banu voices her Sadraean sympathy with transcendent oneness of existence while Mudarres takes another position.       According to Sadra, the being which has no limitation whatsoever leaves no room for other being to come into existence and be its second or third and thus it is unique and uncountable. In this world, thus, there is no existence but one of which the rest are manifestations (Mulla Sadra, 1382, 67). This view which has been mentioned by Sadra in different positions is the very idea of individual unity of existence. It needs to be explained that in Mulla Sadra's works there are two accounts of effect: Existence in itself for something-else (relational existence) Existence for something-else (copulative existence)      At first sight which is thought to be elementary as compared to the second one, effect enjoys a reality and existence of its own the whole identity of which is though being related to and depended on cause and this dependency is its very essence and undetachable but the effect like the cause is counted among  beings. This is the position which is also held by Mudarres Zunuzi as to contingent beings (Mudarres Zunuzi, 1376: 357). He seem to have understood Mulla Sadra's words implying this very sense alone without presuming the possibility of a second sense. To put it otherwise, he has indeed fathomed effect's copulative existence as its relational existence although he outwardly claims a lot of denying the individual unity of existence (ibid: 94 & Ubudyyat, 1385, 214). While in Banu's works both takings of effect as copulative and relational existence could be found (Amin, 1373, 115, 96).        There are some phrases in Hakim Mudarres's words which appear to be at odds with his idea of diversity of existence: Like Mulla Sadra, Mudarres is of the opinion that not only God does not share the notion of "necessity of existence" with anything but this is also true with such notions as existence, knowledge, power and the like; while Zunuzi still believes in the existence of contingent beings and diversity of existence!! (Mudarres Zunuzi, 1376, 72 & 82). Like Mulla Sadra and many other theosophers, Zunuzi reduces causation into existential gradation [Tashuun] (ibid, 359). While we know that causation is based on the reality of diversity. The authors believe these phrases and Zunuzi's accounts and glosses on them need to be interpreted. As to the first group they accept the position held by Zunuzi and Banu as such but they have other view of the second group. The authors do not find a solid ground for Zunuzi's idea of Tashauun and see it as an extension of failure of keeping the pace with one's principles. The belief in diversity is a premise which leads to the idea of causation not that of existential gradation. One can replace existential gradation with causation when he has already replaced unity of existence with diversity and copulative existence with relational existence. For instance, in Shawahid, Mulla Sadra turns to individual unity of existence when he has already proved the principiality of existence, made-ness of existence and existential gradation (Mulla Sadra, 1382: 66). While Zunuzi interprets causation in terms of manifestation despite his denial of transcendent unity of existence.