영성, 몸-마음, 젠더, 생태, 평화 Scapbook: PerennialSufi

Showing posts with label PerennialSufi. Show all posts

2023/04/14

[Let's Talk Religion] Ibn 'Arabi & The Unity of Being [72 min]

Ibn 'Arabi & The Unity of Being

===

[Let's Talk Religion]

542K subscribers

===

766,962 views Premiered Apr 28, 2020 #Mysticism #Sufism #IbnArabi

In this very long video, I give an introduction to one of the most significant, yet often misunderstood thinkers and mystics in history - Ibn 'Arabi.

The video will be released in parts soon as well, but I wanted to put this up first as an epic, full introduction to his life and ideas.

===

Souces:

Chittick, William (2005). "Ibn Arabi: Heir to the Prophets". OneWorld Publications.

Chittick, William (1998). "The Self-Disclosure of God: Principles of Ibn al-'Arabi's Cosmology". State University of New York Press.

Chittick, William (2005). "The Sufi Doctrine of Rumi". World Wisdom, inc.

Chodkiewicz, Michel (1982). "The Spiritual writings of Amir 'Abd al-Kader". State University of New York Press.

Chodkiewicz, Michel (1993). "Seal of the Saints: Prophethood and sainthood in the doctrine of Ibn 'Arabi". Translated by Liadain Sherrard. The Islamic Texts Society.

Addas, Claude (1993). "Quest for the Red Sulphur". The Islamic Texts Society.

Ibn 'Arabi - "The Ringstones of Wisdom (Fusus al-hikam)". Translated by Caner Dagli. Kazi Publications.

Ibn Arabi - "The Interpreter of Desires (Tarjuman al-ashwaq)". Translated by Reynold A. Nicholson. London: Royal Asiatic Society.

Ibn Arabi - "The Universal Tree and the Four Birds (al-ittihad al-kawni). Translated by Angela Jaffray. Oxford: Anqa Publishing.

Mahmud Shabistari - "Garden of Mystery: The Gulshan-i raz of Mahmud Shabistari". Translated by Robert Abdul Hayy Darr. Archetype.

Fakhruddin 'Iraqi - "Divine Flashes (Lama'at)". Translated by William C. Chittick & Peter Lamborn Wilson. The Classics of Western Spirituality Series. Paulist Press.

#IbnArabi #Sufism #Mysticism

Key moments

View all

===

3,103 Comments

===

Hasan

2 years ago

As a born Muslim I am ashamed by my lack of knowledge about these figures of Islamic Golden Age. Thank you for such a nice and non bias discussion.

1.3K

150 replies

Holden McRoin

11 months ago

I listened to this video twice and the time absolutely flew by, we are so blessed to be alive during a time when information is so readily available and we have people like yourself willing to dedicate their own time to making quality content

157

3 replies

Richard Engelhardt

4 months ago

You are undooubtedly one of the best teachers I have ever had the privilege of learning from, in all my 50 years at Yale, Harvard, and Cambridge. Thank you!

12 replies

Denisa Nastase

1 year ago

One of the most profound pieces of information I have ever experienced. This felt to shook my core. I applaud you for being able to put this presentation forth. It felt like a masterpiece in terms of clarity and essence.

187

1 reply

Quran Mine

2 months ago

I'm an Arab Muslim from Morocco.

I watched your video, and I was astonished to the extent of your analysis especially in the 2nd part. Congratulations from my heart!

Super Girl

1 year ago

I have goosebumps and my heart aches with love understanding (somewhat) this concept. It is so beautiful

102

2 replies

Peter Rosso

2 years ago

I would love to see a part 2 that goes more in depth into ibn Arabi's metaphysics/cosmology, regarding insan al kamil etc

412

10 replies

shahul hameed

1 year ago (edited)

Almighty has blessed you with incredible knowledge, beautiful voice and the beauty of articulation ...I am amazed and totally flattered after going through each of your videos - The depth of knowledge in each of video is unimaginable ......Ohh my how much i learnt from you is still a wonder for me. Thank you for this great service brother - May god bless you - Thanks again

user1

10 months ago

I've been bingewatching your videos and i'm impressed of your knowledge, love and respect for the subject matter. Keep up the great work

Ibrahim Khalil

1 year ago (edited)

As a Sufi Sheikh from the Tijanya Order and West African (Senegal), I've been reading Ibn Arabi's work and many other Sufis like Ghazali, Ruzbahani and Abu Yazid al- Bastami for 16 years now

And i don't really find Ibn Arabi doctrine hard to understand at all. Well at least not when you are initiated into fanā and Baqā. And He was wrong about being The Khatim-il Awliya something he later rectified himself

9 replies

Abdur Rashid Farooq

2 years ago

Ma Sha Allah, brilliant content. The breadth of coverage along with the consistency of research is truly praiseworthy.

May God Bless you my friend

Mahi Abrar Amer

1 year ago

Im honestly speechless. Absolutely outstanding. Thankyou, truly from the bottom of my heart, for the amount of time and effort you spend to study, understand and then make and edit long, comprehensive videos like this!

Harry Dee

2 years ago

I can’t believe I am learning about my own culture from this channel , Great Job 👍🏻

414

18 replies

COOL STORY BRO

2 months ago

As a 7-year-old kid I once said: “God is everywhere and nowhere.” Glad to know I was on the right path ❤

5 replies

Sumaia Saif

1 year ago (edited)

Meister Ekchart, the Vedanta and Jalaluddine Rumi meeting in one place, your video! I can listen to you for eternity 🤍 Thank you for sharing your passion with the world. I always resonated with the prism and the white light analogy but never knew it is by Ibn Arabi. What I want to go deeper within is the centre and the circle analogy of Ibn Arabi. Sending you blessings 🙏

5 replies

will c

7 months ago

Love your videos. Coming from a place of very little knowledge of the faith however a lot of respect, I’ve gotten to know quite a few muslims and have always enjoyed our conversations and the things I’ve learned from them, I’ve always been treated well by the ones I’ve known and know. There is an immense amount of rich and beautiful history you’ve brought to life for me through these wonderfully curated and very well presented lectures. Thank you for expanding my knowledge and helping me to understand this rich culture,

1 reply

דניאלה אוראל

1 year ago

What a wonderful lecture, unbelevable, thank you so much.

1 reply

Sam Haider

1 year ago

Thank you for researching this, writing it out, and then recording it. Your work is much appreciated. Regards.

ashurbanipal44

2 years ago

This is such a great distillation of Ibn Arabi's ideas. I remember first reading Fusus Al-Hikam and feeling confounded by most of it, but amazed at what I could understand. You did a great job of presenting the most essential parts as neatly as one possibly can.

100

Akram Mohamed

2 years ago

I love how engaging and thorough you are, it's rare that I'm 20 mins into a video and not bored

Minahil

1 year ago (edited)

Thankyou so much for putting this together in such an organized, comprehensive and beautiful way! Would love a part 2 on this. Also a suggestion, could you please put time stamps for different concepts and parts in the description of this video? It would be such a help!

chitranjan kumar kushwaha

1 year ago

Self knowledge is foremost the ultimate goal for Nirvana or moksha or enlightenment in Hinduism according to Advaita vedant philosophy of Hinduism i surprised and glad and love to see exactly same thing said by ibn Arabi .this proverb is very true all wise men think alike .namaste from india .love from Bihar India

1 reply

Anime Furry

1 year ago

Wow that was amazing never have my personal beliefs been described so well to me! Thank you!

1 reply

Shanti Garin

1 year ago

Absolutely love your work and I'm glad I came across your channel! Ibn Arabi as other mystics have always fascinated me

ASMR Theory

2 years ago

This video was fantastic! I've been trying to find a channel like yours that has high quality videos with scholarly perspectives on religion and was delighted to come across this. You deserve many more subscribers!

166

Let's Talk Religion

2 replies

Muna Nana

4 months ago

What a difficult topic you have picked for yourself. I am saving this video to listen to it again. It took me over a year to finish reading the (abridged) english version, the only one I could find, of the Fusus al Hikam, (the settings of the wisdom, I think it means). I kept having to go back and refer to a previous chapter, and kept putting the book down so I could take the time to absorb the amazing ideas he put forth. I have a total fascination with his works. Thank you so very much for this.

Zaka Khan

2 years ago

I can hardly say more than has already been said about the wonderful work you are doing... all I can offer is a sincere 'thank you', and I shall pray that you receive manifold the reward of your efforts.

1 reply

Mubi Karimjanovna Bob

1 year ago

MashaAllah May Allah bless you and raise you for opening up such saints life🙏🙏🙏really thank you

Ibn Arabi May Allah raise him higher and higher was ine of the mystical sufi masters and you enlived him in such a beautiful way🙏🙏🙏🙏

By seeing you i remember sheikh AbdulRahman also british origin teacher🙏

Please continue such a beautiful and meaningful work and May Allah open more and more doors and knowledge🙏

Rybot9000

1 year ago

These are some great videos. I used to study this stuff a lot and kept finding the same threads in different religions. I was also deep into science and atheism at the time. It's strange to think about how taken in by my own self I was. The part about self-worship is something I was just thinking about. It all comes together the best work of our neuroscientists and sociologists confirms a general theory like this. As of course we see in Advaita, Daoism, Buddhism, etc.. all roads lead to Damascus it seems. As one might expect with Truth. I eventually found my way into the Perennialist corner and then gave Christian mysticism a go. There are so many people that have great wisdom, I am sure much oral tradition was circulated before we know. Anyway great videos I will check to see if you've done one on the Theologia Germanica

N N

1 year ago

Many thanks for this balanced and informative intro to the Unity of Being ❤️

Luis Gasser

2 years ago

Thank you for this most excellent presentation. It is absolutely important to clearly distinguish between a philosopher and a mystic as their respective natures are fundamentally different from one another. Whilst a philosopher's source of knowledge is intellectual speculation, a mystics source of knowledge is the transcendence of individuality/selfhood, thus in a way becoming knowledge itself. Even though a mystic may use his intellect and reason to communicate his insight to others, this does under no circumstances make him a philosopher.

6 replies

Thole molapo

1 year ago (edited)

you possess a rare attribute called Ilm, like Rupert Spira, you explain Non Duality( Qur'anic Tawhid) with great ease and understanding.

Kaan Bulak

2 weeks ago

I cannot thank you enough for your work. This one was especially exceptional! After finishing (with many times of confused relistening and taking notes) I can breathe deeper now.

Leren Sekyo

1 year ago

This is very engaging. Thank you so much for your hard work 🔥

Adam Tyson

1 year ago

Love the work you're doing, thanks for sharing on such a fascinating and challenging topic!

Good call using Claude Addas who certainly has provided us with the go-to biography on Ibn al-'Arabi. It's an interesting fact that she is also the daughter of Michel Chodkiewicz -- not that I figured that out myself until years after I started studying Wujudi philosophy : /

Esoteric Pilgrim

1 year ago (edited)

Thank Allha , I can very well understand what you are telling, as l read Ibn Arabi books, your explanation is marvellous. You are a enlightened person I can tell it

Definitely in the words of Ibn Arabi himself “ ENLIGHTENED ARE NOT BOUND BY RELIGION “. May Allah bless all, with lots of love ❤️ from a sufi student from india.🙏🙏

Corsair Caruso

2 years ago

I’d love to know more about how Unity of Being and Vedanta interacted! Interfaith dialogue is so fascinating to me.

4 replies

Aabbish Duaa

1 year ago

This is so helpful. Truth be told, your channel is so helpful when it comes to learning about different religions in an unbiased manner. Thankyou!

ashley !

4 months ago

i’ve watched this video sooo many times and always find more takeaways. you should make more videos on this topic! so interesting

1 reply

love&grace

1 year ago

Beautiful episode! Please make another sequel about Ibn Arabi 💗

Samaia Traforti

1 year ago

Your work is so beautifully and clearly articulated. Thankyou for sharing insight into this transcendent topic in such a digestible form. Deep gratitude

Aasem Ahsan

10 months ago (edited)

9:10 Ibn Arabi's meeting with Ibn Rushd

21:45 Famous works

22:45 Wahadat Al Wujud

Abdullah Khodadad

2 years ago

I am amazed by your deep deep knowledge of our theology! With this comprehensive video, you reorganized my amateur knowledge of our Orfan and late Aarifs!

Thank you for your great work! Appreciated so much!

1 reply

onnoy saad

1 year ago

খুব সুন্দর।। অনেক সুন্দর। মাশা আল্লাহ।

IrishWithSomeSun

1 year ago

This video was incredible and really helpful spiritually. I’m going to spend a lot more time leading about this man and his teachings.

1 reply

Walker Goff

1 year ago

Your content is excellent. Every video is informative, nuanced, and looks past particularities to point toward possible eclectic interpretations fitting each particularity together. Bravo.

Ace of Bace

4 months ago (edited)

Brother, I am a Muslim both by birth and choice, as well as a student of Islamic Theology who has done a thesis at University on the Fusus al Hikam - I can proudly say: You did a great job.

Looking forward to more of Ibn Arabi from you.

Thank you for this and in advance for the upcoming.

Being Human

1 year ago

As soon as I saw the Ibn Arabi, clicked on video ❤️ Such lucky people to live in a era of Ibn Arabi ❤️

Jonathan Kelly

2 years ago

I had class with Professor Chittick, that was the best class I have ever taken.

1 reply

Joseph Petrone

1 year ago

I wonder if you have done or will do a video about Guru Nanak and the Sikh religion and philosophy as they too have both "Sufi" ideas and even include writings of Muslim and Hindu mystics in their holy book (the Guru Granth Sahib) =) keep up the good work my friend, your videos are very enlightening and educational.

Abdelhak Laaqira

1 year ago

Amazing stuff! Just bought the "ringstones to wisdom" just few days ago and I'm hungry to read it asap. Thanks

asadath99

1 year ago

Thank you for explaining such complex subject in understandable terms. You are so knowledgeable and yet so humble.

Gavin Shri Amneon

1 year ago

Thank you so much for this brilliantly composed and eloquently expressed exposition. Such a hard topic to convey but you did it so well

Phillip Anon

1 year ago

Amazingly brilliant presentation and narration! This video should be treasured. Thanks and keep up the good work!

princeAmori

2 years ago

Just wanted to say, love the work you are doing. Also, thank you for mentioning Ibn Barrajan, briefly in this video. Like Ibn Arabi he made predictions about the future, but unlike Ibn Arabi his method involved studying the art of letters. Many topics I intended to cover on my channel someday, you have already covered them on yours. Time saver. Thank you.

370

Let's Talk Religion

19 replies

Earth is the grave of everything

3 months ago

thank you for your hard work absolutely astonishing and mind blowing and it's cryze how you spent much time to carefully deliver such knowledge on it's raw form and explaining them. i really wonder now what's going on your mind after discovering all these topics.

Noor S

1 year ago

Thank you so much for your in depth research and hard work in making this video. I’ve become interested in Ibn Arabi and needed this absolutely enlightening explanation about his life and work. Excellent documentary!

Mystic's Journey

1 year ago (edited)

Please make another video going deeper into these teachings. You are so great at explaining all of this. I love you videos!

Javad Siavashi

1 year ago

Amazing representation of the ideas. Big respect and thank you for your work

Eli

10 months ago

Very‌ ‌well‌ ‌put together, both in terms of content and delivery, nothing is left to interpretation

Tousif Rahman

2 years ago

You are doing something that truly special and meaningful. My respect

RF M69

1 year ago

Thanks so much for your videos. I have finally been able to understand something of Ibn Arabi's teachings and that almost qualifies as a miracle!

Nicoleta Rosu

1 year ago

thank you for sharing knowledge & wisdom....I loved learning about Ibn "Arabi, I am looking forward to part 2. Also, I am excited to check out your other videos. Love & blessing to you

TRAVEL WALKS 4K

1 year ago

Wow. This channel is a gem. Thank you for sharing your knowledge and thoughts :)

no thankyou

3 months ago

This channel is quite literally a Godsend. I deeply appreciate you sharing this information, and showing everyone that at the deepest and most profound core of the thinkers that affect and change known religions, lie extremely abstract and nearly incomprehensible doctrinal insight.

Chris Hobbs

1 year ago

Really appreciate how you introduce the concepts first, which helps us understand the scriptures presented.

xariqx 🥀

2 years ago

Awesome channel! I can see doing well.

Getting an academic perspective on religion from a neutral party is very important as it takes away most bias.

Let's Talk Religion

3 replies

M0U53B41T

2 years ago

Really enjoyed this video! thanks for taking time to deal with such an obviously difficult topic - I am curious as to how he dealt with the problem of evil?

1 year ago

So glad I found your channel. Love your way of explaining these topics.

Karl Tyson

1 year ago

Thank you for this monumental presentation!

Sarah -

2 years ago

Wowww is what I can say! Your research, your recitation, your passion... Bravo 👍

Hind Oubraim

4 months ago

Thank you for simplifying this part of our history and sharing it with us . Great information.

Tahsin Khan

2 years ago (edited)

Being someone who’s tried to experience every religion, read a verity of thought, walked on many nations and have a done of lot of psychedelics all of this made sense to me as someone who’s experienced through a Muslim lens. I’m great full for this video. It’s like a complex thought you had but couldn’t really find words for.

13 replies

jalal maache

1 year ago

Outstanding lecture. Am Arab and reading ibn Arabi was The most difficult . Kudos to you.

Attia Bano

11 months ago

thank you so much for making this facinating video on ibn arabi. It was very well made and inspiring to watch and u made a very intellectual topic easy to understand for simple humanbeings like me. God bless u

O.N

1 year ago

Assalamu’alaikoum.. Deep respect for the work you do. Thank you.

waddah Elyemen وضاح اليمن

1 year ago

You are one of with explaining such complex mind bending Ideas and thoughts. Perfect Arabic pronunciation is a plus. 👍👍👍

sam biani

1 year ago

Reading Golshane Raz (gerden of secrets) in farsi is such a joyful experience, the only poem that gives me that feeling apart from Hefez. The text sound modern and mysterious

Ziad El Mestekawy

2 years ago

Thank you so much for this incredible work. Beautiful in every way. Allah Akbar :)

LOV Movement

1 year ago

This video is beyond fantastic. Absolutely beautiful & insightful breakdown. Thank you for this

Husna Kassim

1 year ago

This is new to me. I would have to listen to this a few times to understand this unity of being.

kaja hussain

1 year ago

No words, The way you presented this wahdathul wujud was unbelievable and priceworthy. 🙏🙏🙏🙏

Khalid Alnaama

1 year ago

Huge information about Ibn Arabi who you described as a very difficult figure to understand. Thanks for this great information.

bambang98

4 months ago (edited)

one of the best contents about Ibn 'Arabi and his works. thanks for the video.

Mrad Belhasen

2 years ago

This is beyond pure mate,May he brings you more wisdom and understanding

Much love from Tunisia (a sufi as well)

Let's Talk Religion

61 replies

Mahasti Kia

1 year ago

This was beautiful! I learned so much. Thank you 🙏

(I could go on and on talking about it but my mind refuses. I need some stillness to absorb all this :)))

sarwatrahim

1 year ago

Thank u so much..I always want to know about "wahdat ul wajood"..and u made it very easy.Please carry on your work on this.Guide me about any of your book or paper published on it.

C.G. Maat

1 year ago

Thank you . Though so difficult , the one unity message is a great gem for our so divide America and world.

I also love the beautiful art designs ; like particle and wave woven into such lovey color and line with no need of perspective.

I have never seen this art work. And lastly thanks for enduring such a long explain. You are doing a great mission .

How did you get into this path. Maybe one day you do a presentation of your own inspiration.

As above so below, a lot of the Emerald Tablet Laws and Alchemy. You are a modern Manly hall.

blackswan1983

1 year ago

Thanks for a great video! I learned so much and have been enjoying your channel.

Story BUG

2 years ago

This was remarkable! Thanks for sharing this full of knowledge and wisdom presentation about a great Islamic scholar.

108

Let's Talk Religion

6 replies

Neo Lamo

9 months ago

Thanks a lot for such clear and detailed introduction to ibnalArabi views ! 🙏🏻♥️🌺🦋🌷🌸💮🏵️🎉💯🎊🙏🏻

Amine Mz

1 year ago

Wonderful approach to ibn arabi perception of existence! I’d wish if you could quote more of ‘ Al hallaj ‘ as he precedented ibn arabi in trying to to define ‘ wahdat al woujoud ‘ - union -.

Well done man appreciate your channel content & hardwork! Keep it up

aahr100

1 year ago

Really love your work. On Ibn Arabi - I came across his work through your introduction and the more I learn about him and his thoughts the more I realise I am only scratching the surface of this Murcian / Andalusian thinker philosopher mystic

xTG4M!NG Piano

2 years ago (edited)

i am arabian i just really wanna tell ya this is so informative!! nice job mate keep doing this awesome work!

Faye Cassim

5 months ago

Greetings this is so so amazing to understand, brings great appreciation for History and Theology .much Appreciated ,blessing upon thre groth of your channel Ameen

Jiren Says

2 years ago

This was absolutely amazing! Please more of Arabi!!!

177

Let's Talk Religion

43 replies

Frosty

1 year ago

I'm getting chills watching this. I have never read any of his works, but plan to now. As a psychedelic enthusiast, his teachings are very eerie. I had also came to very similar internal revelations when taking LSD and DMT. On DMT, you almost separate completely from your body and soul, and become the ethereal, raw, true spirit, and intuitively know that you and the person that lit the pipe for you are the same person, and that the normal "reality" that you return to is false. Very eerie.

V Fergi

1 year ago

So amazed how much he traveled to gain more wisdom and teach..and some people nowadays dont even get out of their own state

neeti.maewall

1 year ago

This is amazing , I don’t have the right words to praise the concept, it would be like an ant trying to comprehend and appreciate artificial intelligence. For now I will settle for thanking you for such a well researched topic and amazing compilation.

AllinOne

1 year ago

This is amazing, i've never heard of Ibn Arabi before.. Thank you dear sir.

cyrus dabiri

5 months ago

fascinating,very well researched and beautifully presented.Thank you for your great work.

vpcreationsunlimited P

2 years ago

I am Hindu 🕉 but I love Sufism and Rumi is my favorite poet 💕 . This is a very deep spiritual path in Islamic scriptures. I think these mystics are evolved souls, religion is many but God is one !!! Blessings from NYC

💐🌲☃️🌲☃️🌲☃️💐

125

61 replies

kailomonkey

2 years ago

A lot of this is how I've thought myself. This is good and returns me to my best being :)

Kari Harris

8 months ago

I know I'm late to the show, but this is fascinating! Contrasting Ibn 'Arabi to Maimonides is like night and day! It took the Baal Shem Tov and Chassidus to incorporate a lot of similar ideas in their interpretation of the divine many years later. I've never studied the Islamic sages and Ibn 'Arabi was a man many centuries before his time!

Kaswara

1 year ago (edited)

I came here by accident, and it was a great accident, I thought I will quickly go through the video, but I found myself listening to every detail, I got hooked, I couldn't stop untill I finished the whole video, thank you very much for all the effort you put on researching the subject and presenting it in a beautiful way. I spent a great time. From Yemen, respect 🙂

Rahil

1 year ago

This is gold. Thank you. 🤍

Malik Kafoor

1 year ago

Assalamualaikum, could you please make a separate video on Ibn Arabi's (Fusus-al-Hikam).

Best content ever👍

Much love from Kashmir

Althaf Hussain

2 years ago

Incredibly beautiful.. In fact my experience throughout listening you was not about Ibn Arabi, but about the beautiful One alone.

Thank you so much for sharing such immense wisdom and knowledge..

First Take Ltd

1 year ago

You are a great scholar and a great teacher !

Hamera Tahir

1 year ago

This is such an interesting topic. What a wonderful insight into one the greatest minds in history! To find Allah swt is the goal of all of us but due to our limited knowledge, we cannot. We can only marvel in awe at the greatest minds of the Golden age of Islam. If I had a time machine, Al Andalus is where I would return to sit at the feet of these great men and drink in every word they said! Truly they brought light where there was darkness.

Ebrima O. Bah

1 year ago

A beautiful presentation! So great...

Abdulkader AlSalhi

1 year ago

Well done, a very good presentation for Ibn Arabi 's difficult to understand writings.. God bless you

Ibrahim Noori Ashrafi

1 year ago

This channel deserve 100 million subscriber. Great work you have done brother. Keep it up❣️

1 reply

A B

2 years ago

really really good content! thank you for this introduction, i have heard about him but didn't know much about his teachings, know i have a brief understanding!

Leaf Zuk

1 year ago

I am amazed by how similar this is to the Hassidic teaching/philosophy I received in Yeshiva. Different words and perspective but so familiar; in essence Hassidus 101. Very cool

1 reply

Rifat Sele

1 year ago

Thank you. Your skillful and informative work answered some of my soul searching questions. Very well presented. Thank you again.

Mullanaver M.B

2 months ago

What a great info about our Islamic Sufi of Al andulas Hzt Ibnul Arabi, i got enlightenment from vedios love from India bro

Ahmad Alwasim

1 year ago

What a rich and respectful video you created. You made me interested to read more about this period of islam.

come towards true islam.

2 months ago

Aslamualykum brother you have done tremendous job keep it up may ALLAH bless you and your lovely family.

It’s Me

2 years ago

This video is the best video I have watched on youtube!

Thank you for introducing Ibn Arabi to me. I have recently adopted the Quran into my life and this has connected some big dots for me. I've always had a feeling that this description of Allah was the way Arabi explains it but could never quite make sense of it in my head. I have heard it described by non-muslims but something was missing.

Alhamdulillah

OnyxIdol

1 year ago

Very informative and enlightening, good video!

Samhat J

1 year ago

Thank you for all the work you have been doing.

Will you make any video specifically about Sufi Master Mansoor Al Hallaj?

K Bone

1 year ago

Ibn 'Arabi has always been one of my favorite Sufi thinkers, and Saracen Spain was an amazing blossoming. In my opinion, he was not a mystic, but only spoke as if he was one. This was because of the linguistic tools and socio-cultural structure of the time, which also fed the general self-preservation instincts (I am sure he was aware of them). It is the ESSENCE of the philosophical, religious, and metaphysical which is being distilled (see the story the different blind people looking for "grapes"... as well as the metaphor of turning grapes into wine ). To become Truth Realized, as I think IA was, is to become something of a heretic. As such, I think that is why your professor said what he said about "understanding" him. IA spoke as a butterfly, and your professor was likely still a caterpillar.

Pankaj Priyadarshi

1 year ago

Well researched and well spoken. You have done reasonable justice to the wonderful writings of the great thinker.

Heard a good part of of it. Many are so wise, logical and deep.

It is however, not wise for any of us to impose our (current) understanding on the meanings. It is best to present the teachings/sayings as they are.

Priyaranjan dash

9 months ago

This might be weird to say but listening ibn Arabi philosophy or experience I feel like I am learning Advaita vedanta in a new and good way since I am follower of Advaita vedanta from start.

3 replies

Ender

2 years ago (edited)

Amazing video, very informative and objective! Thanks so much for all the effort you've put into this. Deserves so much more views!

Let's Talk Religion

1 reply

Leiferuphugus

2 years ago

I've checked out a few of your videos before and enjoyed them. But for some reason this one hits like a resonate harmonic! As a Thelemite and modern Gnostic theurge (in the sense of pursuing spiritual experiences) there are many elements of this guy's life and theology that really synch up with my own, except that on a scale of 1:10 my experiences are like a 4 compared with ibn Arabi's 11.

1 reply

Zeeshan Shahzad

2 months ago

Loved it. Great job summarizing a rather difficult subject such as Ibn Arabi.

Hussain Muhammad

1 year ago

Hej! Imponerande sätt att beskriva djupaste ämne !! Älskar och uppskattar dina videos. Ser fram emot om du skulle kunna göra en avsnitt om Imam Ali ibne Abi Talib!!

Stort respekt

Art of Metta

1 year ago

thank you ❤️ i like ur style, very nice presentation. i was captivated the hole way tru, its a pleasure to listen your voice , rythms and expression. im grateful to have found u here.

Rob Haarlem

1 month ago

Well that sounded familiar, nothing and everything as the cradle of creation, in every breath. Beautiful and very inspiring documentary, thank you

Swires Cold

2 years ago

This is great. Thank you so much for making this available to us. I wish there was some online discussion on how he compares and differs with other philosophical schools on metaphysics and cosmology.

Let's Talk Religion

1 reply

The Path of Eudaimonia

1 year ago (edited)

Splendid! Ibn-Arabi sounds like right up my alley.

Thanks for the work you are doing, brother.

13LackMajik

1 year ago

This was fascinating. Thank you.

Dharmapal Sharma

2 months ago

Truth never ceases to be; Untruth exists not…. नास्तो विद्यते भावो नाभावो विद्यते सत्🌺✡️☪️♋️☸️🕉️⛎✝️⚛️🛐🌺

Spin Bet

4 months ago

Subhan Allaha Be Hamdee, Subhan Allaha Al Azeem, Peace and blessings on our Prophet, greater than our lifes.

Julia Connell

5 months ago

THANK YOU - I have enjoyed this so much, given me so much pleasure & joy. I was brought up in the christian/catholic faith & though both my parents walked the walk (as opposed to people who worship for one hour per week & therefore consider themselves 'good' no matter their behaviour outside church/temple/whatever your place of worship). they were both active in their community, quietly helping others. however when I was 7, walking home from school suddenly realised I did not 'believe' in the teachings/religion. whether or not jesus was/is god - his teachings were sound/good/right - the problem is the people who have strayed from what he taught - and turned worship of GOD to worship of Jesus. here in the thoughts of my muslim brothers (& sisters?) I find truth and solace, wisdom and understanding. as much as I find connection here, as a woman, I simply cannot submit to the muslim religion, as much as I find connection - it would interfere with my path, my relationship with GOD. again, here I find such joy & wisdom. all rivers flow from the same source - my GOD is all, everything, love, truth beauty. ❤🧡💛💚💙💜🖤🤍🤎

KOVIDENIYA

2 years ago

That was an excellent introduction! You are a very talented popularizer, happy to have found your channel. I was listening to podcasts by Peter Adamson from Philosophy without any Gaps. Its a great resource too, but there is something missing when you can only hear the voice and not see the person talking or be able to read the quotes or leave comments. So, your style and delivery format here on YouTube work extremely well.

Bilal Nasir

4 months ago

A great price of teaching so beautifully explained in such a understandable way. Jazakallah

Husarious Maximus

1 year ago

This was very good. Thank you 🙏🏽

hassanmustafah

3 months ago

Great effort simplifying Ibn Arabi ideas. Very tough job. Loved the work ❤

Gavri'el

2 years ago

What a beautiful video! Thank you so much. This really reminds me of Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka philosophy. I wonder if there is any possibility that ibn Arabi had access to Buddhist texts in his lifetime.

2 replies

Camille Espinas

3 months ago

“Mystical unveiling..” love that !

andy forsythe

2 years ago

' My journey was to myself, and it was to myself I was guided'. 🙏

Let's Talk Religion

6 replies

Jonathan Jensen

1 year ago

Sheesh, this is like exactly what I received. I use the metaphor of the wind blowing on the water, but also used light and a prism. It's because a person can make nothing except based on what is in themself.

Amir Lodi

2 years ago

Thank you for this beautiful an brilliant explanation!

Longcoat Gamer

1 year ago

It seems I need to learn more of this man, because all of this is making too much sense for it to be as your teacher said.

Algerian Pledge

1 year ago

you explain things perfectly. may god help you in your path

Bilge Günlü

1 year ago

You have one of the best video essay about Ibn Arabi. Thank you

الأمين حمادي

2 years ago (edited)

Definitely one of the best that I heard talking about Ibn Arabi on YouTube. Definitely subscribing and watching all of your videos. Thank you again for your magnificent effort :) and may God guide and bless us all.

Let's Talk Religion

5 replies

tauseefmc

5 months ago

Amazing intro to Ibn Arabi! Thanks!

david mcgrath

1 year ago

I was raised in an American Roman Catholic family, and this is the first time I ever really payed attention to Ibn 'Arabi. Rumi has been part of my heart and life for years, but after hearing this, I intend to read much more about him. It struck me how much his path seemed like Jesus. At least he didn't have to deal with the Romans. Thank you for this wonderful introduction.

1 reply

From Ideology to Unity - Logos Legacy

1 year ago

What do you think of portrayal of Ibn Arabi in the tv show - Resurrection: Ertrugul and the mystical themes of the show?

Murat

1 year ago (edited)

2023/03/27

AN ASSESSMENT OF IZUTSU’S SUFISM AND TAOISM by Anis Malik Thoha

13._Izutsu_Anis.pdf

IZUTSU’S APPROACH TO THE COMPARATIVE STUDY OF RELIGIONS:

AN ASSESSMENT OF HIS SUFISM AND TAOISM

Anis Malik Thoha

Introduction

Doing comparison is man‟s „business as usual‟. Even the simple person does it in his daily affairs in order to get a better choice. However, to do it scholarly or scientifically has been evidently and exceptionally the concern of sophisticated minds throughout the ages. Especially when the comparison involves belief systems or religions toward which complete neutrality or objectivity is almost impossible.1 Hence arose the important question on “who should carry out the exercise” and “how it should be carried out” in the long and fierce debates among the scholars and students of modern study of religions.

As for the former, there seems to be no conclusive and objective answer as to whether the student of comparative study of religions must be a religious or non-religious person (skeptic and atheist). And it is quite unlikely to have such an answer,2 since the very question is actually problematic. Because, in the final analysis, man has never been human, and cannot continue to be so, without a “set of value” in which he/she believes to be the ultimate truth, so that based upon this “set of value”, he/she judges, evaluates, and selects. Accordingly, it will certainly make no difference whether we call it religion or not.3

1 Yet according to Søren Kierkegaard, “religion is something that toward which neutrality is not possible.” [Quoted in Joachim Wach, The Comparative Study of Religions (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961), p. 9].

2 Geoffrey Parrinder, for instance, tries to discuss in his Comparative Religion the question and concludes finally with an answer which is in favour of the religious. [Geoffrey Parrinder, Comparative Religion (London: Sheldon Press, [1962] 1976), pp. 65, 120].

3 That religion has been the main source and supplier of value is self-evident and commonly

Whilst the latter, apparently the major discussions are addressed mainly to the issue of “descriptiveness-normativeness” or “objectivity- subjectivity” along with the types of approach to the study of religions (i.e., psychological, sociological, anthropological, historical, phenomenological, etc.),4 neglecting the issue of what we may call “representation”, which is equally (if not more) important to be taken into account, in order for the study to have its expected validity, credibility and commendability. This is true especially when the study involves a comparison between two or more religions. Otherwise, in the absence of the valid representation, it will be invalid, non-credible and non-commendable.

However, as far as my humble readings can tell, there are only very few scholars who really have paid due attention to this issue of “representation”, although many of them may have implemented this principle implicitly in their works. From the classical scholars, among these few, is Abū al-Ḥasan al-ʿĀmirī (d.381 AH/922 CE),5 a prominent Muslim philosopher, who deliberately addressed this issue and made it crystal clear in the introduction to his work on “comparative study of religion” under the title al-Iʿlām bi-Manāqib al-Islām, in which he compared “six world religions” between each other.6 He was fully

undeniable. But evidently, the ideologies and isms have remarkably functioned the same throughout the ages. In this regard, Paul Tillich observed that:

The outside observer is always an inside participant with a part of his being, for he also has confessed or concealed answers to the questions which underlie every form of religion. If does not profess a religion proper, he nevertheless belongs to a quasi-religion, and as consequence he also selects, judges, and evaluates. [Paul Tillich, Christianity and the Encounter of the World Religions (New York and London: Columbia University Press, 1963), p. 2].

Since by design they are usually meant as alternative to religions proper, some modern scholars simply call them “quasi-religions” [see: Paul Tillich, op. cit.], or “worldviews”, “semi-religions”, “weltanschauungs” [see: Ninian Smart, Dimensions of the Sacred: An Anatomy of the World’s Beliefs (London: Harper Collins, 1996)].

4 See a critical analysis of this issue: Anis Malik Thoha, “Objectivity and the Study of Religion,” in Intellectual Discourse, Vol. 17, No. 1, 2009, pp. 83-92.

5 He is Muḥammad ibn Abī Dharr Yūsuf al-ʿĀmirī al-Nīsābūrī, well-known as Abū al-Ḥasan al-ʿĀmirī, born in Nīsābūr in the beginnings of 4th century AH, died in the same city in 381 AH/922 CE. [Muḥammad ibn Yūsuf al-ʿĀmirī, al-Iʿlām bi-Manāqib al-Islām, edited by Aḥmad ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd Ghurāb (Cairo: Dār al-Kitāb al-ʿArabī li al-Ṭibāʿati wa al-Nashr, 1387 AH/1967 CE), p. 6].

6 Based on the Qur‟anic āyah 17, sūrah al-Ḥajj:

ﭫﭬﭭ

ﭢﭣﭤﭥﭦﭧﭨ ﭩﭪ ﴿ﭛﭜﭝﭞﭟﭠﭡ

ﭮﭯ ﭰ ﭱﭲ﴾،

aware that many of the writers and researchers had, wittingly or unwittingly, ignored this important issue. Further he said:

The description of merit of a thing against the other by way of comparing between the two could be right or otherwise. The right form is subject to two conditions. First, one must not make comparison except between the two similar types, i.e. he must not resort purposely to the noblest thing in this, then he compares it with the lowest in its counterpart; nor must he resort purposely to a principle among the principles of this, then he compares it with a branch among the branches of the other. Second, one must not resort purposely to a qualified property in some sect, which is not extensive in its whole, but then he attributes it to all of its classes.

Whenever the intelligent one observes these two conditions in comparing between things it will be easy for him to fulfill all the portions of comparisons adhering to the right in his exercise.7

Regardless of whether al-ʿĀmirī, in his work, was committed to what he had stated above or not (this is subject to further research), it is worth emphasizing here that these two principles of comparative study espoused by him in this passage – i.e., (i) the two (or more) objects of comparison must be of the same level in all respects, and (ii) each of them must be the qualified “representative” of its constituents – are logically and incontestably self-evident.

Meanwhile, among the modern scholars in the comparative study of religion, who have the same concern is Robert Charles Zaehner (1913- 1974). He stated vividly in his Mysticism: Sacred and Profane that:

It is quite absurd, for example, to quote the late philosophic mystic, Ibn al-

„Araby, as an authentic exponent of the Muslim Tradition since he has been rejected by the majority of the orthodox as being heretical. Such a ‘method’ has

nothing to commend it. It merely serves to irritate those who are genuinely puzzled by the diversity of the world‟s great religions.8

Al-ʿĀmirī confined the number of world religions to six only: Islam, Judaism, Sabeanism, Christianity, Magianism, and Polytheism. [see Muḥammad ibn Yūsuf al-ʿĀmirī, op. cit.]

7 The original Arabic text is as follows:

إن تجٍبن فضٍهخ انشًء ػهى انشًء ثحست انمقبثالد ثٍىٍمب قد ٌكُن صُاثب َقد ٌكُن خطأ . َصُزح

انصُاة مؼهقخ ثشٍئٍه: أحدٌمب: أال ٌُقغ انمقبٌسخ إال ثٍه األشكبل انمتجبوسخ، أػىً أال ٌؼمد إنى أشسف مب

فً ٌرا فٍقٍسً ثأزذل مب في صبحجً، ٌَؼمد إنى أصم مه أصُل ٌرا فٍقبثهً ثفسع مه فسَع ذاك . َاَخس:

إنى خهخ مُصُفخ فً فسقخ مه انفسق، غٍس مستفٍضخ فً كبفتٍب، فٍىسجٍب إنى جمهخ طجقبتٍب . انؼبقم فً انمقبثهخ ثٍه األشٍبء ػهى ٌرٌه انمؼىٍٍه فقد سٍم ػهًٍ انمأخر فً تُفٍخ حظُظ أال ٌؼمد َمتى حبفع

انمقبثالد، َكبن مالشمب نهصُاة فً أمسي. 127] p. cit., op. .[al-ʿĀmirī,

8 R. C. Zaehner, Mysticism: Sacred and Profane (London: Oxford University Press, 1961),

p. 31. (emphasis added).

It is clear that, according to both al-ʿĀmirī and Zaehner, in order for the comparative study of religions to be credible and commendable, it must fulfill the requirements of “representation” adequately.

Preliminary Assessment of Izutsu’s Approach

Perhaps, the book entitled Sufism and Taoism is the only work of Professor Toshihiko Izutsu (1914-1993) which might fall under the discipline of comparative study of religion, in its narrowest sense. Although it is unclear whether he has purposely wished it to be so or not, yet he did make it clear that it is a work meant for a comparison. Moreover, according to him, it is a structural comparison between the two “worldviews” – one of which is sufistic (Islamic) and the other Taoist, that have no historical connection. He said further:

[T]he main purpose of the present work in its entirety is to attempt a structural comparison between the worldview of Sufism [Islam] as represented by Ibn ʿArabī and the worldview of Taoism as represented by Lao-tzŭ and Chuang- tzŭ….

[T]he dominant motive running through the entire work is the desire to open a new vista in the domain of comparative philosophy and mysticism.9

The term “worldview” and “weltanschauung” is increasingly used in the contemporary religious and philosophical studies to mean religion exchangeably.10 And on top of that, the work is deliberately written by the author to facilitate the existing inter-cultural and inter-religious dialogue by providing an alternative ground to the current practices, which he calls “meta-historical or transhistorical dialogue”, borrowing Professor Henri Corbin‟s term “un dialogue dans la métahistoire”.11

Hence, the main task of this essay is focusing exclusively on this particular issue of approach used by Professor Izutsu in this particular work, in order to assess the extent to which it is logically and comparatively adequate, credible and commendable. No doubt at all that his extensive study of the key philosophical concepts of Ibn ʿArabī

9 Toshihiko Izutsu, Sufism and Taoism: A Comparative Study of Key Philosophical Concepts (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press, [1983] 1984), p. 1. (emphasis added)

10 See the footnote 3 above.

11 Ibid., p. 2.

(1165-1240) and Lao-tzŭ and Chuang-tzŭ, taken independently, is exceptionally excellent, as so are his other works seem to be. However, when it is seen from a comparative perspective properly, taking into account that it is principally meant by the author as a comparative study – and not just any comparison but a structural comparison between the two worldviews, a crucial question is indeed in order. It is a question on whether the issue of representation for these two worldviews has been addressed adequately in this work or not. In other words, whether the representatives (figures and thoughts) selected by Izutsu in this work do represent adequately the two worldviews respectively, that is, Ibn ʿArabī for Sufism and Lao-tzŭ and Chuang-tzŭ for Taoism.

As far as Taoism is concerned, I think nobody will dispute or disagree with Izutsu. For all scholars (insiders as well as outsiders) on this religion unanimously recognized Lao-tzŭ and Chuang-tzŭ as founders of Taoism, and their thoughts as representing the mainstream of Taoism.12 Thus, such a question of representation does no longer arise. (Therefore, this essay will not touch this issue with regard to Taoism). But the case is totally different with regard to Ibn ʿArabī in Sufism, let alone in Islam. Although his followers and admirers recognized him as al-Shaykh al-Akbar (the greatest master),13 his thoughts are by no means the mainstream of Sufism. Yet, contrary to that, they are considered by the majority of ʿulamā’ (Muslim scholars) as deviating from the mainstream of Sufism and, above all, of Islamic thought in general. The main charge against Ibn ʿArabī is his unusual and unorthodox thought which is commonly identified as pantheism, the unity of existence (waḥdat al-wujūd). Since this line of sufistic thought has never been known in the early tradition of Islam, especially in the Prophet‟s tradition, the Muslim scholars tend to consider it as heresy or heterodoxy (bidʿah).14 Hence, later on, many of

12 All references on world religions and faiths confirm this fact. See for instance: Huston Smith, Religions of Man (New York, Cambridge, London: Perennia Library – Harper & Row Publishers, [1958] 1965); Ninian Smart, The Religious Experience of Mankind (Glasgow: Collins Fount Paperbacks, [1969] 12th impression 1982); S. A. Nigosian, World Faiths (New York: St. Martin Press, 1994).

13 The title of al-Shaykh al-Akbar (the greatest master) for Ibn ʿArabī became well-known after Sultan Salim I issued a decree in 922 AH to build a mosque in Damascus on the name of this Sufi master. [See Dr. Muḥammad ʿAlī Ḥājj Yūsuf, Shams al-Gharb: Sīrah al-Shaykh al-Akbar Muḥyī al-Dīn Ibn al-ʿArabī wa-Madhhabuh (Aleppo: Dār Fuṣṣilat, 1427/2006), p. 16].

14 See for instance: Taqiyy al-Dīn ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥalīm ibn Taymiyyah in his Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā, Vol. 2, p. 143; ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Khaldūn in his Muqaddimah, (Beirut: Dār wa Maktabah al-Hilāl, 1983), pp. 206, 297; Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad ibn ʿUthmān Al-Dhahabī,

the contemporary Muslim scholars, such as Abū al-Wafā‟ al-Taftāzānī, term it as “heretical Sufism” (al-taṣawwuf al-bidʿī) to be distinguished from the one which is “traditional” (al-taṣawwuf al-sunnī) following the mainstream tradition of Islam. And because the former is more philosophical in nature, it is also known as “philosophical Sufism” (al- taṣawwuf al-falsafī).15 At any rate, the foregoing discussion has clearly shown that the place of Ibn ʿArabī in Sufism is far beyond the mainstream. Therefore, any attempt to introduce this Shaykh as representative of Sufism is methodologically questionable.

This question becomes more vibrant, pertinent and crucial when the comparative study is meant specifically as an attempt to embark on propagating certain agenda (be it ideological, philosophical or religious), such as philosophia perennis which is very controversial and to which Professor Izutsu seems to belong and subscribe ardently, or, rather idealizes. It is well-established that scholars in the discipline of comparative study of religion are particularly very sensitive to such an agenda, emphasizing the necessity to freeing it from any sort of attempts that would eventually divert and disqualify its neutrality and objectivity. Regardless of the question pertaining to the possibility and impossibility of full-fledge neutrality and objectivity, Izutsu rather spells this agenda out clearly following his conviction with “un dialogue dans la métahistoire” or “meta-historical or transhistorical dialogue”, as he states:

And meta-historical dialogues, conducted methodologically, will, I believe, eventually be crystallized into a philosophia perennis in the fullest sense of the term. For the philosophical drive of the human Mind is, regardless of ages, places and nations, ultimately and fundamentally one.

I readily admit that the present work is far from even coming close to this

ideal.16

Although philosophia perennis, as a school of philosophy, badly needs in itself to be studied and analyzed further, but since the main concern of this essay is on the issue of methodological approach employed by

in his Siyar al-Aʿlām al-Nubalā’, Vol. 23 (Beyrut: Mu‟assasat al-Risālah, 11th Printing, 1422 H./2001M.), pp. 48-9.

15 Further detail, see for instance: Dr. Abū al-Wafā‟ al-Ghunaymī al-Taftāzānī, al-Madkhal ilā al-Taṣawwuf al-Islāmī (Cairo: Dār al-Thaqāfah, 1988); and Abū Muḥammad Raḥīm al-Dīn Nawawī al-Bantanī, Madkhal ilā al-Taṣawwuf al-Ṣaḥīḥ al-Islāmī (Cairo: Dār al-Amān, 1424 H./2003 M.).

16 Toshihiko Izutsu, Sufism and Taoism, p. 469. (emphasis in the second paragraph added)

Izutsu, we should confine ourselves to this approach leaving aside the study and analysis of this school of philosophy in detail to the other relevant works.17

It is interesting to note, nevertheless, that Izutsu‟s perennial tendency is not clearly spelt out in any of his works other than Sufism and Taoism. Not even in his The Concept and Reality of the Existence18 and God and Man in the Koran19 which are rightly supposed to address the point elaboratively and clearly. Probably this is the main reason why many of the students and scholars on Izutsu fail to notice this point. For instance, in his presentation under the title “Communicating Pure Consciousness Events: Using Izutsu to address A Problem in the Philosophy of Mysticism,” Dr. Sajjad H. Rizvi from University of Exeter, UK, on the conviction of the possibility of „pure consciousness experience‟ (PCE) of mystical experience, tried all out to argue that Izutsu is far from being a perennialist,20 ignoring the very fact of text written by himself above which is quite straight forward and, thus, obviously self-evident. Indeed, even in this latter work of Izutsu, a careful and meticulous reading of the chapter “Existentialism East and West,” will surely show, though by way of inference, the perennial tendency of Izutsu. He says:

…. Then we shall notice with amazement how close these two kinds of philosophy [Western existentialism and Islamic existentialism] are to each other in their most basic structure. For it will become evident to us that both go back to one and the same root of experience, or primary vision, of the reality of existence. This primary vision is known in Islam as aṣālat al-wujūd, i.e. the “fundamental reality of existence”.21

The phrase “both go back to one and the same root of experience, or primary vision, of the reality of existence,” is a typical expression of

17 There are studies on the perennial philosophy or Sophia perennis. And I have a humble contribution to this study in my book, Al-Taʿaddudiyyah al-Dīniyyah: Ru’yah Islāmiyyah (Kuala Lumpur: IIUM Press, 2005).

18 Toshihiko Izutsu, The Concept and Reality of the Existence (Tokyo: The Keio Institute of Cultural and Linguistic Studies, 1971).

19 Toshihiko Izutsu, God and Man in the Koran: Semantics of the Koranic Weltanschauung

(North Stratford: Ayer Co. Publisher, [1964] repr. 2002).

20 Sajjad H. Rizvi, “Communicating Pure Consciousness Events: Using Izutsu to Address A Problem in the Philosophy of Mysticism,” a paper presented in the International Conference on Contemporary Scholarship on Islam: Japanese Contribution to Islamic Studies – The Legacy of Toshihiko Izutsu, International Islamic University Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, 5-7 August 2008, and is included in this volume, pp. 157-170.

21 Toshihiko Izutsu, The Concept and Reality of the Existence, p. 27. (emphasis added)

the perennialism (Sophia Perennis or al-Ḥikmah al-Khālidah). “The Masters”22 of this school of philosophy expressed it differently: René Guénon (1886-1951) used a phrase the Multiple States of Being;23 Aldous Huxley (1894-1963), in The Perennial Philosophy, paraphrased it as “the Highest Common Factor;”24 Frithjof Schuon (1907-1998) and Seyyed Hossein Nasr (b. 1933) called it the Transcendent Unity of Religion.25 In fact, Izutsu‟s Sufism and Taoism is comparable to one of René Guénon‟s posthumous collections entitled Insights into Islamic Esoterism and Taoism.26

Why not Islam and Taoism?

The foregoing analysis might lead eventually to such questions as, firstly, why Izutsu deliberately chooses Sufism and Taoism for his comparative study, rather than Islam and Taoism; and, secondly, why he chooses Sufism of Ibn ʿArabī per se among the prominent sufi figures. Of course, only Izutsu does know exactly the precise answer to this question. However, in the discipline of comparative study of religion today, scholars have discussed extensively the hypothetical definition of religion, and, thus, come up with some sort of typology of religions. Some of them have attempted to classify religions into “mystical” and “prophetic”, emphasizing that mysticism is “the highest type of religions”, as was commonly suggested by perennialists and transcendentalists. Accordingly, it is quite convenient for them to do a comparative study between Sufism and Taoism. Indeed, as I have just mentioned above, René Guénon wrote articles published later on in his posthumous collections entitled Insights into Islamic Esoterism and Taoism. From this perspective, Izutsu‟s Sufism and Taoism has been considered by some contemporary scholars, such as Professor Kojiro

22 In his works, Seyyed Hossein Nasr calls René Guénon, Ananda Coomaraswamy and Frithjof Schuon as “The Masters”.

23 René Guénon, The Multiple States of Being, (Hillsdale, NY: Sophia Perennis, [1932] 2002).

24 Aldous Huxley, The Perennial Philosophy (London: Fontana Books, [1944] 3rd impression 1961).

25 Frithjof Schuon, Esoterism as Principle and as Way, translated from French by William Stoddart (Pates Manor, Bedfont, Middlesex: Perennial Books, [1978] 1981); and his The Transcendent Unity of Religions, translated from French by Peter Townsend (New York, London: Harper Torchbooks, [1948] 1975); also Seyyed Hossein Nasr, „The Philosophia Perennis and the Study of Religion,‟ in Frank Whaling (ed.), The World’s Religious Traditions: Current Perspectives in Religious Studies, (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1984), pp. 181-200; and his Knowledge and the Sacred (Lahore: Suhail Academy, [1981] 1988).

26 René Guénon, Insights into Islamic Esoterism and Taoism (Hillsdale, NY: Sophia Perennis, 2003).

Nakamura, a prominent Japanese scholar in comparative religion,27 as a significant contribution which might offer a new vista in the field of comparative religion and interreligious dialogue. But then, whether Sufism is mysticism is actually a highly debatable question that badly needs further research and study. What is clear from the above discussion is that, as far as the Muslim scholars are concerned, they distinguished Sufism into sunnī (traditional) and falsafī (philosophical). And even if philosophical Sufism could be readily labeled mysticism, it represents only a part, nay a small part, of Sufism.

As for the second question, it seems that Izutsu‟s selection of Ibn ʿArabī, and not other ṣūfī figures, as the representative of Sufism is simply because the main interest of Izutsu is actually to establish what he called a “common language” which, according to him, is a necessary ground for the projected meta-historical dialogues could be made possible. He put it as follows:

These considerations would seem to lead us to a very important methodological problem regarding the possibility of meta-historical dialogues. The problem concerns the need of a common linguistic system. This is only natural because the very concept of „dialogue‟ presupposes the existence of a common language between two interlocutors.28

Yet, this “common language”, which is in the form of “key-terms and concepts”, is hardly to be found in the predominant and “authoritative” Islamic thought (kalām) and philosophy that are grounded directly on the Qur‟anic and Sunnatic (traditional) principles as well-represented in the thoughts and works of, for instance, al- Ghazālī,29 al-Qushayrī30 and the likes. Somehow, this is a matter of fact that has been recognized and realized by Izutsu himself indirectly when he wrote his God and Man in the Koran, in which he dealt with these two grand key-terms and concepts mainly from Qur‟anic perspective. In this work, the “common language”, in the sense of that which he wanted eagerly to establish in his comparison between Sufism and Taoism, is completely absent, though the main thrust of the

27 Kojiro Nakamura, “The Significance of Izutsu‟s Legacy for Comparative Religion,” a paper presented in the International Conference on Contemporary Scholarship on Islam: Japanese Contribution to Islamic Studies – The Legacy of Toshihiko Izutsu, International Islamic University Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, 5-7 August 2008, and is included in this volume, pp. 171-180.

28 Toshihiko Izutsu, Sufism and Taoism, p. 471. (emphasis added).

29 See, for example, his Iḥyā’ ʿUlūm al-Dīn.

30 See his Al-Risālah (Beyrut: Dār al-Jīl, 1990).

two works is almost, if not totally, the same, viz. about God and man.

Instead, the “common language” or “philosophical ground” for a comparative study, or a dialogue, between Sufism and Taoism is only to be found easily and definitely in such thoughts of the mystics or philosophers as that of Ibn ʿArabī‟s. Perhaps this is that can best explain the reason of Izutsu‟s selection of Ibn ʿArabī. But unfortunately the “common language” of those mystics is unintelligible, and thus, unacceptable by the majority of the ṣūfīs, let alone the traditional Muslim thinkers.

Conclusion

Seen from a comparative perspective, Izutsu‟s Sufism and Taoism might be listed under the discipline of comparative study of religion (in the narrowest sense of the term). It is even more so as Professor Toshihiko Izutsu has made it clear in the introduction and conclusion of the book. Scholars in the discipline have painstakingly been discussing and debating on subjects pertaining to the approaches or methodologies appropriate to conduct the study in order to ascertain its objectivity and credibility. It is particularly this crucial issue of approach that this essay has tried to focus on by assessing Izutsu‟s contribution to the field. The main question of this essay has been the problem of “representation,” viz. how methodologically justifiable it is to do a comparative study between, on the one hand, the thought of Ibn ʿArabī as representative of Sufism which is “unorthodox” in the Sufistic trends, let alone in Islam, and on the other, that of Lao-tzŭ and Chuang-tzŭ as representative of “the main stream” of Taoism.

Although the academic attempts made by this great scholar to explore and find alternative way that leads to the possibility of meta- historical dialogues must be duly acknowledged and credited, but taking into account the issue of “representation” mentioned above and looking at the underlying motive and main objective of the comparative study undertaken by Izutsu in this work, one is sufficiently reasonably justified to cast doubt on the credibility and commendability of the approach used by him and, in turn, on the common ground he proposed.

2022/05/27

Comparative Philosophy in Japan Nakamura Hajime and Izutsu Toshihiko

The Oxford Handbook of JAPANESE PHILOSOPHY

Edited by BRET W. DAVIS, © Oxford University Press 2020

====
Contents

PART I SHINTŌ AND THE SYNTHETIC NATURE OF JAPANESE PHILOSOPHICAL THOUGHT

1 Prince Shōtoku’s Constitution and the Synthetic Nature of Japanese Thought -- Thomas P. Kasulis

2 Philosophical Implications of Shintō -- Iwasawa Tomoko

3 National Learning: Poetic Emotionalism and Nostalgic Nationalism Peter Flueckiger

PART II PHILOSOPHIES OF JAPANESE BUDDHISM

4 Saichō’s Tendai: In the Middle of Form and Emptiness -- Paul L. Swanson and Brook Ziporyn

5 Kūkai’s Shingon: Embodiment of Emptiness -- John W. M. Krummel

6 Philosophical Dimensions of Shinran’s Pure Land Buddhist Path Dennis Hirota

7 Modern Pure Land Thinkers: Kiyozawa Manshi and Soga Ryōjin Mark Unno 83

8 The Philosophy of Zen Master Dōgen: Egoless Perspectivism Bret W. Davis 201

9 Dōgen on the Language of Creative Textual Hermeneutics Steven Heine

10 Rinzai Zen Kōan Training: Philosophical Intersections -- Victor Sōgen Hori

11 Modern Zen Thinkers: D. T. Suzuki, Hisamatsu Shin’ichi, and Masao Abe

Mori Tetsurō (trans. Bret W. Davis), Minobe Hitoshi (trans. Bret W. Davis), and Steven Heine

PART III PHILOSOPHIES OF JAPANESE CONFUCIANISM AND BUSHIDŌ

12 Japanese Neo-C onfucian Philosophy -- John A. Tucker

13 Ancient Learning: The Japanese Revival of Classical Confucianism John A. Tucker

14 Bushidō and Philosophy: Parting the Clouds, Seeking the Way Chris Goto- Jones 215

---

PART IV MODERN JAPANESE PHILOSOPHIES

15 The Japanese Encounter with and Appropriation of Western Philosophy 333
John C. Maraldo

THE KYOTO SCHOOL

16 The Kyoto School: Transformations Over Three Generations 367 Ōhashi Ryōsuke and Akitomi Katsuya (trans. Bret W. Davis)

17 The Development of Nishida Kitarō’s Philosophy: Pure Experience,
Place, Action- Intuition 389
Fujita Masakatsu (trans. Bret W. Davis)

18 Nishida Kitarō’s Philosophy: Self, World, and the Nothingness Underlying Distinctions 417
John C. Maraldo

19 The Place of God in the Philosophy of Tanabe Hajime 431
James W. Heisig

20 Miki Kiyoshi: Marxism, Humanism, and the Power of Imagination 447 Melissa Anne-M arie Curley

21 Nishitani Keiji: Practicing Philosophy as a Matter of Life and Death 465 Graham Parkes

22 Ueda Shizuteru: The Self That Is Not a Self in a Twofold World 485 Steffen Döll

26 Japanese Christian Philosophies, Terao Kazuyoshi

27 Yuasa Yasuo’s Philosophy of Self-C ultivation: A Theory of Embodiment, Shigenori Nagatomo 563 575

OTHER MODERN JAPANESE PHILOSOPHIES

23 Watsuji Tetsurō: The Mutuality of Climate and Culture and an Ethics of Betweenness -- Erin McCarthy

24 Kuki Shūzō: A Phenomenology of Fate and Chance and an Aesthetics of the Floating World -- Graham Mayeda

25 Comparative Philosophy in Japan: Nakamura Hajime and Izutsu Toshihiko - John W. M. Krummel

26 Japanese Christian Philosophies Terao Kazuyoshi

27 Yuasa Yasuo’s Philosophy of Self-C ultivation: A Theory of Embodiment - Shigenori Nagatomo 563 575
28 Postwar Japanese Political Philosophy: Marxism, Liberalism, and the Quest for Autonomy -- Rikki Kersten

29 Raichō: Zen and the Female Body in the Development of Japanese Feminist Philosophy -- Michiko Yusa and Leah Kalmanson

30 Japanese Phenomenology -- Tani Tōru

31 The Komaba Quartet: A Landscape of Japanese Philosophy in the Thought -- Bret W. Davis 685

PART V PERVASIVE TOPICS IN JAPANESE PHILOSOPHICAL THOUGHT

32 Philosophical Implications of the Japanese Language 665 Rolf Elberfeld (trans. Bret W. Davis)

33 Natural Freedom: Human/N ature Nondualism in Zen and Japanese

34 Japanese Ethics Robert E. Carter

35 Japanese (and Ainu) Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art - Mara Miller and Yamasaki Kōji

36 The Controversial Cultural Identity of Japanese Philosophy Yoko Arisaka

Index

====

Ch 25 Comparative Philosophy in Japan Nakamura Hajime and Izutsu Toshihiko

John W. M. Krummel

Two thinkers who cannot be ignored when discussing comparative philosophy in Japan are Nakamura Hajime (1912–1999) and Izutsu Toshihiko (1914– 1993). Contemporaries, they emerged during the postwar period and were respected for scholarly accomplishments in their respective fields—B uddhist studies and Indology for Nakamura, Islamic studies for Izutsu. Yet both authors, in their inexhaustible appetite and with their multilingual capacity, expanded their investigations to produce numerous comparative studies. Furthermore, each worked on an explicit and distinct theory of comparison.

Nakamura was versed in Sanskrit and Pali and became initially known in Japan for producing the first Japanese translation of the Tripitaka, followed by many other translations and commentaries of Buddhist texts ranging from South to East Asia, as well as of non- Buddhist Indian philosophical texts. His broad knowledge of Asian thought, extending beyond India to include the East Asian traditions, along with his knowledge of Western philosophy and multiple languages, allowed him to author comparative works, many of which were translated into Western languages and won him an international reputation. Astonishingly, his entire oeuvre consists of more than a thousand works, including books and articles he authored and dictionaries and encyclopedias he edited.

Izutsu, on the other hand, first made his mark as a pioneer of Islamic studies in Japan and for the first published translation of the Qur’an from the original Arabic. Based on his knowledge of Middle Eastern languages, he came to author many studies on Islamic thought, especially Persian philosophy and Sufi mysticism and theology. But, in addition, he also studied Western medieval philosophy as well as Jewish thought, and, in his later years and on the basis of his Buddhist background, he expanded his research into the domain of Eastern thought, both East Asian and South Asian. His oeuvre in fact extends beyond the domain of philosophy to include works on literature and the arts, linguistics, history, and Islamic jurisprudence. And his mastery of more than twenty languages enabled him to engage in comparative investigations. His comparative work is unique in providing not only an encounter between East and West, but also between Far East (East Asia) and Near East (Islam, including Arabia and Persia). Both his works on Islamic thought, as well as his comparative studies have been translated and are appreciated the world over.

The comparative project for each is distinct: Nakamura aimed to construct a world history of ideas that uncovers some basic patterns in the unfolding of human “thought.” Izutsu aimed to (re- )construct an original “Oriental philosophy” that would encompass the vast terrain of his studies. In this chapter, I examine their respective comparative philosophies, compare and contrast them, and conclude with an assessment of their merits and demerits.

Nakamura Hajime

Project

Why does Nakamura engage in comparative philosophy? Nakamura has been vocal concerning the pitfalls of overspecialization in academia and the need for a comprehensive framework that can clarify the significance of each subject within the contemporary context. He especially expresses opposition to the division in the study of philosophy in Japanese academia between “Indian philosophy,” “Chinese philosophy,” and so- called pure philosophy (junsui tetsugaku 純粋哲学) that concentrates on Western philosophy. On the one hand, he criticizes scholars who only research Western philosophy while ignoring other regions. On the other hand, he critiques the predominantly philological approach taken in the other two philosophical fields and their lack of any critical spirit willing to tackle universal philosophical issues. He stresses that Indian and Buddhist philosophies have contemporary relevance, with implications for our lives. Hence, their study belongs within a philosophically broader perspective, a global context that would make their relevance evident. Philosophical claims and ideas in general possess value and meaning for the entire human race, transcending country and period despite the particularities of historical-c ultural context. Therefore we ought to overcome traditional boundaries so that we can obtain a comprehensive understanding of certain philosophical issues that may be universal. And this requires both a universal history of thought (fuhenteki shisōshi 普遍的思想史) and an investigation into the taxonomy of thought (shisō keitaironteki kenkyū 思想形態論的研究).

Especially in today’s world of mass communication and transportation, “our sense of belonging to one world has never been keener than the present.” But world peace can only be secured by greater mutual understanding between cultures and nations. Although becoming one in terms of technological civilization, the world is still divided in spirit, involving mutual suspicion and ideological conflict. This makes the comparative study of different currents of philosophy, their different views concerning similar issues, increasingly indispensable. Nakamura laments, however, that there has not yet been any systematic gathering of the facts or features common to the different intellectual traditions within such a comprehensive perspective. And this is the motivation for his own comparative project. Nakamura’s hope is that comparison can open the gates to realizing peace and understanding among humanity as a whole. He also states that only through comparison that would connect our lives to the essence of human existence may we hope to reach the truth—a truth that can lead to a new philosophy that corresponds to the world, a “new world philosophy.” His comparative project aims to open that possibility.

Method

Nakamura’s comparative work is, for the most part, directed toward the analysis of “ways of thinking” or “thought” (shisō 思想) rather than philosophy (tetsugaku 哲学) per se. By “thought” he means the thinking habits of a culture, expressed in “the characteristic popular sayings, proverbs, songs, mythology, and folklore of that people,” as opposed to coherent, self- conscious systems of thought that would be “philosophy.”9 As such, it is a cultural phenomenon (bunka genzō 文化現像), involving sociohistorical, psychological, aesthetic, and linguistic phenomena, and so on. He prefers this broader significance of “thought” over the more restrictive connotation of “philosophy” that might exclude religious scriptures and literary works, because thought is the site of concrete issues encountered in everyday life that also serves as the cultural foundation indispensable to the growth of philosophy in the more restrictive sense. It is the link connecting the philosopher to his or her environment, whereby “the ways of thinking of philosophers cannot be freed completely of national or historical traditions.” Philosophy has developed within distinct cultural spheres, each with its own mode of thinking. And thus Nakamura takes human thought itself (ningen no shisō sonomono 人間の思想そのもの) to be the fundamental issue of his comparative analyses. And thought as such should be studied regardless of who it belongs to. The focus of the investigation ought not to be on the personalities or authors traditionally regarded as authority figures, because the individual is “strongly influenced by the ways of living and thinking in his own nation and culture,” and it is thought itself vaguely diffused throughout society that becomes concentrated and crystallized in that single thinker.

Not only do ways of thinking differ on the basis of the sociocultural environment, they also change as those environing conditions change. We cannot ignore their historical development. The comparative investigation of thought therefore must be undertaken historically. But, in his historical investigations, Nakamura found that comparable modes of thought have emerged in entirely unrelated cultural spheres. On this basis, he also proposes the necessity in the comparative history of thought of a conceptual terminology that can be universally applicable to distinct philosophical currents. Furthermore, he proposes such comparative research to be carried in two distinct directions: particularization and universalization. Particularization will either clarify the philosophical-i ntellectual tradition of a particular people of a particular region or make conspicuous the philosophical- intellectual particularities of a specific period common to distinct cultural areas (e.g., the medieval periods of both Europe and India). Universalization entails the application of an intellectual taxonomy in order to summarize specific types of philosophical or intellectual positions (e.g., materialism) regardless of the area, period, or developmental stage. This latter might allow us, for example, to compare Buddhist psychology with modern psychology, as Rys-D avis did. Nakamura attempts to realize some of these ideas concerning comparison in two monumental works.

Nakamura’s Comparative History of Thought

Two major and massive works from the 1960s, in which Nakamura engages in such a comparative history of thought, are Ways of Thinking of Eastern Peoples (Tōyōjin no shisō hōhō, 1960 and revised 1964) and History of World Thought (Sekai shisōshi, 1975 based on 1964 lectures). In his slightly earlier work, Ways of Thinking of Eastern Peoples, Nakamura compares the thinking of distinct cultural spheres within the so- called East: India, China, Tibet, and Japan. He follows a common plan by first discussing the language and logic unique to a specific people and then discussing the manifestations of those linguistic- logical patterns in concrete cultural phenomena. He argues that the cultural life of a people, including their way of thinking, is intimately related to the grammar and syntax of its language. That mode of thinking is also often made explicit and systematized in a logic (ronri 論理), the inductive and deductive modes of inference and judgment. But even logic as such is inseparable from sociocultural conditions. So, characteristic differences in ways of thinking between each people become reflected in patterns of logic.

Nakamura also examines in Ways of Thinking of Eastern Peoples how each cultural sphere received and modified Buddhism in different ways. His purpose was to isolate indigenous thought patterns that resisted and endured under Buddhist influence. Throughout his study, he makes comparisons and contrasts with Western ways of thinking as well. But his main focus here seems to be the differences among these peoples of “the East,” differences that would undermine the stereotypical notion that there is a monolithic culture of “the Orient” that can then be contrasted with “the Occident.” For example, he points out in another work of the same period how Indian thought tends to stress universals and disregard individuals or particulars, leading to the Indian disregard for history. Chinese thinking, however, tends to emphasize the particular while lacking consciousness of the universal, with the consequence that the Chinese are uneasy concerning attempts to abstract fixed laws from particular facts of history.23 In general, in Ways of Thinking of Eastern Peoples, Nakamura underscores the same point he makes in On Comparative Thought (Hikaku shisōron, 1976, first edition 1960)24: there are conspicuous differences in thought due to environing sociocultural conditions that preclude reduction to simplistic dichotomies such as East versus West.

In History of World Thought, Nakamura extends his investigation beyond Asia to “the world,” by which he actually means the advanced cultures of Eurasia. He maintains his view that thought is influenced by the sociocultural and linguistic setting, but he also attempts to “isolate, describe, and analyze certain key philosophical problems that have appeared historically in almost parallel developments within different cultural areas, East and West.” Here, “philosophical problem” has the same broad significance as “thought” in the above- mentioned sense. But by “parallel developments,” Nakamura has in mind the fact that similar intellectual core issues have emerged in certain stages of cultural development in culturally unconnected areas and that particular issues characterize particular stages and lead to similar solutions. Because closely related problems were met in similar stages, the developmental process itself proved to be similar among different cultural areas. Similar to how civilizations worldwide have generally proceeded through the same stages from Stone Age to Bronze Age to Iron Age, and so on, Nakamura points to common stages in the intellectual history of the major Western and Eastern cultural spheres, moving from (1) ancient thought (in early agricultural societies) to (2) the rise of philosophy to (3) universal thought (with the early universal religions and the ideology of the universal state) to (4) medieval thought, and to (5) modern thought. An example of a core issue emerging in distinct spheres in parallel stages would be the realism- nominalism debate concerning the status of universals that occurred in both Western Europe and in India during their respective medieval periods. Another would be the relativisms of Heraclitus in ancient Greece and of the Jains in ancient India during the second stage of intellectual history. Nakamura does not neglect to point out important contextual differences as well. Nevertheless, his focus here is on the similarity in development of intellectual history and in its stages among unrelated cultural areas. He concludes that human beings, despite distinct traditions, face much the same problems of life, more or less, and have demonstrated comparable responses to them, due to similarity in human nature and human concerns. In On Comparative Thought, he had already noticed that there are many philosophical issues universal to humanity and that truth may be discerned among every ethnic group regardless of tradition. But, at the same time, those universal issues, as concrete problems, are dealt with differently in response to different environments.

Nakamura’s Rejection of Stereotypes

One point that significantly distinguishes Nakamura from many other comparativists is his rejection of common stereotypes, whether Orientalist essentialism and the purported dichotomy between East and West on the one hand or a simplistic universalism and perennialism on the other. Although his History of World Thought was focused on showing the similarities in stages of development in intellectual history among cultures, he was careful to discuss significant differences that are due to linguistic and sociocultural conditions, as he already had in Ways of Thinking of Eastern Peoples. His analysis precludes the dichotomization of the world into two hemispheres, East and West. Throughout his comparative works, Nakamura repeatedly critiques such dualist formulas as Western logic versus Eastern intuition, Western individualism versus Eastern collectivism, Western analysis versus Eastern synthesis, Western secularism versus Eastern religiosity, Western materialism versus Eastern spirituality, and the like by providing counterexamples and showing the complex diversity within the so- called East. He concludes, concerning “Eastern thought,” that we are “incapable of isolating a definite trait which can be singled out for contrast with the West” and that “there exists no single ‘Eastern’ feature.” In this regard, he points out the difficulty in Watsuji Tetsurō’s theory of summing up the characteristics of the whole of what Watsuji called “the monsoon zone”— India, China, and Japan—a nd labeling them as “Asiatic.” In connection to this, he also criticizes the tendency among Western scholars to take everything east of Marseilles together as “the Orient.” And, just as the East is not a cultural unity but rather a diversity, the same can be said of the West, that “as far as ways of thinking are concerned, we must disavow the cultural unity of the West.” He thus finds the purported East– West dichotomy, according to which each is taken as a monolithic entity, to be conceptually inadequate and believes such commonly repeated clichés need to be reexamined. This point is important to bear in mind as we turn now to examine Izutsu’s comparative work.

Izutsu Toshihiko

Project

The trajectory informing Izutsu’s comparative work is ultimately the formulation of a new type of “Oriental philosophy” (tōyō tetsugaku 東洋哲学) “based on a series of rigorously philological, comparative studies of the key terms of various philosophical traditions in the Near, Middle, and Far East.” ---

Whereas Western philosophy, founded upon the two pillars of Hellenism and Hebraism, presents a fairly conspicuous organic uniformity in its historical development, there is no such historical uniformity or organic structure in the East. Instead, Eastern philosophy consists of multiple coexisting traditions with no cohesion that can be juxtaposed to Western philosophy as a whole. Izutsu thus proposes to engage in the systematic study of the philosophies of the East in order to arrive at a comprehensive structural framework—a meta- philosophy of Eastern thought— that could gather those philosophies into a certain level of structural uniformity, a single organic and integral philosophical horizon. What initially strikes today’s reader, however, is that in his categorization of what is “Eastern” or “Oriental” in philosophy, he includes Islamic thought in conjunction with the South and East Asian traditions. Once having encompassed all the Eastern schools of thought, Izutsu ultimately hopes that such a meta-p hilosophy can then be broadened to encompass Western philosophy as well.

Izutsu claims that today’s world more than ever before is in need of what Henry Corbin has called a “dialogue in meta- history” (un dialogue dans la métahistoire) between East and West. And philosophy provides the suitable common ground for opening such intercultural meta-historical dialogue. Comparative philosophy in general thus has the significance of promoting deep understanding between cultures. ---

But we first need better philosophical understanding within the confines of the Eastern traditions. Once this is done, the West can be included in the meta-h istorical dialogue. He adds that, despite the global dominance of the West, texts of the Orient can stimulate and enrich modern thought and can contribute, ultimately, to the development of a new world philosophy based on the convergence of the spiritual and intellectual heritages of East and West. In other words, meta- historical dialogue, conducted first for the construction of “Oriental philosophy,” can eventually be expanded to crystallize into a philosophia perennis— “for the philosophical drive of the human mind is, regardless of ages, places and nations, ultimately and fundamentally one.” Here, Izutsu, while focusing on “Oriental philosophy,” unabashedly assumes the final goal of “perennial philosophy.”

===

Izutsu Toshihiko 프로젝트

Izutsu의 비교 작업을 알리는 궤적은 궁극적으로 "근처의 다양한 철학적 전통의 핵심 용어에 대한 엄밀한 철학적, 비교 연구 시리즈에 기초한 새로운 유형의 "동양 철학"(tōyō tetsugaku 東洋哲学)의 공식화입니다. , 중동 및 극동.” ---

헬레니즘과 히브라이즘의 두 기둥에 기초한 서양철학은 역사적 발전과정에서 상당히 두드러진 유기적 획일성을 보여주지만 동양에는 그러한 역사적 획일성이나 유기적 구조가 없다. 대신, 동양 철학은 전체적으로 서양 철학과 병치될 수 있는 응집력이 없는 공존하는 여러 전통으로 구성됩니다. 따라서 Izutsu는 포괄적인 구조적 틀(동양 사상의 메타 철학)에 도달하기 위해 동양 철학에 대한 체계적인 연구에 참여할 것을 제안합니다. 완전한 철학적 지평. 그러나 오늘날 독자를 처음 놀라게 하는 것은 철학에서 "동양" 또는 "동양"을 범주화할 때 그가 남아시아 및 동아시아 전통과 함께 이슬람 사상을 포함한다는 것입니다. 일단 동양의 모든 학파를 포괄한 Izutsu는 궁극적으로 그러한 메타 철학이 서양 철학도 포함하도록 확장될 수 있기를 희망합니다. Izutsu는 오늘날의 세계가 Henry Corbin이 동양과 서양 사이의 "메타 역사에서의 대화"(un dialogue dans la métahistoire)라고 부른 것이 그 어느 때보다 필요하다고 주장합니다. 그리고 철학은 그러한 문화 간 메타-역사적 대화를 열기 위한 적절한 공통 기반을 제공합니다. 따라서 일반적으로 비교 철학은 문화 간의 깊은 이해를 촉진하는 의미를 갖는다. ---

그러나 우리는 먼저 동양 전통의 범위 내에서 더 나은 철학적 이해가 필요합니다. 이것이 완료되면 서구도 메타- 역사적 대화에 포함될 수 있습니다. 그는 서양의 세계적인 지배에도 불구하고 동양의 텍스트는 현대 사상을 자극하고 풍부하게 할 수 있으며 궁극적으로 동양과 서양의 정신적, 지적 유산의 융합에 기반한 새로운 세계 철학의 발전에 기여할 수 있다고 덧붙입니다. . 즉, '동양철학'의 구축을 위해 최초로 진행된 메타역사적 대화는 결국 '영원한 철학(philosophia perennis)'으로 구체화될 수 있다. 궁극적으로 그리고 근본적으로 하나입니다.” 여기서 이즈츠는 '동양철학'을 중시하면서 '영원철학'이라는 최종 목표를 뻔뻔스럽게 내세운다.

===

Method

In Creation and the Timeless Order of Things, Izutsu complains that comparative philosophy has failed hitherto mainly due to its lack of a systematic methodology. He proposes that the comprehensive structural framework that would constitute the hoped- for meta-p hilosophy would consist of a number of substructures, each consisting of a network of key philosophical concepts abstracted from the major traditions and semantically analyzed. The product should be a complex but “well- organized and flexible conceptual system in which each individual system will be given its proper place and in terms of which the differences as well as common grounds between the major schools of the East and West will systematically be clarified.”49 In his later years, in Consciousness and Essence (Ishiki to honshitsu; published in 1983), he calls this theoretical operation, “synchronic structuralization” (kyōjiteki kōzōka 共時的構造化). He proposes that, on its basis, we can conduct a meta-h istorical analysis of traditions that would be a meta- philosophy of Oriental philosophies. That is, by abstracting the philosophical traditions from the complexities and contingencies of their historical context and transferring them to an ideal plane—t he dimension of what he calls “synchronic thought” (kyōjiteki shisō 共時的思想) where they are spatially juxtaposed and temporally co- current— he purports to construct a new “Oriental philosophy as a whole.” Within this structural field, the various traditions can be rearranged paradigmatically, enabling us to extract fundamental patterns of thought. He admits that the development of such an organic unity out of disparate traditions would involve a certain artificial, theoretical, and, indeed, creative operation. It requires the imposition of a common linguistic (or conceptual) system that would permit a meta- historical dialogue between the traditions. But he also claims that these extracted patterns of thought are primordial and regulative archetypes in the deep layers of philosophical thinking of the “Oriental peoples.”

On this basis, the second step of Izutsu’s comparative methodology involves a subjectification of that system of extracted patterns by internalizing them into oneself, thereby establishing one’s own “Oriental philosophical viewpoint.” This existential move can, in turn, contribute to establishing, from out of the philosophical product of “synchronic structuralization,” a new philosophy in the world context. The postulation of this second stage seems to have personal significance for Izutsu when he states that the very premise of his comparative project was his self- realization that the root of his own existence lies in “the Orient” (tōyō 東洋), although he acknowledges here that what he means is rather vague and incoherent. He says that he began to feel this root only as a participant in the Eranos Conference (1967– 82). It was during those years that he decided he ought to pay greater attention to the Eastern traditions.

Izutsu’s “Oriental Philosophy”

With the goal of such a meta- philosophy of Eastern thought in view, Izutsu constructs an elaborate ontology using the concepts of existence, essence, and articulation. He begins this in his study of Sufism by taking the Islamic concept of the “oneness/u nity of being” (waḥdat al- wujūd), stemming from Ibn al- ’Arabī and developed in Iran by Mullā Sadrā, as the partial field of such a meta-p hilosophy. The concept of existence or being— wujud in Arabic and existentia in Latin—h as the same basic connotation in the Islamic and Christian traditions. But the issue of identifying this concept is compounded when there is no historical connection between the ideas being compared, as in Sufism and Daoism. In his study comparing the two (Sufism and Taoism, 1984, first edition 1966– 67) as represented by ‘Arabī on the one hand and Laozi and Zhuangzi on the other, he expresses the need to pinpoint a central concept active in both even if having its linguistic counterpart in only one of the systems while remaining implicit in the other. We must then stabilize it with a definite “name,” which may be borrowed from the one system in which it is linguistically present. He thinks the concept of “existence/ being” from the Arabic wujud serves this purpose because it is simple and does not color what it intends with unnecessary connotations. Izutsu believes the Sufi notion of the “unity of being,” if structurally analyzed and developed properly, can provide a theoretical framework or basic conceptual model for clarifying the fundamental mode of thinking characterizing Eastern philosophy in general, not only Islamic philosophy. As such, it provides a broad conceptual framework or common philosophical ground— an archetypal form— on the basis of which a meta- historical dialogue between Eastern philosophies historically divergent in origin can be established. For example, beyond Islam and Daoism, he includes Buddhism in the mix, with its notion of “suchness” (Sk. tathatā; Jp. shinnyo 真如), which he interprets to mean “being as it really is.” He also includes Western existentialism in its recognition of the fundamental vision of existence itself as primary.

Another conspicuous example of his method of extracting a common concept to construct a meta-p hilosophy is his examination of the concept of “essence” (honshitsu 本質) in his Consciousness and Essence. He extracts this notion of the whatness of a thing from the context of the scholastic debates that dominated the history of post- Greco philosophy (as quidditas, essentia, and māhīyah) since Aristotle and extends its application into the context of Eastern thought. He does this on the basis of his claim that at least conceptual equivalents to it played a significant role in Eastern philosophies as well. What he stresses as noticeable in all cases is its connection with the semantic function of language and the multilayered structure of human consciousness. In fact, it is the distinction and relationship between the two key concepts of existence (being) and essence, constituting an ontological dynamic, that forms the thematic of the full flowering of Izutsu’s entire comparative project of “Oriental philosophy” in his later years.

Whether the focus is on existence or on essence, one fundamental theme that reappears throughout Izutsu’s project of “the synchronic structuralization of Oriental philosophy” is articulation (bunsetsu 分節)— both ontological and semantic (the two being inseparable). Articulation for Izutsu is the process whereby beings are discriminated or differentiated through meaning. Language plays an important role in this process, and it is also inseparably connected with consciousness, whereby “the self- same reality is said to be perceived differently in accordance with different degrees of consciousness.”

On the basis of this theme of articulation, involving both existence and essence, he constructs a general ontology for his Oriental philosophy in Consciousness and Essence. Accordingly, the source or foundation of reality is originally indeterminate and without form or name (musō mumei 無相無名). In different traditions, it is called absolute (zettai 絶対), true reality (shinjitsuzai 真実在), dao (道), emptiness (kū 空), nothing (mu 無), the one (issha 一者), true suchness (shinnyo), al- ḥaqq, wujud, or being/ existence (sonzai 存在), and more. In its original state prior to any linguistic partitioning, Izutsu calls it

“absolute non- articulation” (zettai mubunsetsu 絶対無分節). But we find this idea in his earlier comparative works as well, such as in his study of Sufism and Daoism, wherein he identifies the pure act (actus purus) of existence in both ‘Arabī’s “unity of being” and in Zhuangzi’s “heavenly leveling” or “chaos” (Ch. hundun; Jp. konton 混沌) as unconditionally simple, without delimitation, and not a determinate thing, a nothing (in Zhuangzi, wuwu 無無). As further references indicative of absolute nonarticulation, he includes Shingon’s “originally unborn” (honpushō 本不生), Vedānta’s Brahman, the nonpolarity (Ch. wuji; Jp. mukyoku 無極) beyond ultimate polarity (Ch. taiji; Jp. taikyoku 太極) in Neo- Confucianism, Nāgārjuna’s emptiness (śūnyatā), Neoplatonism’s “the one,” Kabbalah’s ein sof, and the like. In that original state of being an undifferentiated whole, things are without essence.

The vision of that undifferentiated unity of being is obtained in an “abnormal” spiritual state that Izutsu finds exemplified in a variety of traditions, as in the Daoist practice of “sitting in oblivion” (zuowang), the Sufi experience of “self- annihilation” (fanā’), the Buddhist experience of nirvāna, the Zen experience of nothing (mu) or emptiness (kū), and the ātman- Brahman identification in Vedānta. In all of these cases, what takes place is the emptying of the ego into that nonarticulated source. In such a state, consciousness loses its intentionality to correspond to existence in its original nonarticulation. In Consciousness and Essence Izutsu takes this state of consciousness to be a meta- consciousness of the profound subtlety of being as absolutely unarticulated.

He asserts this to be a fundamental characteristic of Oriental thought. Moreover, in many of these traditions, this state of world- and-e go annihilation is followed by a return to the manifold, whereby one engages with the world anew, this time with the awareness that everything is an articulation of the originally unarticulated. For example, in Sufism, that state following fanā’ would be baqā.

The nothingness of undifferentiation obtained in that vision is at the same time the plenitude of being as the ground of everything. Hence, the empty vessel that is the dao in Laozi is infinitely full of being and the undivided chaos crumbles into “an infinity of ontological segments.” In Shingon Buddhism, emptiness is simultaneously the dharmakāya (hosshin 法身), symbolized by the letter A, meaning both negation and origination. In Vedānta, that duplicity between nothing and being in the absolute is expressed in the notions of nirguna Brahman and saguna Brahman. In Sufism, it would be the inner essence of God (dhat) and his self-r evealing exteriority (zāhir), and in Neo- Confucianism, it would be nonpolarity (wuji) and ultimate polarity (taiji). Izutsu also refers to Zhuangzi, Nāgārjuna, Zen, and the Jewish Kabbalah as exemplifying parallel ideas. He does point out differences, however, such as between Mahāyāna Buddhism’s emphasis on the nothingness of all essences of things and Vedānta’s emphasis on Brahman as the one true essence behind everything.83 On the basis of that duplicity of the ontological ground, the world serves as the locus for the continuous and inexhaustible self-a rticulation of what is originally unarticulated. For example, in ‘Arabī, the process moves from the divine essence (haqq) to the created world (khalq); in Laozi, from the mystery of mysteries to the ten thousand things. Everything in the world is thus indicative of the absolute, as its delimitation, and the many as such eventually returns to ascend back into its source, the one. What unifies the one and the many here is existence itself as the all-c omprehensive reality of which things are determining qualities or attributes; hence, Izutsu’s generalization of “the oneness of being” (wadhat al- wujūd). What characterizes these “Oriental” philosophers for Izutsu is that they have learned to see things simultaneously in those two directions— reality as indeterminate and as determined, as one and as many, as nothing and as being, with “compound eyes.” And all of these examples of Eastern thought that he cites indicate, each in its own way, that process of reality as the self- articulation of absolute nonarticulation (zettai mubunsetsu) into discrete things and events. Through this “articulation” (bunsetsu) theory, Izutsu thus extracts what he views to be the common structure behind the disparate texts of the “Eastern” traditions, including those of the Near East, Persia, and Semitic thought.

According to Izutsu, the process of ontological articulation corresponds to psychological states or degrees of awareness. He accordingly takes to be another major characteristic of Eastern thought the notion that consciousness is a multilayered structure in correspondence with the articulation process of being. The mandala in esoteric Buddhism, for example, depicts that dynamic process between nonarticulation and articulation as a matrix not only of cosmological events but also of psychological events. As usual, he refers to multiple sources from distinct traditions as exemplifying this idea: Mullā Sadrā, Śankara, ‘Arabī, Yogācāra, and others. In the case of ‘Arabī, he cites the middle realm between the absolute and the world, the mundus imaginalis or realm of primordial images (a’yān thābitah), where so- called essences unfold as archetypes in the deep structures of both being and consciousness. He finds equivalents in the Yijing’s hexagrams and the Kabbalah’s sefirot as all depicting the dynamic process of articulation, involving degrees or levels, moving from the unarticulated to the articulated, in both being and mind. Izutsu creatively interprets Yogācāra’s notion of the alaya- vijñāna together with the Buddhist notion of karma in correspondence with this theory as well.

Izutsu approaches articulation further in terms of the cultural environment or network of linguistic meanings that contextualizes the emergent entity. Such semantic articulation (imi bunsetsu 意味分節) is linguistic; it happens through naming, and this determines— particularizes and specifies— what is thus articulated. Everything— facts and thing- events in the empirical world as well as ourselves—i s nothing but ontological units of meaning or meaningful units of being that have been articulated semantically through language. Hence, for Izutsu, “semantic articulation is immediately ontological articulation” (imibunsetsu soku sonzaibunsetsu 意味分節即存在分節), and he regards this to be one of the main points of Eastern thought in general. Although this became his thesis concerning “Oriental philosophy,” it is interesting to note that even prior to the initiation of his comparative project, in his early anthropological- sociological study from 1956, Language and Magic: Studies in the Magical Function of Speech, he states that the grammatical and syntactic structure of language is to a great extent responsible for the way we think and that it constitutes for its speakers a special sort of meaning. With his theory of articulation, he extends that early interest in the importance of language in the ontological direction, whereby consciousness draws lines of articulation through the semantic function of words.

In Izutu’s mature thought, it is that articulative function of language, in connection with the multilayered structure of consciousness, that gives rise to “essences” (honshitsu) in the various traditions. Consciousness is naturally directed toward grasping the “essence” of some thing, and this directedness is connected to the semantic indicative function of language. Through the reception of a name, something X obtains an identity and crystallizes into such and such a thing. Thus, in Laozi and Zhuangzi, the originally unarticulated dao that is a nothing (Ch. wu; Jp. mu) transforms into beings by receiving names. Izutsu views that articulation into “essences” to be an a priori occurrence through a cultural and linguistic framework as a kind of transcendental structure, whereby ancient Greece had its own system of “essences” expressed in Socrates’ search for the eternal and unchanging ideas, and ancient China had a distinct system of “essences” expressed in Confucius’ theory of the rectification of names. Every phenomenon receives its form by passing through this culturally or linguistically specific mesh of archetypal semantic articulation.

Borrowing Buddhist terminology, Izutsu calls that culturally specific collective framework, operating in the deep layers of consciousness, “the linguistic alaya- consciousness”

(gengo araya- shiki 言語アラヤ識). As a “linguistic a priori,” it is the storehouse of semantic “seeds” (shuji 種子) of meaning, as karmic traces of our mental and physical activities, their semantic effects, conditioned by the cultural-l inguistic mesh, accumulated and stored, but in constant flux. Eventually, these seeds, as they surface into our conscious states, become objectified, hypostatized, and reified into the concrete images we take to be ontological realities. On this basis, we tend to polarize the subject and object realms as mutually exclusive, and we come to recognize “essences” in the empirical world that had been produced through the activation of the semantic “seeds.” In effect, this is a superimposition of essences upon reality, articulating the originally unarticulated into discrete unities with names.

Essences as such, in themselves, are fictions. This is in contrast to the essentialist positions that would reify essences into absolutes. In his view, essentialism alone cannot comprehend the true nature of reality that is originally undifferentiated. Izutsu notices as common to the Eastern traditions a deep- seated mistrust of language and its function of articulating reality into such essences. He refers to the ontological currents of Mahāyāna Buddhism, such as Madhyamaka, Cittamatra, Zen, and Shingon, as well as Advaita Vedānta, Neo- Confucianism, Daoism, and Sufism, to make his case. He does point out, however, differences among Mahāyāna, ‘Arabī, and Śankara concerning the degree of reality essences possess. And he also discusses cases that do not fit his view of the “existentialism” of “Oriental philosophy”; for example, the “essentialisms” of primitive Confucianism’s “rectification of names,” of Song Neo-C onfucianism’s notion of li (Jp. ri 理, “principle”), and of the Nyāya-V aisesika of India. But he seems to regard them as exceptions to the main current of the East. The main philosophical current is this “existentialism,” founded on the intuitive grasp of the “unity of being,” existence as it dynamically unfolds essences, as expressed in Izutsu’s formula “semantic articulation qua ontological articulation” (imi bunsetsu soku sonzai bunsetsu). This also means that essences are not absolutely nonexistent because they are pervaded by existence and are the unfolding of existence. Izutsu finds this ontological dynamism exemplified in the Mahāyāna phrase, “true emptiness, profound being” (shinkū myōu 真空妙有). That is to say, essences exist as the articulation of the unarticulated. True suchness thus both resists and permits articulation.

Izutsu finds that ontology of “true emptiness and profound being”— the semantic qua ontological articulation of the unarticulated— to be the meta- structure common to the various traditions of “Oriental philosophy.” According to Nagai, “the Orient” as a philosophical concept signifies for Izutsu nothing other than that negation of the reification of essence and the ontological dynamism between nonarticulation and articulation. According to Izutsu’s wife Izutsu Toyoko, this dynamic of articulation is the key perspectival stance and structural hypothesis that Izutsu conceptually designed and intentionally assumed in his attempt to realize “the synchronic integrative structure of Oriental philosophy” (tōyōtetsugaku no kyōjironteki seigō kōzō 東洋哲学の共時論的整合構造). With this idea, he attempted to integrate the various cultural-t extual horizons he had traversed in his lifelong studies into a single meaningful and organic all- inclusive horizon to bring his philosophical search to closure.

The last work he completed before his passing, The Metaphysics of Consciousness in the Philosophy of the Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna (Ishiki no keijijōgaku— Daijōkishinron no tetsugaku), published in 1992 was supposed to initiate the full- scale concretization of this “synchronic structuralization of Oriental philosophy.” And he allegedly had plans to further incorporate other texts, traditions, and doctrines— alaya- vijñāna, Kegon and Tendai, Suhrawardi’s Illuminationism (Ishraqi), Platonism, Confucianism, Shingon, and Daoism (of Laozi and Zhuangzi), as well as texts of Jewish thought, Indian philosophy, and the Japanese classics, among others— as key topics in the establishment of such a “synchronic structural horizon” (kyōjironteki kōzō chihei 共時論的構造地平).115 The general sense one gets of his concept of “Oriental philosophy,” as we can see, seems expansive enough to include almost anything outside of the mainstream dualist strand of Western philosophy, such that one can find traces of “the East” within “the West” (e.g., Plotinus, Eckhart, etc.) as well as within the Semitic, Persian, and Islamic traditions.

Conclusion

We are now in a position summarize the comparative philosophies of each thinker before comparing and contrasting them and discussing their merits and demerits. We might summarize important features of Nakamura’s comparative philosophy in the following manner. He claims that his work proves philosophy is not confined to the West.116 But, at the same time, he prefers the term “thought” (shisō) over “philosophy” as having a broader significance to encompass intellectual ideas expressed in religion, literature, and mythology as well. In the historical development of such thought, he recognizes similar patterns throughout the advanced cultures due to our common humanity. And yet he also recognizes important differences that result from distinct sociocultural environments. This makes him reject the stereotypical dichotomy of East versus West that would essentialize each or reduce them to monolithic entities because he recognizes diversity within each hemisphere, as well as commonalities between them. To make his point, Nakamura succeeds in compiling an abundant amount of historical information. But while emphasizing the need to go beyond mere philology or historiology in doing comparative philosophy, Nakamura keeps to a minimum his speculations concerning any metaphysical or ontological implications of his comparative analyses.

The scope of Izutsu’s research activities, like Nakamura’s, is vast. But the true trait of his comparative work is really in its speculative depth and originality. I believe Izutsu’s comparative project of “Oriental philosophy” has merit when read as his creative construction of a unique ontology on the basis of concepts appropriated from a variety of

115 Izutsu Toyoko in Izutsu 1993, 186–1 87.

116 Nakamura 1992, 567.

traditions. But his project becomes problematic if we read him as merely a comparativist aiming to unfold the true essence of “the Orient” common to the disparate traditions he groups under the category of “the East.” In doing this, he appropriates conceptual schemes from a single tradition and uses them to explicate the others. Izutsu admits, for example, to the Greek origin of the Islamic concept of existence and its relation to the Western scholastic concept, existentia. This connection with philosophical schemes stemming from the scholastic traditions of both Islam and the West becomes obvious especially in Consciousness and Essence when he refers to the essence- existence contrast and the opposition of essentialism and existentialism. One thus cannot help but ask whether Izutsu is reading Daoism and the other traditions of Asia under a light originally cast by ancient Greece. And, if so, would this undermine his claim that what he is uncovering is a truth unique to “the Orient”? Of course, he often includes “ancient Greece” within what he means by “the Orient,” but the essence-e xistence scheme he borrows was fully developed within Western medieval philosophy. And he never provides an explicit defense or justification for his extension of “the Orient” to ancient Greece, which is commonly referred to as the origin of “the Occident.” When he writes that the thought patterns he extracts from his comparative analyses are primordial patterns regulative of the philosophical thinking of Eastern peoples, “the Orientals” (tōyōjin 東洋人), one cannot help but ask: Who are “the Orientals”? He includes not only the peoples of East Asia and South Asia, but also the Persians and the Semites and even the ancient Greeks. How can the extraction of “the Orient” out of such disparate traditions and diverse peoples not be arbitrary? Is this not an invention of “the Orient” rather than its discovery? Is he ignoring his own ontological premise of “Oriental philosophy,” that is, the linguistic-c ultural contingency of essences, by constructing an “essence”— “Orient”—t hat defies the manifold fluidity of “existence”? Certainly, his project is to construct an ontological standpoint out of the variety of nondualist traditions that fall outside of the mainstream dualist and essentialist current of Western philosophy. But even if we grant this much, why must we call it “Eastern” or “Oriental”? In the end, the question of whether Izutsu’s ontological theory of “existentialism” and “Oriental philosophy” is viable depends largely on how one reads Izutsu—a s a comparative philosopher comparing traditions or as a comparative philosopher creating his own ontology.

Both thinkers were incredibly prolific as comparative philosophers, covering a wide range of traditions based on penetrating analyses of major texts. Moreover, they both reflected on the nature of comparison, and each constructed a theory of comparative philosophy. Having examined their work, we are now in a position to compare and contrast their comparative projects and evaluate their strong and weak points. Both possess a firm foundation in their respective fields—I zutsu in Islamic studies and Nakamura in Indology and Buddhist studies—w ith unsurpassed knowledge of languages permitting them to read texts from multiple traditions. Significantly, both stress the importance of language and its analysis as a starting point for their comparative work. Nakamura focuses on the differences between languages as a basis for sociohistorical differences in ways of thinking among distinct cultures. Izutsu focuses on the universal function of language as semantic articulation that also leads to culturally specific distinctions. Both speak of the need for a common conceptual terminology in comparing the traditions. But in the intellectual history of distinct cultures, both East and West, Nakamura recognizes a pattern they all follow in their stages of development. Izutsu, on the other hand, discerns within the multiple traditions of “the East” a core sensibility that distinguishes them from Western philosophy. Certainly, Nakamura’s project, especially in History of World Thought, aims to show those common patterns through which intellectual history unfolds in response to human situations. But he is careful to point out culture- specific sociohistorical conditions that account for important differences as well. It may then be too simplistic to regard his comparative theory as merely a “universalism.” On the other hand, Izutsu, while emphasizing “the Orient,” attempts to construct a kind of transcultural transhistorical metaphysics that bypasses those cultural- historical specifics that Nakamura is keen on pointing out. Moreover, it encompasses a vast range of traditions that broadens “the Orient” from the Far East to the Near East and includes Semitic, Persian, and even Greek thought. His “relativism” thus harbors within itself a tendency toward “universalism” in its own right. And, like Nakamura, he speaks of the ultimate aim of a “world philosophy,” even a philosophia perennis. I raise these points to underscore the complexity of each of their comparative theories and to prevent us from simplistically characterizing Nakamura as a universalist and Izutsu as a relativist.

Stylistically, their methods of comparison and philosophizing are quite distinct. Nakamura is meticulous in his examination of the relevant historical and sociocultural data. He seems both historically and sociologically, as well as philologically, well- grounded in his claims. But his claims are modest in speculation and do not extend deep into the realms of metaphysics or ontology. Izutsu, by contrast, is much more speculative and metaphysically bold. But, in his enthusiasm, he tends to overlook significant contextual differences between the traditions as he liberally overlays conceptual schemes borrowed from one tradition upon other traditions. Nakamura was keen in debunking popular stereotypes, such as the reductive dichotomy of East and West. Under Nakamura’s penetrating gaze, Izutsu’s entire project of “Oriental philosophy” may appear suspect. But Nakamura, while admonishing scholars of Asian thought for being too philological and lacking any philosophical depth, himself seemed to shy away from venturing into the kind of metaphysical speculation that he might have attempted on the basis of his comparative analyses. Although stating that comparison ought to lead to a new world philosophy, he fails to provide one himself. Izutsu, on the other hand, in his zeal to construct the sort of “world philosophy” to which Nakamura thinks comparison ought to lead, ends up committing the fallacies Nakamura warns against. In short, we can say that Nakamura was too cautious and Izutsu was too daring. Nevertheless, comparative philosophers today need to pay attention to these two intellectual giants of Japan in the field of comparative philosophy. We can learn from both their strengths and weaknesses.

Bibliography and Suggested Readings

Izutsu, Toshihiko (1956). Language and Magic: Studies in the Magical Function of Speech. Tokyo: Keio Institute of Philological Studies.

Izutsu, Toshihiko (1974). “The Philosophical Problem of Articulation in Zen Buddhism,” Revue internationale de philosophie 28: 165– 183.

Izutsu, Toshihiko (1982). Toward a Philosophy of Zen Buddhism, Boulder, CO: Prajñā Press.

Izutsu, Toshihiko (1984). Sufism and Taoism: A Comparative Study of Key Philosophical Concepts. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Izutsu, Toshihiko (1987). “The Ontological Ambivalence of ‘Things’ in Oriental Philosophy.” In The Real and the Imaginary: A New Approach to Physics, edited by Jean E. Charon. New York: Paragon House, 187−197.

Izutsu Toshihiko (1993). Tōyō tetsugaku kakusho—I shiki no keijijōgaku—Daijōkishinron no tetsugaku [Notes on Oriental Philosophy: The Metaphysics of Consciousness: The Philosophy of The Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna]. Tokyo: Chūōkōronsha.

Izutsu, Toshihiko (1994). Creation and the Timeless Order of Things: Essays in Islamic Mystical Philosophy. Ashland, OR: Cloud Press.

Izutsu Toshihiko (2001). Ishiki to honshitsu [Consciousness and Essence]. Tokyo: Iwanami.

Izutsu, Toshihiko (2008). The Structure of Oriental Philosophy: Collected Papers of the Eranos Conference, Vols. 1 & 2. Tokyo: Keio University Press.

Nakamura, Hajime (1963). “Comparative Study of the Notion of History in China, India and Japan,” Diogenes 42 (Summer): 44– 59.

Nakamura Hajime (1960). Tōyōjin no shisō hōhō [Ways of Thinking of Eastern Peoples]. Tokyo: Shinkōsha.

Nakamura, Hajime (1964). Ways of Thinking of Eastern Peoples: India, China, Tibet, Japan, translated and edited by Philip P. Wiener. Honolulu: East- West Center Press.

Nakamura, Haijme (1967). “Interrelational Existence,” Philosophy East and West 17.1/ 4 (January– October):107– 112.

Nakamura, Hajime (1970). “Pure Land Buddhism and Western Christianity Compared: A Quest for Common Roots of their Universality,” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 1, 2(Summer): 77– 96.

Nakamura, Hajime (1974). “Methods and Significance of Comparative Philosophy,” Revue internationale de philosophie 28: 184– 193.

Nakamura Hajime (1975). Sekai shisōshi [History of World Thought]. Tokyo: Shunkōsha.

Nakamura Hajime (1976). Hikaku shisōron [On Comparative Thought]. Tokyo: Iwanami.

Nakamura, Hajime (1992). A Comparative History of Ideas. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

Nakamura, Hajime (2002). History of Japanese Thought 592– 1868: Japanese Philosophy before Western Culture Entered Japan. London: Kegan Paul.