The Concept and Reality of Existence - Toshihiko Izutsu
Regular priceRM50.00 MYR
SOLD OUT
The actual presence of things, writes Prof. Izutsu, is their existence. They are there. They do exist, as we ourselves exist. On the other hand, they are not there in the form of pure 'existences'. They æexistÆ as various and variegated things: man, horse, stone, tree, etc. This collection of four papers by the late Japanese scholar remains the best comparative study of the notion of existence (wujud) in Eastern and European philosophy. First written during 1968-1970, they centre around the topic of the reality and concept of existence as it has been elaborated in the post-Mongol period of Islamic philosophy. The author attempts to "uncover and recapture" the spirit of 'irfan', a type of metaphysics that has developed in Persia as a combination of mysticism and rational thinking. The fourth essay on metaphysics, which originally appeared as an introduction to Sharh-i-Manzumah by the renowned nineteenth century Iranian philosopher Hadi Sabzawari, is regarded as one of the most profound studies of Islamic metaphysics of Persia's greatest philosopher, Sadr al-Din al-Shirazi.
——
IBT. 2007. 242 pages. Paperback.
===
This might be the only book/author that expounded the doctrine of transcendental unity of existence in a lucid and systematic manner, aside from Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas. While the discussion understandably involved heavy scholastic discussion, but with the guidance of the author, the progress to understand the book and the doctrine could be cushioned well.
In short, this is a quintessential secondary reading on the doctrine.
The doctrine of transcendental unity of existence (wahdah al-wujud) as presented in this book focused on the ontological and grammatical side, as it centered upon the problem of subject-predicate. Before delving deep into the summary of the book, it is vital to have a brief summary on what is this doctrine.
Theologically speaking, Islam stood as one of the most stalwart defender of monotheism par excellence. Islam also stand in opposite to the Pauline Christianity, which they believed to be not adhering to the strictest tenet of monotheism. But we cannot conclude Islamic monotheism par excellence to be a mere reaction to the Trinity; it must be conceived as the revitalization of the true monotheism, untouched by sophisms and philosophers opinion. The vision of unity as understood by great Muslim theologians and mystics are in its purest conception;
In short, this is a quintessential secondary reading on the doctrine.
The doctrine of transcendental unity of existence (wahdah al-wujud) as presented in this book focused on the ontological and grammatical side, as it centered upon the problem of subject-predicate. Before delving deep into the summary of the book, it is vital to have a brief summary on what is this doctrine.
Theologically speaking, Islam stood as one of the most stalwart defender of monotheism par excellence. Islam also stand in opposite to the Pauline Christianity, which they believed to be not adhering to the strictest tenet of monotheism. But we cannot conclude Islamic monotheism par excellence to be a mere reaction to the Trinity; it must be conceived as the revitalization of the true monotheism, untouched by sophisms and philosophers opinion. The vision of unity as understood by great Muslim theologians and mystics are in its purest conception;
to the discerning eye it might be brushing too closely with Spinoza's monism (but this couldn't any farther from the truth).
Islam cleansed the conception of God from any minute association with the created things; it rejects reincarnation and unity, returning God to His untouchable throne.
Islam cleansed the conception of God from any minute association with the created things; it rejects reincarnation and unity, returning God to His untouchable throne.
In the same time, Islam has to explain away the dynamic nature of God that actively involved in the created things.
God, according to Islam due to the concept of Unity (tawhid) must simultaneously be
- forever escaped man's conceptual reasoning
- yet the single active and dynamic Source for everything phenomenal.
In answering this, Islamic scholars in unison (excluding very few aberrant cults) answered that the Unity of God must be preserved in any cost. The theologians and the mystics answered in a single voice; the coincidentia oppositorum; the one in many, the many in one.
God is both the Hidden Treasure, but from He is the eternal dynamic Source of everything phenomenal. He is light of Light. He is the unconditioned unconditioned. His Face is the Hidden Side of Moon, yet shined his Light to the entire realm with his Revealed Face. He is the farthest from man's estimation, yet He is closer to us than the jugular vein.
Islamic conception of God via the concept of Unity has the advantages of escaping the aberrant monster of a deity that shares similarities with his creation, yet retaining his Glory as the Unconditioned Unconditioned. The truth, I believe, must be in the resolution of contradictions, not the attainment of an extreme polar opposite. Neither the resolution of contradictions belongs to the synthesis between the opposites, as it would only produce chimeras. The resolution of contradictions must be transcendental, its witnessing is veiled due to inherent constraints of man's apparatus, but forever waiting to be discovered.
Speaking in a philosophical words, following Isutzu's discussion; the conception of wahdah al-wujud might be originated from the observation that the structure of external reality is incongruous with the form of the external world as presented in a proposition. Regarding the proposition "the table is existent", what does it really mean? Taken in a normal sense, the proposition is saying that the table is the subject and to-exists is its predicate. The table retains its specific whatness and existence is a super-added entity to it. But cannot we witness that everything must be exists first, and then its specific what-ness is then super-added to it? The father is first of all a man that exists, it is only when he is considered in terms of specific relation to him, in this case being-a-progenitor that he is then considered as a father.
The being-a-progenitor does not constitutes the defining essence of the man; it is only accidental to the prior existence of the man. It does not provide the thing, but serve to define the limit of a thing. The limit of a thing is not a thing; when it is considered by itself is nothing, non-existence. Just as the waves could not be conceived without the sea that it is part of; its specific conception is only a specific mental attitude in distilling its particulars, but considered in itself, waves is no-thing.
Thus, the proposition should be reversed. It is the particular table that emerged from the pervading existence. The table, just like the waves and the being-a-progenitor is just a modification of this overwhelming limitless reality. The to-exists is now the subject, the table is merely its predicate.
What is this implication of this doctrine is that it is the zenith of monotheistic expression; that the Absolute Existence pervades and constitutes everything. As Spinoza puts it, the eternal could not be limited in its unlimitedness. If there's a border between God's expansiveness and man's limitedness, then it amounts to drawing a line to God's unlimitedness, but God is unlimited; thus it is absurd. It is only by accepting the idea that there is a single Real existence that this jettison could be bypassed.
But a jarring question remains; if there's only a single Real existence, would everything be divine, including this pile of manure, or Hitler? The fact that this question exists shows that this concept has yet been understood perfectly. If there's only a single Real reality, how can it be multiple in the form of that manure or Hitler? The problem is not in the question of multiplicity, but in the ontological status of the external world.
As there's only one single Real reality, the rest stood as an ontological shadow that essentially is no-thing, just like the waves in the limitless ocean. When the Gazer gazed into the mirror, its shadow conjured. But it is unconceivable to say that this shadow has its own subsistent reality except when it is being conceived in relation to the Gazer, neither that the shadow somehow shares any parcel of essence with the Gazer. The Unity of Gazer is preserved all way along, His existence is unconditional while the shadow, even with its defined features has no real existence except an unconditional and metaphorical (i'tibari) one.
But does this mean that the external reality is just an illusion? Of course not. Just as the rope grasped in the dark was really thought to be a snake, owing from the perception of a snake was induced by the REAL perception of the rope. The world is real as long as it is considered in relation with its Source, but necessarily nothing when conceived by itself. Just as the existence of a shadow without a Light would forever escaped our understanding. The relation between the shadow and the Light is the illuminative relation, a term owed to Suhrawardi's Illuminatists tradition.
This is certainly heavy stuffs to be processed. But a metaphor by a great Sufi would bridge the curve. When we are writing, what we see are the letters, but never the ink. We are not being aware of the ink, while in reality we see nothing except the various forms of the ink. The letters is then a relative, fictitious (metaphotical) existence in relation to the ink.
The rest are technical discussion, discussing on how the united become many, and the many become one. I already covered the discussion quite extensively in the review for al-Attas's Degrees of Existence. (less)
God is both the Hidden Treasure, but from He is the eternal dynamic Source of everything phenomenal. He is light of Light. He is the unconditioned unconditioned. His Face is the Hidden Side of Moon, yet shined his Light to the entire realm with his Revealed Face. He is the farthest from man's estimation, yet He is closer to us than the jugular vein.
Islamic conception of God via the concept of Unity has the advantages of escaping the aberrant monster of a deity that shares similarities with his creation, yet retaining his Glory as the Unconditioned Unconditioned. The truth, I believe, must be in the resolution of contradictions, not the attainment of an extreme polar opposite. Neither the resolution of contradictions belongs to the synthesis between the opposites, as it would only produce chimeras. The resolution of contradictions must be transcendental, its witnessing is veiled due to inherent constraints of man's apparatus, but forever waiting to be discovered.
Speaking in a philosophical words, following Isutzu's discussion; the conception of wahdah al-wujud might be originated from the observation that the structure of external reality is incongruous with the form of the external world as presented in a proposition. Regarding the proposition "the table is existent", what does it really mean? Taken in a normal sense, the proposition is saying that the table is the subject and to-exists is its predicate. The table retains its specific whatness and existence is a super-added entity to it. But cannot we witness that everything must be exists first, and then its specific what-ness is then super-added to it? The father is first of all a man that exists, it is only when he is considered in terms of specific relation to him, in this case being-a-progenitor that he is then considered as a father.
The being-a-progenitor does not constitutes the defining essence of the man; it is only accidental to the prior existence of the man. It does not provide the thing, but serve to define the limit of a thing. The limit of a thing is not a thing; when it is considered by itself is nothing, non-existence. Just as the waves could not be conceived without the sea that it is part of; its specific conception is only a specific mental attitude in distilling its particulars, but considered in itself, waves is no-thing.
Thus, the proposition should be reversed. It is the particular table that emerged from the pervading existence. The table, just like the waves and the being-a-progenitor is just a modification of this overwhelming limitless reality. The to-exists is now the subject, the table is merely its predicate.
What is this implication of this doctrine is that it is the zenith of monotheistic expression; that the Absolute Existence pervades and constitutes everything. As Spinoza puts it, the eternal could not be limited in its unlimitedness. If there's a border between God's expansiveness and man's limitedness, then it amounts to drawing a line to God's unlimitedness, but God is unlimited; thus it is absurd. It is only by accepting the idea that there is a single Real existence that this jettison could be bypassed.
But a jarring question remains; if there's only a single Real existence, would everything be divine, including this pile of manure, or Hitler? The fact that this question exists shows that this concept has yet been understood perfectly. If there's only a single Real reality, how can it be multiple in the form of that manure or Hitler? The problem is not in the question of multiplicity, but in the ontological status of the external world.
As there's only one single Real reality, the rest stood as an ontological shadow that essentially is no-thing, just like the waves in the limitless ocean. When the Gazer gazed into the mirror, its shadow conjured. But it is unconceivable to say that this shadow has its own subsistent reality except when it is being conceived in relation to the Gazer, neither that the shadow somehow shares any parcel of essence with the Gazer. The Unity of Gazer is preserved all way along, His existence is unconditional while the shadow, even with its defined features has no real existence except an unconditional and metaphorical (i'tibari) one.
But does this mean that the external reality is just an illusion? Of course not. Just as the rope grasped in the dark was really thought to be a snake, owing from the perception of a snake was induced by the REAL perception of the rope. The world is real as long as it is considered in relation with its Source, but necessarily nothing when conceived by itself. Just as the existence of a shadow without a Light would forever escaped our understanding. The relation between the shadow and the Light is the illuminative relation, a term owed to Suhrawardi's Illuminatists tradition.
This is certainly heavy stuffs to be processed. But a metaphor by a great Sufi would bridge the curve. When we are writing, what we see are the letters, but never the ink. We are not being aware of the ink, while in reality we see nothing except the various forms of the ink. The letters is then a relative, fictitious (metaphotical) existence in relation to the ink.
The rest are technical discussion, discussing on how the united become many, and the many become one. I already covered the discussion quite extensively in the review for al-Attas's Degrees of Existence. (less)
Oct 07, 2017Muhammad Aizzat rated it it was amazing
Alhamdulillah. I think the writer managed to present issues on existence & quiddity in a very easy yet comprehensive way. Even his brief explanation on existence from the Eastern school ( Mulla Sadra & Sabzawari) and the Western (Heidegger & Sartre) is easy to understand & digest.
I would recommend this book to anyone who are taking their first step in metaphysic of the Muslim world.
I would recommend this book to anyone who are taking their first step in metaphysic of the Muslim world.
May 27, 2017Muhammad Iqbal rated it it was amazing
should have read this first before having al-Attas' Degree of Existence (less)
May 19, 2019Muhammad Hamdan rated it it was amazing
It is as Prof Syed Naquib Al-Attas said one of the best books on Islamic Metaphysics. I admire Prof Toshihiko Izutsu’s analytical lucidity in discussing a difficult topic as this.
