井筒俊彦は力道山と木村政彦の試合を見たか？: 王様の耳そうじ

井筒俊彦は力道山と木村政彦の試合を見たか？: 王様の耳そうじ

« 中国武術研究家の松田隆智さんの訃報 | トップページ | エジプトの沈滞、革命のトラウマ？ »

井筒俊彦は力道山と木村政彦の試合を見たか？

今年2013年は井筒俊彦の没後20年にあたるとのことで、慶應義塾大学出版会から全集が刊行されはじめた。刊行記念に慶應の言語文化研究所では井筒さんの業績をめぐるシンポジウムなども行われた。

井筒俊彦といえば、生前から半ば伝説と化していた知の巨人だった。 言語学、西洋哲学、中世ユダヤ哲学、禅や老荘思想、イスラム哲学など東西の宗教・思想・哲学についてこれほど幅広く、しかも深い洞察を展開し、それが世界的に評価されている日本人学者はほかにいない。トルコでは井筒さんのコーラン解釈をイスラーム神学部の教科書として採用しているところもあるほどだ。







井筒さんの非凡な天才性をしめすエピソードは多いが、なによりもまず語学の天才だった。井筒さんに「外国語はなにができますか？」と聞かれて、「英語とドイツ語なら・・」と答えると、「英独仏は外国語ではありません」といわれたという伝説も聞いたことがある。実際、ヨーロッパのほとんどの言語の他、古代ギリシア、アラビア語、ペルシャ語、トルコ語、ヘブライ語、中国語、ロシア語、タミール語など30を超える言語を自在に使えたと聞く。岩波文庫の「コーラン」の翻訳も井筒さんである。


それはさておいても、井筒俊彦の著作には、他をよせつけない超然とした魅力があった。80年代初めころから知の大衆化がすすみ、それまでの権威的で、重く、いかめしいアカデミズムに代わって、若手の学者たちによる軽やかで如才ない言説が流行しはじめていた。その中にあって、旧世代の学者であったはずの井筒俊彦が、革命に揺れるイランから帰国後、立て続けに発表した著作群には、他を寄せつけない、重厚で、圧倒的な迫力があった。とくにスーフィズムの存在論を論じた『イスラーム哲学の原像』と代表作『意識の本質』は衝撃的だった。『意識の本質』はわからないなりに、なんども読んだが、やっぱりよくわからなかった。でも、わからないのだけど、おもしろいのだ。


井筒さんの著作は難解だ。だが、書かれ方はけっして難解ではない。書かれ方は難解だけれど、じつはたいしたことをいっていない本というのもよくあるが、そういうのとはまったく逆だ。いかに内容を薄めず、イスラーム哲学や東洋思想のもっとも深い部分を伝えられるか、ということに徹しているという意味では、これほど親切で、ていねいに、平易に、わかりやすく書かれた本はない。

そのわかりやすさは、テキストを厳密に分析したからというだけでなく、井筒さん自身がその内容を客観的な知識ではなく、生きるための哲学として身体的にとらえようとしていることから生まれているのだと思う。だからこそ、そこには生半可な理解を拒む迫力や歯ごたえがあるし、それを理解するには、読む側に相当の知的体力や想像力、観察力が必要とされる。イスラームとはどんなものか、禅や密教のような東洋的思惟とはどんなものか、かいつまんで、かんたんに知りたいという人には、井筒さんの本はまったく向いていない。だから、ここで井筒さんの思想や哲学をかんたんに紹介することはしない、というか、できない。
　




古典的な哲学を、現代を生きるための血の通ったものとして、みずからの体の中に甦らせたいと思うひとにとっては、井筒さんの本は汲みつくせない知の水源となるはずだ。わからないなりにもなんども読むうちに、概念ではなく、一種のイメージができあがってきて、そのイメージをよすがに、イスラームなり東洋思想なりについて、たんなる知識ではない身体的な理解が深まっていくという感じだろうか。そういう本というのは、とても珍しい。


慶應のシンポジウムも聞きにいった。古代哲学研究者の納富信留さんが30代半ばの井筒さんが発表した『神秘哲学』（1949）をとりあげて論じた。これはプラトンやプロティノスなどのギリシア哲学に見られる神秘主義の展開を追った本だ。幼い頃から漢学をたたき込まれ、座禅を組まされるような東洋的無の雰囲気が濃厚な家庭に育った井筒さんにとって、西洋のルーツとされる古代ギリシア哲学を研究することは、みずからの東洋を相対化し、解放の可能性をさがすものであった。ところが、東洋と対比する対象であったギリシア哲学が、じつはその本質において東洋的なものにつながっていたことに気づく。つまり、かつては自明とされていた東洋と西洋という枠組みそのものを見直すことへと、井筒さんの研究がシフトしていくことになる。それが井筒さんのその後の研究の方向性を決めていくことになる。

　

納富さんの話はおもしろかったのだが、三田まで行く電車の行き帰りで、たまたま増田俊也さんの『木村政彦はなぜ力道山を殺さなかったのか』を読んでいたせいで、話を聞いているうちに、井筒俊彦は学問の世界における柔道の木村政彦のような存在なのではないかという考えがなんとなく浮かんできた（ここから先は世迷言です）。

　












井筒俊彦全集のパンフレットに文芸評論家の安藤礼二氏が「井筒俊彦は20世紀の日本が生み落とすことができた最大かつ最高の思想家である。思索の対象としたジャンルと地域の多様性においても、その理解の深みにおいても他の追随を許さない」と書いていた。だが、この評価はそのまま木村政彦にもあてはまる。こんなふうにーー。


　
「木村政彦は20世紀の日本が生み落とすことができた最大かつ最高の柔道家である。研究の対象とした格闘技ジャンルと技の多様性においても、その理解の深みにおいても他の追随を許さない」




井筒俊彦は既存のアカデミズムや学問のジャンルといった枠を超え、さらに若いときから外国へ出て、膨大な学問分野を渉猟し、それをアカデミズムという枠を超えて、現代を生きるための、いいかえれば現代を戦うための実践的な哲学としてまとめあげようとしてきた。日本のアカデミズムとは距離を置き、イラン王立アカデミーの教授となり、ユングやエリアーデとともに「エラノス会議」という知の異種格闘技戦に、鈴木大拙に次ぐふたりめの日本人正式レクチャラーとして15年にわたって参加し、東洋哲学について講演を行ってきた。その桁外れの学識の広さと深さは、日本はもちろん、むしろ世界でこそ知れ渡っているし、あまりにもすごすぎて、他の追随をゆるさない。




一方、木村政彦は、全日本柔道選士権3連覇を達成し、全日本選手権13年連続保持、天覧試合優勝も含め、15年間不敗の不世出の天才だった。柔道のほかに、空手やボクシングなど、さまざまな格闘技を積極的に研究し、講道館のスポーツ柔道の枠を超えて、実践的な武道としての柔道を追求しつづけた。講道館からはにらまれ、プロ柔道、さらにプロレスに足を染めて海外にわたり、ブラジルで柔術家のエリオ・グレイシーを倒し、ほぼ半世紀後のグレイシー柔術発展の種をまき、今日の総合格闘技のスタイルの先駆となった。力道山との試合で謎のＫＯ負けを喫するが、いまなお技術的にも、その技の幅の広さにおいても「木村の前に木村なく、木村の後に木村なし」と讃えられ、いまなお史上最強の柔道家とされている。




こう書くと、井筒俊彦のどこが木村政彦なのかとつっこまれそうだし、たしかにまったくちがった人生、とくに木村の後半生は悲劇的なものがあったし、対比したからなんだというものではないのだけれど、ひとつ一致する点があるとすれば、木村政彦もまた今年、没後20年だということだ。つまり、井筒俊彦（1914-1993）と木村政彦（1917-1993）は、ほとんど同世代なのである。




もちろん、都会の裕福な家に生まれ、幼い頃から禅や書に親しんで育ち、好きな学問に集中することのできた井筒俊彦と、熊本の貧しい田舎で川で父の砂利拾いの仕事を手伝いながら育ち、食うためにはなんでもやらなくてはならなかった木村政彦の人生はあまりにもちがう。若き日の井筒俊彦が街頭テレビで力道山と木村の一戦を夢中になって見ていたとも想像しにくい。けれども、境遇はことなれど、同じ時代の空気を吸って生き、それぞれに孤高の道を歩んでいったことはまちがいない。




ともに「道」という東洋的伝統の中から出発し、やがて、そこに息苦しさをおぼえ、異なる分野を渉猟することで、おのれのなかの東洋をいっそう身体的に深め、より強靱なものへと鍛え上げていき、ついにはだれも到達しえない境地へと達したという点では共通するものもあるのではないか（もっとも、木村は思想性というものには無縁だったようだが）。世迷言は承知で、井筒俊彦は知らないけれど格闘技のことは知っているというひとに、「井筒俊彦は学問の世界における木村政彦のような存在だ」といって紹介することは、半分くらいは当たっているという気がしなくもない。







2013年10月21日 (月) 雑記 | 固

===

«중국 무술 연구가 마츠다 타카토시 씨의 포기 | 톱 페이지 | 이집트 침체, 혁명의 외상? »

이츠키 슌히코는 역도산과 기무라 마사히코의 경기를 보았습니까?

올해 2013년은 이츠쓰 슌히코의 몰후 20년에 해당하는 것으로, 게이오 기주쿠 대학 출판회로부터 전집이 간행되기 시작했다. 간행기념에 게이오의 언어문화연구소에서는 이통씨의 실적을 둘러싼 심포지엄 등도 열렸다.

이츠쓰 슌히코라고 하면, 생전부터 중반 전설로 되어 있던 지의 거인이었다. 언어학, 서양철학, 중세유대철학, 선과 노장사상, 이슬람 철학 등 동서의 종교·사상·철학에 대해 이렇게 폭넓고 깊은 통찰을 전개하고 그것이 세계적으로 평가되고 있는 일본인 학자 별로 없다. 터키에서는 이통씨의 꾸란 해석을 이슬람 신학부의 교과서로 채용하고 있는 곳도 있을 정도다.

이미지_3941

이통 씨의 비범한 천재성을 시사하는 에피소드는 많지만, 무엇보다도 우선 어학의 천재였다. 이츠키 씨에게 「외국어는 무엇을 할 수 있습니까? 일이 있다. 실제로 유럽의 대부분의 언어 외에 고대 그리스, 아랍어, 페르시아어, 터키어, 히브리어, 중국어, 러시아어, 타밀어 등 30개가 넘는 언어를 자유자재로 사용할 수 있었다고 들었다. 이와나미 문고의 「코란」의 번역도 이통씨이다.

그건 그렇다고 해도, 이츠키 슌히코의 저작에는, 그 밖을 설레지 않는 초연한 매력이 있었다. 1980년대 초부터 지의 대중화가 스스미, 그때까지의 권위적이고, 무겁고, 미묘한 아카데미즘을 대신해, 젊은이의 학자들에 의한 경쾌하고 여재없는 언설이 유행하기 시작하고 있었다. 그 안에 있어, 구세대의 학자였을 것이다 이통 토시히코가, 혁명에 흔들리는 이란으로부터 귀국 후, 세워 계속해서 발표한 저작군에는, 다른 것을 들르지 않는, 중후하고, 압도적인 박력이 있다 했다. 특히 수피즘의 존재론을 논한 '이슬람 철학의 원상'과 대표작 '의식의 본질'은 충격적이었다. '의식의 본질'은 모르겠지만, 다들 읽었지만 역시 잘 몰랐다. 그렇지만, 모르겠지만, 재미있는 것이다.

이통씨의 저작은 난해하다. 하지만 쓰는 방법은 꽤 난해가 아니다. 쓰는 방법은 난해이지만, 실은 뭔가를 말하지 않은 책이라고 하는 것도 자주 있는데, 그러한 것과는 전혀 반대이다. 어떻게 내용을 얇게 하지 않고, 이슬람 철학이나 동양 사상의 가장 깊은 부분을 전할 수 있을까 하는 것에 철저히 하고 있다는 의미에서는, 이렇게 친절하고, 정중하게, 평이하게, 알기 쉽게 쓰여진 책은 없다.

그 알기 쉬움은, 텍스트를 엄밀하게 분석했기 때문일 뿐만 아니라, 이통씨 자신이 그 내용을 객관적인 지식이 아니라, 살기 위한 철학으로서 신체적으로 파악하려고 하는 것으로부터 태어나고 있다고 생각해. 그러므로 거기에는 생반가능한 이해를 거부하는 박력과 잇몸이 있고, 그것을 이해하려면 읽는 측에 상당한 지적 체력이나 상상력, 관찰력이 필요하다. 이슬람이란 어떤 것인지, 선이나 밀교와 같은 동양적 사유와는 어떤 것인지, 언제든지, 간단하게 알고 싶다고 하는 사람에게는, 이통씨의 책은 전혀 적합하지 않다. 그러니까, 여기에서 이통씨의 사상이나 철학을 간단하게 소개하는 것은 하지 않는다, 라고 할까, 할 수 없다.

　

이미지_3944

　

고전적인 철학을, 현대를 살기 위한 피가 다니는 것으로, 미즈로부터의 몸속에 되살아나게 하고 싶은 사람에게 있어서는, 이통씨의 책은 펌핑하지 않는 지의 수원이 될 것이다. 모르겠지만 아무래도 읽는 동안 개념이 아니라 일종의 이미지가 완성되어 그 이미지를 좋게 하지만 이슬람이 되어 동양사상에 대해서는 지식이 아닌 신체적인 이해가 깊어진다고 한다. 느낌일까. 그러한 책이라는 것은 매우 드물다.

게이오 심포지엄도 들으러 갔다. 고대 철학연구자인 납부신류씨가 30대 중반의 이통씨가 발표한 '신비철학'(1949)을 논의했다. 이는 플라톤과 프로티노스 등 그리스 철학에서 볼 수 있는 신비주의의 전개를 쫓은 책이다. 어린 시절부터 한학을 박아 좌선을 짜는 것 같은 동양적 무의 분위기가 농후한 가정으로 자란 이통씨에게 있어서, 서양의 뿌리로 여겨지는 고대 그리스 철학을 연구하는 것은, 미즈로부터의 동양 를 상대화하고 해방의 가능성을 찾는 것이었다. 그런데, 동양과 대비하는 대상이었던 그리스 철학이, 실은 그 본질에서 동양적인 것으로 연결되어 있었다는 것을 깨닫는다. 즉, 한때는 자명하게 되어 있던 동양과 서양이라는 틀 자체를 재검토하는 것으로, 이통씨의 연구가 시프트해 가게 된다. 그것이 이통씨의 그 후의 연구의 방향성을 결정해 가게 된다.

　

　

나토미씨의 이야기는 재미있었지만, 미타까지 가는 전철의 행운으로, 우연히 마스다 토시야씨의 「키무라 마사히코는 왜 역도산을 죽이지 않았는지」를 읽고 있었기 때문에, 이야기를 듣고 있는 동안, 이츠쓰 슌히코는 학문의 세계에 있어서의 유도의 기무라 마사히코와 같은 존재인 것이 아닌가 하는 생각이 어딘지 모르게 떠올랐다(여기서부터는 세미언입니다).

　

51mskxpvzyl_ss400__3

이츠키 슌히코 전집의 팜플렛에 문예 평론가의 안도 레지씨가 “이츠키 슌히코는 20세기의 일본이 낳을 수 있었던 최대이고 최고의 사상가이다.사색의 대상으로 한 장르와 지역의 다양성에 있어서도 , 그 이해의 깊이에 있어서도 다른 추종을 용서하지 않는다”라고 쓰고 있었다. 하지만 이 평가는 그대로 기무라 마사히코에도 적용된다. 이런 식으로.

　

“키무라 마사히코는 20세기 일본이 태어날 수 있었던 최대이고 최고의 유도가이다. 아니"

이츠키 슌히코는 기존의 아카데미즘이나 학문의 장르와 같은 테두리를 넘어 더욱 젊은 때부터 외국으로 나와 방대한 학문 분야를 섭렵하고 그것을 아카데미즘이라는 테두리를 넘어 현대를 살기 위한, 아니면 현대 을 싸우기 위한 실천적인 철학으로 정리해 왔다. 일본의 아카데미즘과는 거리를 두고, 이란 왕립 아카데미의 교수가 되어, 융이나 엘리아데와 함께 「에라노스 회의」라고 하는 지의 이종 격투기전에, 스즈키 대졸에 이은 두 번째 일본인 정식 렉처러로서 15년에 걸쳐 참가해, 동양철학에 대해 강연을 해왔다. 그 거대한 학식의 넓이와 깊이는, 일본은 물론, 오히려 세계에서야말로 널리 알려져 있고, 너무나 너무 대단해, ​​다른 추종을 풀지 않는다.

한편 기무라 마사히코는 전일본 유도 선사권 3연패를 달성해 전일본 선수권 13년 연속 유지, 천람 경기 우승을 포함해 15년간 불패한 불세출의 천재였다. 유도 외에 가라데와 권투 등 다양한 격투기를 적극적으로 연구해 강도관의 스포츠 유도의 틀을 넘어 실천적인 무술로서의 유도를 계속 추구했다. 강도관에서 벗어나 프로 유도, 또한 프로레슬링에 발을 물들여 해외에 걸쳐 브라질에서 주술가의 엘리오 그레이시를 쓰러뜨리고 거의 반세기 후의 그레이시 주술 발전의 씨앗을 뿌려 오늘의 종합 격투기 스타일 의 선구가 되었다. 역도산과의 시합으로 수수께끼의 KO 패배를 피우지만, 지금도 기술적으로도, 그 기술의 폭의 넓이에 있어서도 「키무라 앞에 키무라 없고, 키무라 뒤에 키무라 없음」이라고 칭찬받아 지금도 사상 최강의 유도가로 여겨진다.

이렇게 쓰면 이츠키 슌히코의 어디가 기무라 마사히코인지 붙잡힐 것 같고, 분명히 완전히 틀린 인생, 특히 키무라의 후반생은 비극적인 것이 있었고, 대비했기 때문에 뭐라고 하는 것은 아니다. , 하나 일치하는 점이 있다면 기무라 마사히코도 올해 몰후 20년이라는 것이다. 즉, 이통 슌히코(1914-1993)와 기무라 마사히코(1917-1993)는 거의 같은 세대이다.

물론, 도시의 부유한 집에서 태어나 어린 시절부터 선이나 책에 친숙해져 자라, 좋아하는 학문에 집중할 수 있었던 이통 토시히코와, 구마모토의 가난한 시골에서 강에서 아버지의 자갈 픽업의 일을 돕면서 키우고 먹기 위해서는 뭐든지 해야 했던 기무라 마사히코의 인생은 너무나 다르다. 젊은 날의 이츠키 슌히코가 거리 TV에서 역도산과 기무라의 일전을 열중해 보고 있었다고도 상상하기 어렵다. 하지만 처지는 일이지만 같은 시대의 공기를 빨아 살아 각각 고고의 길을 걸어간 것은 틀림없다.

함께 「길」이라고 하는 동양적 전통 속에서 출발해, 이윽고, 거기에 숨결을 느끼고, 다른 분야를 섭렵하는 것으로, 누구의 동양을 한층 신체적으로 깊게 해, 보다 강인한 것으로 단련 드디어, 마침내 아무도 도달할 수 없는 경지에 도달했다는 점에서는 공통되는 것도 있는 것이 아닌가(가장 기무라는 사상성이라고 하는 것에는 무연이었던 것 같지만). 세미언은 알고 있고, 이츠키 슌히코는 모르지만 격투기는 알고 있다고 하는 사람에게, 「이츠츠리 슌히코는 학문의 세계에 있어서의 기무라 마사히코와 같은 존재이다」라고 소개하는 것은, 반 정도는 맞았다 있다는 생각이 들지 않아도 된다.

Makoto Sawai, From Mysticism to Philosophy: T Izutsu and Sufism

 

TASAVVUF ARAŞTIRMALARIJOURNAL OF THE INSTITUTE

                         ENSTİTÜSÜ DERGİSİ TAED JISS FOR SUFI STUDIES

From Mysticism to Philosophy: Toshihiko Izutsu and Sufism

Tasavvuftan Felsefeye: Toshihiko Izutsu ve Tasavvuf

Makoto Sawai*

Abstract

In Islāmic studies, Toshihiko Izutsu is well known as a scholar of the Qur’ān and Sufism, thanks to his published works in English. As to his image in Japan, however, he is known as a thinker of Oriental philosophy. After his return from Iran to Japan, he published several publications on Oriental philosophy in Japanese. As such, his final achievement, which was his Oriental philosophy, was veiled from readers who do not know Japanese, while his detailed study on Islāmic studies is not known by Japanese readers. In structuring his Oriental philosophy, he refers mainly to Ibn ‘Arabī’s philosophy known as waḥdat al-wujūd. Before publishing his work in English, he had already considered Ibn ‘Arabī and mysticism in his Japanese work in which he emphasizes the essential role of experience in understanding mysticism. Based on the theoretical development from mysticism to mystical philosophy, Izutsu delineates the theoretical development from Sufism to Islāmic philosophy. In studying Ibn ‘Arabī’s philosophy, waḥdat al-wujūd or ‘Unity of Existence’, Izutsu uses Islāmic philosophy as the framework for his Oriental philosophy.

Keywords: Toshihiko Izutsu, Muḥyī al-Dīn Ibn al-‘Arabī, waḥdat al-wujūd, Sufism, Islāmic philosophy, Oriental philosophy. 

Özet

Toshihiko Izutsu, İngilizce yayımlanmış eserleri sayesinde, özellikle Kur’ân ve tasavvuf alanındaki İslâmî çalışmalarıyla bilinen ünlü bir akademisyendir. Ancak onun Japonya’daki bilinirliği, daha ziyade bir Doğu felsefesi düşünürü olduğu yönündedir. İran’dan Japonya’ya döndükten sonra Doğu felsefesi üzerine Japonca çeşitli eserler kaleme almıştır. Fakat nasıl ki Izutsu’nun İslâm üzerine yaptığı çalışmalar Japon okuyucular tarafından bilinmemekteyse, Doğu felsefesi üzerine kaleme aldığı bahsi geçen bu son eserler de Japonca bilmeyen okurlardan gizli kalmıştır. Izutsu, Doğu felsefesini yapılandırırken, temel olarak İbnü’l-‘Arabî’nin vahdet-i vücûd olarak bilinen düşüncesine atıfta bulunur. Çalışmasını İngilizce olarak yayımlamadan önce, tasavvufu anlamlandırmada mistik tecrübenin hayatî rolünü vurguladığı Japonca eserinde, İbnü’l-‘Arabî ve tasavvufun kapsamlı bir biçimde ele alındığı görülür. Izutsu, mistisizmden mistik felsefeye uzanan nazarî gelişimden yola çıkarak tasavvuftan İslâm felsefesine doğru giden teorik gelişimi tasvir etmektedir. İbnü’l-‘Arabî’nin, vahdet-i vücûd ya da varlığın birliği düşüncesini ele alırken İslâm felsefesini, Doğu felsefesi için bir çerçeve olarak kullanır.       

Anahtar Kelimeler: Toshihiko Izutsu, Muḥyīddīn İbn ‘Arabī, vahdet-i vücûd, tasavvuf, İslâm felsefesi, Doğu felsefesi.

*                  Lecturer, Oyasato Institute for the Study of Religion, Tenri University. E-mail: mvsawai@sta.tenri-u.ac.jp.

Introduction: Sufism in Izutsu’s Study of Islām

Toshihiko Izutsu (1914-1993), one of the most accomplished scholars in Islāmic Studies, is known worldwide as a Japanese scholar of the Qur’ān and Sufism. However, the breadth of his work and understanding has not been fully appreciated, especially in terms of how he constructed his views on Oriental philosophy through his deep learning of the Qur’ān, Sufism, and Islāmic philosophy.

His study of the Qur’ān in both God and Man in the Koran (1964) and Ethico-Religious Concepts in the Qur’ān (1966) continues to draw many Muslim readers, many of whom are highly distinguished and consider his perspective unique. In Japanese academia, he also produced colloquial style Japanese translations of the Qur’ān, since in his opinion, there was an importance in maintaining the literal sense of the Arabic term Qur’ān (recitation). In these publications, Izutsu commonly adopts the analytical perspective of “semantic analysis” (imironteki bunseki).^[1] The semantic perspective is what he used in his linguistic approach of the Qur’ān;^[2] in it, he focused on key concepts in the text that

represented the relationship between God and human beings, arranging those passages and comparing them to each other.

After publishing his Japanese translation, he put aside further studies of the Qur’ān and undertook a study of Sufism, where he continued with his semantic analyses and applied it to his comparative study of religious traditions. His Sufism and Taoism (1966) and The Concept and Reality of Existence (1965) are regarded as classic books for understanding Muḥyī al-Dīn Ibn al-‘Arabī’s (d. 638/1240) philosophy, generally known as the Unity of Existence or Unity of Being (waḥdat al-wujūd).

It is noteworthy that Izutsu considers not only Sufism and Islāmic philosophy, but also Taoism and Buddhism, as shown by his work on comparative perspectives of religious traditions in the East.^[3] He compares key concepts of Islāmic philosophy to those of other religions and discovers common structures that religious philosophies in the Orient share, which is what Izutsu calls Oriental philosophy.^[4]

As Shigeru Kamada points out, Izutsu is mostly regarded as a Qur’ānic scholar in the West, whereas most Japanese readers are mainly familiar with his Oriental philosophy.^[5] In other words, there is a gap in understanding regarding Izutsu’s body of work between his English and Japanese readers.

He began drawing up a plan of his Oriental philosophy during his stay in Iran, reifying his vision by referring to Sufism and Islāmic philosophy. After returning to Japan in 1978 due to the Iranian revolution, Izutsu was involved in constructing his Oriental philosophy (tōyō tetsugaku). This shows that his academic track of studying Islām to build his Oriental philosophy was a process of the extreme achievement of his thought. However, the extent and significance of Izutsu’s study of Sufism and Islāmic philosophy and the role they played in Oriental philosophy is not well known.

As previously stated, choosing Japanese as the language for his undertaking of Oriental philosophy veiled what Izutsu truly thought in later life from foreign scholars. Izutsu’s Oriental philosophy embraces Islām, zen Buddhism, Daoism, Judaism, and Indian philosophy, all of which are expressed in non-Western languages.^[6] In this paper, I would like to fill the gap in the understanding of Izutsu’s work by tracing his engagement with Sufism and referring to his works on Sufism in Japanese.

I. Experience and Its Verbal Expression

Izutsu was interested in languages since his youth. He started learning Russian at 19 years old and multiple languages like Hebrew, Arabic, and Greek in his early 20s. Around the same time, he learned Islām and Arabic from Abdurreshid Ibrāhim (1857-1944) and did Islāmic philosophy and theology from Musa Bigiev (1875-1949), also known as Mūsā Jār Allāh. Through his encounter with both these Tatar Muslim scholars visiting Japan, he improved his linguistic ability and acquired his Islāmic knowledge.

In 1941, he published his first book, Intellectual History in Arabia: Islāmic Theology and Islāmic Philosophy (Arabia Shisōshi: Kaikyō Shingaku to Kaikyō Tetsugaku). In 1949, he later wrote Mystical Philosophy: The Part of Greek (Shinpi Tetsugaku: Girishia no Bu).^[7] As he considered in both works, he was interested in mysticism since his early career. In Mystical Philosophy, he rephrases the term “naturmystik” (natural mysticism, Shizen-shinpishugi) as a “kind of distinct experience”, “primordial experience”, and “absolute experience in an assertive way”.^[8] These phrases express the same sentiment as unio mystica, albeit using different words.

In his understanding of mysticism, Izutsu emphasizes an aspect of experience and its verbal expression. Izutsu argues that there is theoretical development from expressing mystical experience in words to philosophizing one’s experience. At the beginning of mysticism, however, there is a gross experience that is before or beyond language:

As to them (i.e., sages before Socrates), they had an idea not “In the beginning was the thought” but “In the beginning was the intuition.”^[9] At the beginning of the whole thing, there was an absolute all-encompassing experience. I would like to call this primordial experience “naturmystik”, following the tradition of the intellectual history of mysticism in the West. The experience of naturmystik is the human experience as a finite existence, but the experience of “nature” as the absolute existence. It means not that human beings have experience of nature, but that nature has experience of human beings. nature is the subject of experience.^[10]

In mysticism, human beings generally have an experience of nature that is absolute. However, Izutsu relates to naturmystik, that is, the natural style of mysticism in which nature experiences human beings. This is the same structure as Ibn ‘Arabī’s thought of the Unity of Existence.^[11]

As in unio mystica, a Sufi has experience of Allāh. However, Ibn ‘Arabī argues that Allāh makes a Sufi witness Himself. This means that the subject in a mystical experience is not human existence but Allāh. In the ontology of Ibn ‘Arabī’s thought, the Real (al-Ḥaqq) is understood as absolute Existence (al-wujūd). Moreover, nothing other than absolute Existence has and does exist.

In self-disclosure (al-tajallī) of the Existence, there is a framework in which the absolute Existence manifests Himself to the whole existent (mawjūd)^[12] through entification (ta‘ayyun). In other words, the Real manifests Himself to human beings through self-limitation. The framework of Ibn ‘Arabī’s entification is the same as that of the experience in naturmystik: that nature has an experience of human beings. That is, nature limits itself in the way of human beings.

In the same manner as Greek philosophers, Ibn ‘Arabī’s mystical philosophy is based on his experience of unio mystica. Izutsu emphasizes personal experience unified with the absolute, which is essential for philosophizing mysticism. In other words, a philosophical understanding of mysticism does not exist without passing through a level of mystical experience. Thus, concerning the theoretical relationship between mysticism and mystical philosophy, Izutsu argued, as in his early work, that mysticism based on mystical experience theoretically transits to mystical philosophy. Mystical experience, according to him, is equal to the self-consciousness of absolute transcendence. In Greek metaphysics, the “experience of the absolute ‘One’” unceasingly flows from the physics of the Ionian school to neo-Platonism in Alexandria. As such, the earliest period of Greek philosophy was fully decorated with mystical experiences.

His experience-based understanding of mysticism is adapted in his earliest article entitled “Revelation and Reason in Islām” (Kaikyō ni okeru Keiji to Risei, 1944). According to Izutsu, Sufism is a “religious reformation” against a rational understanding of Islām. This means that Sufism “regards revelation not only as the Qur’ān but also as revelation to each individual.”^[13] In other words, divine revelation to human beings indicates the Qur’ānic revelation to the Prophet Muḥammad, as well as personal experience. He sums up that Sufis “emphasize the absolute and mystical experience of each Muslim. It is widely known as Islāmic mysticism or Sufīism.”^[14]

Before Islāmic mysticism, or Sufism coming into existence as a result of theoretical formation, Sufis had an experience of the beginning. Sufis then verbalize their experience in spite of its ineffable characteristics.

First, those people (i.e., Sufis) try to pursue the way of mortification by single-mindedly chanting the names of God, without getting involved in rational interpretation. As I told you in the section on philosophy, however, neo-platonic thought had a deep impact on such people after it flowed from Greece. Later, an inclination at the time that they longed for salvation in the Hereafter by ascetic practices suddenly changed and they became speculative. At last, the so-called thought of Islāmic mysticism emerged. In the West, [the thought] becoming speculative in this way is called Sufīism.^[15]

Religious studies has developed by emphasizing the aspect of experience (taiken or keiken in Japanese) in the academic area of mysticism. Although some point out that the study of mysticism puts too much emphasis on the aspect of experience, Izutsu thinks that reading mystics’ texts from the point of personal experience is still useful in deeply understanding the characteristics of Sufism. Moreover, he holds the framework of theoretical development from mysticism to mystical philosophy and adopts the framework of Sufism or taṣawwuf, and mystical philosophy in Islām or ḥikmah. Ibn ‘Arabī’s thought plays a pivotal role in Izutsu’s structure of Oriental philosophy.

II. Encountering and Reuniting between Izutsu and Ibn ‘Arabī

In the former part of A Comparative Study of the Key Philosophical Concepts in Sufism and Taoism, Izutsu focuses on considering Ibn ‘Arabī’s thought. Izutsu encountered Ibn ‘Arabī for the first time in Japan and published a small paper in his early academic career in Islāmic Studies.

Mainly referring to Ibn ‘Arabī’s The

Formation of the Circles (Inshā’ al-dawā’ir),^[16] Izutsu considers the philosophical and ontological aspects of his thought, not the mystical ones. Although he mentions the names of Ibn ‘Arabī’s greatest masterpieces, The Makkan Revelations (al-Futūḥāt al-makkīyah) and The Bezels of Wisdom (Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam), he does not consider them at all. Concerning the academic study of Ibn ‘Arabī, Abū al-‘Ilā ‘Afīfī (1897-1966) published The Mystical Philosophy of Muḥyid Dīn-Ibnul ‘Arabī

(1939), which is a classical work on Ibn ‘Arabī and later published his edited volume of Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam in 1946. However, due to World War II, it was difficult for him to purchase ‘Afīfī’s works during and after the war.

With this academic history in the background, he published a paper entitled “Mystical Philosopher of Islām: Ibn al-‘Arabī’s Ontology” (Kaikyō Shinpishugi Tetsugakusha: Ibunu-ru-Arabī no Sonzai-ron, 1944). He introduced Ibn ‘Arabī as the first thinker who philosophized “Islāmic mysticism or Sufism (original term, al-taṣawwuf)” which is “neither a doctrine nor an ism.”

The Islāmic world has produced extinguished mystical devotees everywhere: Ḥallāj who was famous for being cruelly crucified for the crime of heresy, and other mystical poets in Persia who immortalized the Enduring name in world literature by putting deep thought into a profound poem. However, no one worthy of being called a mystical philosopher existed before him.

Because of this, Ibn ‘Arabī’s place in Islāmic thought is extremely special; he is the only exception; that is, he is a mystic as well as a philosopher. He descends from the tradition of Aristotelian philosophy. Moreover, he was a mystic who tried to systematize his deep experience with the help of this brilliant Aristotelian philosophy and was an unprecedented philosopher who tried to devote his life to this great enterprise.^[17]

Izutsu recognizes that Abū al-Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī (d. 505/1111), a Sufi as well as a theologian before Ibn ‘Arabī, is a “great theo-

logian-philosopher” as well as an influential “mystic”. However, Izutsu believes that the

Sufi thinker who has philosophically systematized “deep experience” in mysticism is Ibn ‘Arabī. Such is the place that Ibn ‘Arabī has maintained in Izutsu’s perspective of Sufism. Yet, Izutsu had not considered Ibn ‘Arabī’s thought until he went abroad and researched at McGill University.

From november 1960 to April 1961, Izutsu conducted research at the Institute of Islāmic Studies at McGill University with a scholarship from the Rockefeller Foundation. In 1962, Izutsu was appointed as a visiting scholar at McGill University. From the next year, he spent half a year at Keio University and the other half at McGill until moving to Iran. According to Seyyid Hossein nasr, “from that time on he was going to put aside his study of Qur’ānic semantics and devote himself to later Islāmic philosophy.”^[18]

Before he met with nasr at McGill University, Izutsu published the first Japanese translation of the Qur’ān, which he directly translated from Arabic to Japanese, and published the aforementioned works related to the Qur’ān. Pausing his study of the Qur’ān, he shifted his academic subject to mystical philosophy in Islām.

Progressively, year by year, he gradually shifted his research institution from Japan (Keio University) to Canada (McGill University) and finally to Iran (Tehran Branch of McGill University and Imperial Iranian Academy of Philosophy),^[19] where he started to tackle Ibn ‘Arabī’s thought in earnest. As clearly shown in the publishing plan of the “Wisdom of Persia Series”,^[20] he seriously engaged with the philosophized development of Ibn ‘Arabī’s thought and considered the metaphysical philosophy of Mīr Dāmād (d. 1041/1631) and Mullā Hādī Sabzawārī (d. 1289/1872).

Inspiring Izutsu, Ibn ‘Arabī plays an essential role in his construction of his Oriental philosophy. Indeed, the more deeply Izutsu studied Ibn ‘Arabī’s thought, the more intensely he was convinced that his thought was useful in constructing his understanding of Oriental philosophy. In “An Analysis of Waḥdat al-Wujûd”: Toward a Metaphilosophy of Oriental Philosophies”, he clearly stated that the theory of waḥdat al-wujūd was valuable in his endeavor:

I am interested in this particular aspect of this particular problem out of all the interesting problems offered by the history of Iranian Islām, not necessarily because of my own personal philosophical attitude, but rather, and primarily, because of my conviction that the concept of waḥdat al-wujûd is something which, if structurally analyzed and elaborated in a proper way, will provide a theoretical framework of thinking which characterizes Oriental philosophy in general ─ not only Islāmic philosophy, but most of the major historical forms of Oriental thought.²¹

In A Comparative Study of the Key Philosophical Concepts in Sufism and Taoism, Izutsu considers Ibn ‘Arabī in the former part and Taoism in the latter part and compares each other in the conclusion. Moreover, after his move to Iran, he deeply studied Ibn ‘Arabī’s waḥdat al-wujūd and later development. Izutsu came to recognize that Ibn ‘Arabī’s thought should be placed at

Studies, Tehran Branch of McGill University, had pre-planned the publishment plan of twenty volumes. According to the list, Izutsu has engaged with four out of twenty volumes.

21 Toshihiko Izutsu, The Concept and Reality of Existence, (Tokyo: Keio University Press, 1971), 35.

the center of his Oriental philosophy. Hence, his study of waḥdat al-wujūd gradually transitioned from mere Islāmic studies to the theoretical framework of Oriental philosophy.

III. Theoretical Development from Mysticism to Mystical Philosophy

In the Archetypal Image of Islāmic Philosophy (Isurāmu Tetsugaku no Genzō, 1980) and Consciousness and Essence (Ishiki to Honshitsu, 1984), he argued for a theoretical development from mysticism to mystical philosophy. However, he academically reconsidered how to deal with the phenomenon known as “Sufism” or “Islāmic mysticism” and pointed out the difficulty of researching Sufism.

Insomuch as [Sufism] is already a subjective understanding, it goes without saying that it is extremely personal. If there were a general idea that being objective was a fundamental condition for academic knowledge, such a kind of subjective depiction may not be academic. As far as mysticism is concerned, however, I wonder if being thoroughly subjective is paradoxically and truly objective. A so-called objective attitude does not bring us anything here. When we observe a mystical experience from the outside and comprehend it objectively, we will not find anything there other than a dead figure because the anima of mysticism has already disappeared. As to our purely objective attitude toward mystical experience, it is as if a car is on the surface of ice: the more we push the car to go forward, the more it runs idle and does not proceed. If we still wish to go forward despite this situation, there is no way to get us out of our car and move forward by turning ourselves to the ice itself. Likewise, concerning mystical experience, there is only one true way to stop turning our “objective” condition needlessly, dive into a vortex of our experience, and identify ourselves with it from the inside subjectively. Here, mysticism opens its subtle secret to us. That is, to be truly subjective is to be objective.^[21]

Izutsu demonstrates a paradoxical answer to the question of who on earth truly understands the phenomena called mysticism. It is sure for an academic scholar that the study of mysticism is an academic field, but for those who have had a mystical experience, they are constantly searching for the word to describe an ineffable experience. In the study of mysticism, scholars try to consider that verbal expression of experience. Since fully verbal expression is impossible, however, an objective study of mysticism is almost impossible. According to Izutsu, taking a subjective attitude in the study of mysticism is the best way to understand mysticism. Thus, an immanent approach is the most objective rather than subjective one. Although Izutsu did not personally practice Sufism, he stressed the subjective approach to Sufism, as if he were himself a practitioner of Sufism.^[22]

He analyzed the phenomena of mysticism as a fine balance in terms of “experience”, which is a concept formulated in modernism. A comparative perspective that has fully expressed the way for spiritual training is “tao (way), that is ṭarīqa in Islām”.^[23] The conceptual formation of mysticism contains a comparative view of religions around the world. It is, therefore, in the name of mysticism that Izutsu also juxtaposes spiritual phenomena in religious traditions and finds the same structure in each of them.

Concerning his usage of “philosophy”, Izutsu again defines “philosophizing” as “theorizing” and “systematizing”. Thus, philosophy based on mystical experience is equal to theorizing one’s own mystical experience. In a theoretical transition from mysticism to mystical philosophy, one passes through mystical experience and metaphysics. In Sufism, this level of mystical consciousness corresponds to baṣīrah meaning “spiritual eyesight” or “inner vision”, its primary meaning being “eyesight”.

Mysticism is an experience of getting a glimpse of the truth (i.e., depth) of the Real through baṣīrah [inner vision]. Incorporating it with today’s idea on semiotic semantics, what is called baṣīrah is as if “nothingness” (mu) or “emptiness” (kū) that is not still articulated (bunsetsuka) at all. Or baṣīrah is a capability of newly articulating non-articulated and ontological chaos in the new form, and newly re-articulating in the level of consciousness differing from the ordinary experience.^[24]

For Izutsu, mysticism offers a new vision of the world. One newly recognizes the world through articulating the “world”. In the theory of self-disclosure in waḥdat al-wujūd, the absolute Existence articulates Itself into each existent (mawjūd) in the world. Through such limitation of the absolute Existence, an exis-

tent comes into existence with a thing (shay’) represented by the name of existence. When Sufis gaze at the world with an ordinary eye and a spiritual one, they know the ontological roots behind the world.

As a result of acquiring new insight, Sufis argue a worldview or Weltanschauung based on mystical experience. However, it is well known that there is no Arabic terminology that means “experience”. In his or her mystical experience, transformation of one’s consciousness occurs; moreover, language is a tool for expressing such transformation. Concerning such verbalization of the experience, each language constructs a worldview reflecting its linguistic recognition of the world. Verbal expression in Sufism also demonstrates how Sufis articulate the world in words:

Mysticism means that one realizes directly oneself, that is, the true self or the true reality, and next comprehends the ultimate existence which manifests a special horizon of recognition of consciousness breaking the ground of self-consciousness.^[25]

Concerning the special horizon that Sufis acquire, there is a term, dhū al-‘aynayn meaning “one who has dual visions”. With one’s two eyes, one reaches the level of dhū al-‘aynayn by gazing at the visible world with one eye and the invisible world with the other eye. The perfect man (al-insān al-kāmil) who obtains such insights knows how the world ontologically comes into existence.

Conclusion

After returning to Japan, Izutsu tries to construct his Oriental philosophy and argue its characteristics by referring to Ibn ‘Arabī’s thought. In his far-reaching plan of Oriental philosophy, he intended to construct the philosophy of the “world” called the Orient. Moreover, his Oriental philosophy indicated how he understood the characteristics of the Oriental way of articulating the world.

In the name of “synchronical structuralization” (kyōjiteki kōzōka), he tried to clarify a common structure of the existentialization of the world seen among philosophers in the Orient.

Izutsu’s idea of synchronical structuralization took on the characteristics of mysticism, as it was one of the reasons that led to his interest in mysticism and mystical philosophy throughout his life. However, he discovered the philosophical framework of Oriental philosophy from Ibn ‘Arabī’s waḥdat al-wujūd, the mystical philosophy in Islām. In absorbing that philosophical framework, he started referring to the term “experience” in his study of mysticism and delineated the theoretical development from mysticism to mystical philosophy.

Most of all, Izutsu’s investigation of Sufism has led him to construct his Oriental philosophy through contemplating a transitive development from verbalizing mystical experience to theorizing it in the name of philosophy. Without encountering Sufism and thoroughly researching Ibn ‘Arabī, he would not have systematized the structure of his Oriental philosophy as we know it today.

Bibliography

Izutsu, T. Bewusstsein und Wesen. Translated by Hans Peter Liederbach. München:

Iudicium Verlag, 1983 (2006).

---, God and Man in the Koran: Semantics of the Koranic Weltanschauung. Tokyo: The Keio Institute of Cultural and Linguistic Studies, 1964.

---, “Mystical Philosopher of Islām: Ibn al-‘Arabī’s Ontology” (Kaikyō Shinpishugi Tetsugakusha: Ibunu-ru-Arabī no Sonzairon). The Complete Works of Toshihiko

Izutsu I, 1944 (2013): 172-193.

---, Mystical Philosophy (Shinpi Tetsugaku). The Complete Works of Toshihiko Izutsu II, 1949 (2013).

---, “Revelation and Reason in Islām” (Kaikyō ni okeru Keiji to Risei). The Complete Works of Toshihiko Izutsu I, 1944 (2013): 212-227.

---, “Sufism and Linguistic Philosophy” (Sūfizumu to Gengo Tetsugaku). The Complete Works of Toshihiko Izutsu VIII, 1984 (2014): 218-255.

---, The Concept and Reality of Existence. Tokyo: The Keio Institute of Cultural and Linguistic Studies, 1971.

James, W. Essays in Radical Empiricism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1912 (1976).

Kamada, S. “‘The Oriental Philosophy’ and Islāmic Studies” (‘Tōyō Tetsugaku’ to Isurāmu Kenkyū). In Toshihiko Izutsu’s Oriental Philosophy: (Toshihiko Izutsu no Tōyō Tetsugaku), edited by Yoshitsugu Sawai and Shigeru Kamada, 11-32. Tokyo: Keio University Press, 2018.

nasr, S. H. “Some Recollections: Toshihiko Izutsu” (Izutsu Toshihiko no Omoide). Monthly Newsletter (Supplement of The Complete Works of Toshihiko Izutsu 11). Translated by Makoto Sawai. (2015): 1-6.

nishida, K. An Inquiry into the Good (Zen no Kenkyū). Tokyo: Iwanami Bunko, 1911 (1950).

nyberg, H. S. Kleinere Schriften des Ibn

al-ʿArabī. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1919.

Acknowledgment

This work was supported by JSPS KAKEnHI (20H01199).

---

[1] In God and Man in the Koran, Izutsu explains what semantics means: So much so that ‘semantics’, as the study of Meaning, cannot but be a new type of philosophy based on an entirely new conception of being and existence and extending over many different and widely divergent branches of traditional science, which, however, are as yet far from having achieved the ideal of a perfect integration. (Toshihiko Izutsu, God and Man in the Koran: Semantics of the Koranic Weltanschauung, (Tokyo: The Keio Institute of Cultural and Linguistic Studies, 1964), 10.)

[2] Behind his continuous interest in semantics, Izutsu also believes that semantic analysis leads to an objective understanding of texts. According to him, it is possible to clarify the semantic network of key concepts by considering how a concept relates to other concepts inside texts.

[3] His intention fully expresses the title of his English publication on Sufism: A Comparative Study of the Key Philosophical Concepts in Sufism and Taoism: Ibn ‘Arabī and Lao-tsǔ, Chuang-tsǔ (1966). This book is republished with the title of Sufism and Tao-

ism: A Comparative Study of the Key Philosophical Concepts from Iwanami-shoten (1983) and from the University of California Press (1984).

[4] Izutsu’s semantic way of reading texts written in Chinese, Arabic, Persian, and Sanskrit would not be accomplished without his extraordinary linguistic ability; his semantic reading of the texts is fully creative, his work is unique. However, his attitude to texts and understanding is objective and philological. Even today, Izutsu’s academic dedication to Islāmic Studies is extremely high, and his academic influence extensive.

[5] Shigeru Kamada, “‘The Oriental Philosophy’ and Islāmic Studies” (‘Tōyō Tetsugaku’ to Isurāmu Kenkyū) in Toshihiko Izutsu’s Oriental Philosophy: (Toshihiko Izutsu no Tōyō Tetsugaku), eds. Yoshitsugu Sawai and Shigeru Kamada (Tokyo: Keio University Press, 2018), 12.

[6] After returning to Japan, he published whole books in Japanese. This is another reason why his final part of constructing Oriental philosophy is not veiled by non-Japanese readers. Izutsu’s most distinguished book written in Japanese, Consciousness and Essence: In Search of the Spiritual East (Ishiki to Honshitsu: Seishinteki Tōyō o Motomete, 1983), is translated into German. Toshihiko Izutsu, Bewusstsein und Wesen, tras. Hans Peter Liederbach (München:

Iudicium Verlag, 2006).

[7] Though this book firstly had a publishing schedule in 1947, it was cancelled since the original publishing company went bankrupt. Moreover, there is an original plan that this book has three volumes: the first volume of Greek part, the second volume of Hebrew part, and the third volume of Christian part. However, only the first was published since the publishment, Hikari no Shobō, also went bankrupt before the

second volume was done. Later in 1978, he published two volumes of Mystical Philosophy by revising the first part.

[8] In a sense, “natural mysticism” is equivalent to a “pure experience” in the philosophy of William James (1842-1910) and Kitarō nishida (1870-1945). William James, Essays in Radical Empiricism, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1912(1976)); Kitarō nishida, An Inquiry into the Good (Zen no Kenkyū), (Tokyo: Iwanami Bunko, 1911 (1950)).

[9] Izutsu explains the origin of Greek philosophy by referring to the Bible: “In the beginning was the word

(logos).” (John 1:1)

[10] Toshihiko Izutsu, Mystical Philosophy (Shinpi Tetsugaku): The Complete Works of Toshihiko Izutsu II, (Tokyo: Keio University Press, 1949 (2013)), 30.

[11] In other words, Izutsu has a rough structure of mysticism in his early days and gradually sophisticates it by encountering Sufism at a later date.

[12] The literal meaning of mawjūd which is a passive noun in Arabic is: “thing that is made existent.” With regards to Arabic grammar, this is a derivative form of wujūd. At the same time, it demonstrates the relationship between the Real and creatures. Creatures, including human beings, are only a derivative and passive existence of the Real, that is the Existence, in true meaning.

[13] Toshihiko Izutsu, “Revelation and Reason in Islām” (Kaikyō ni okeru Keiji to Risei), The Complete Works of Toshihiko Izutsu I, (Tokyo: Keio University Press, 1944 (2013)), 225.

[14] Ibid. 225. Izutsu uses the term “Sufīism” consisted of “Sufī” and “ism.” This term is used in the formative period of the study of Sufism.

[15] Ibid. 225.

[16] This book edited by Henrik Samuel nyberg (18891974) is the only text of Ibn ‘Arabī’s published in the West. Henrik Samuel nyberg, Kleinere Schriften des Ibn al-ʿArabī, (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1919).

[17] Toshihiko Izutsu, “Mystical Philosopher of Islām: Ibn al-‘Arabī’s Ontology” (Kaikyō Shinpishugi Tetsugakusha: Ibunu-ru-Arabī no Sonzai-ron), The Complete Works of Toshihiko Izutsu I, (Tokyo: Keio University Press, 1943 (2013)), 173-174.

[18] Seyyid Hossein nasr, “Some Recollections: Toshihiko Izutsu” (Izutsu Toshihiko no Omoide), trans. Makoto Sawai, Monthly Newsletter (Supplement of The Complete Works of Toshihiko Izutsu 11), (Tokyo: Keio University Press, 2015), 1.

[19] In 1975, Izutsu moved to Imperial Iranian Academy of Philosophy as a professor. He had researched there until the occurrence of the Iranian Revolution in February 1979.

[20] Under the “Series” name, the Institute of Islāmic

[21] Toshihiko Izutsu, Shinpi Tetsugaku, 31-32.

[22] Izutsu practiced zen in his childhood because his father gave him rigorous zen practice. In other words, he kept a subjective attitude to zen Buddhism in which he regards mysticism in Buddhism.

[23] Toshihiko Izutsu, “Sufism and Linguistic Philosophy” (Sūfizumu to Gengo Tetsugaku), The Complete Works of Toshihiko Izutsu VIII, (Tokyo: Keio University Press, 1984 (2014)), 223.

[24]                                                                                          Ibid. 224.

[25] Ibid. 223.