© “Metafizika” Journal AcademyGate Publishing
Vol 7, issue 2, serial 26, 2024. pp.112-131 p-ISSN 2616-6879; e-ISSN 2617-751X

112

UDC: 1 (091).; 159.9.; 297.
LBC: 88.1; 88.2; 87.3; 87.21
DOI: 10.33864/2617-751X.2024.v7.i2.112-131
MJ № 214

Comparative Analysis of the Unity of Existence (Wahdat al
Wujud) in Hikmah Mutā„ālīyah (Transcendental philosophy of

Molla Sadra) and Advaita Vedanta Philosophy
Syed Mohammad Jaun Abdi



Abstract. The concept of the unity of existence finds resonance in both
Islamic philosophy, particularly in the Transcendental philosophy of Molla
Sadra, and the Advaita Vedanta school of Indian philosophy, notably
championed by the mystic philosopher Sankara. Molla Sadra's philosophical
framework is rooted in the intertwining principles of Multiplicity within
Unity and Unity within Multiplicity, (Kathrat fil Wahdat, Wahdat fil Kathrat)
elucidated through two key theories:

(I) Gradational unity of existence, (Al Wujud Al Tashkiki) and
(II) Individual unity of existence. (Wahadat al Shkaksi)
Sankara, a mystic philosopher within the Vedanta tradition, expounds

upon the unity of existence through non-dualism, positing that Atman
(individual soul) is identical to Brahman (universal consciousness). His
philosophical stance involves dismantling the perceived realm of multiplicity
by invoking the concept of cosmic illusion, referred to as the doctrine of
Maya.

This paper delves into an exploration of the perspectives of Molla Sadra
and Sankara regarding the unity of existence. While both thinkers share the
notion that a singular reality is concealed by a metaphorical veil, they each
draw inspiration from their respective sacred texts-the Quran for Molla Sadra
and the Vedas for Sankara. Consequently, they have formulated
comprehensive systems of thought grounded in principles and assertions that
invite scrutiny.


Ph.D student in the Al-Mustafa International University (MIU); Iran

E-mail: smjabdi82@gmail.com
https://orcid.org/0009-0004-7449-2906
To cite this article: Jaun Abdi, S. M. [2024]. Comparative Analysis of the Unity of Existence (Wahdat al Wujud) in
Hikmah Mutā‗ālīyah (Transcendental philosophy of Molla Sadra) and Advaita Vedanta Philosophy. “Metafizika”
journal, 7(2), pp.112-131.
https://doi.org/10.33864/2617-751X.2024.v7.i2.112-131

Article history:
Received: 20.02.2024
Accepted: 29.04.2024

“Metafizika” Journal
2024, vol 7, issue 2, serial 26, pp.112-131

113

However, it is essential to note that some disparities exist in their ideas.
This paper aims to elucidate the commonalities and divergences between
Molla Sadra's and Sankara's philosophies, shedding light on the similarities
and polarities inherent in their conceptualizations of the unity of existence.

Keywords: Unity of Existence, Islamic philosophy, Advaita Vedanta,
Molla Sadra, Sankara, Gradational unity, Individual unity, Non-dualism,
Atman, Brahman, Cosmic illusion, Doctrine of Maya, Quran, Vedas, Mystic
philosophy, Similarities, Polarities

1.Introduction

The doctrine of the unity of existence serves as a foundational principle in
Islamic mysticism and features prominently in the philosophical framework
of the Indian school known as Vedanta. Within the Islamic tradition, Ibn-
Arabi stands as the pioneering figure who delved into the concept of unity of
existence. This theory posits that only a singular existence can be regarded as
the true reality encompassing all aspects of the world. According to this
perspective, all phenomena and the diverse manifestations in the world
emanate from a single truth that encompasses them all, effectively
consolidating the entire world into a unified whole.
In the context of Indian philosophy, the inception of the unity of existence
can be traced to a period when people, disillusioned with the powers of gods,
ritual ceremonies, and sacrificial rituals, sought a more unified perspective.
This shift in focus led to the creation of the Upanishads, wherein the
emphasis moved from external practices to an exploration of the internal
realm, with a focus on the interconnectedness of Atman (individual soul) and
Brahman (universal consciousness). The school of Vedanta further developed
this philosophy grounded in the unity of existence, with notable thinkers such
as Sankara, Ramanuja, and Madhva. Among them, Sankara gained
widespread recognition for his contributions. Additionally, the materialistic
Charvaka philosophy in Indian thought also exhibits traces of the unity of
existence, marking a transition from polytheism to pantheism in the history of
Indian philosophy.
While Ibn-Arabi introduced the term "unity of existence" in Islamic
philosophy and based his mystical philosophy on it, it was Molla Sadra who
paved the way for mystical thinkers to substantiate the unity of existence.
Molla Sadra achieved this by delving into the concepts of gradual unity of
existence and individual unity of existence. The term "unity of existence"
prompts a fundamental question concerning the nature of reality-whether
plurality is genuine or illusory. Philosophically, the answer to this question

Syed Mohammad Jaun Abdi
Comparative Analysis of the Unity of Existence in Hikmah Mutā‗ālīyah and Advaita Vedanta Philosophy

114

leads to three distinct ideas: pure unity, pure plurality, and unity in plurality
itself.
Both Sankara and Molla Sadra constructed their philosophical frameworks on
the principles of pure unity and unity within plurality. Their contemplations
on the unity of existence offer profound insights into the nature of reality,
presenting a nuanced exploration of pure unity as well as the intricate
interplay between unity and plurality.
2.Molla Sadra's Concept of the Unity of Existence (Wahdat Al wujud)
Molla Sadra's philosophical journey commences with the primacy of
existence over essence, a foundational principle recognized as the cognitive
limit for understanding existence. Existence, in his view, eludes definition
due to its boundless and self-evident nature. As articulated by Molla Sadra
"The truth of existence is the clearest thing in appearance and presence; and
its essence is the most hidden thing in grasping and understanding the depth
of its reality" [Molla Sadra, 1987].

In Molla Sadra's philosophy, the external world is enveloped by existence,
while Quiddity (Al-Mahiyah),(the inherent nature or essence of a thing) exists
solely within the realm of the mind. Here, Quiddity is elucidated as the
limitation of existence, derived from the intrinsic nature of a thing. Quiddity,
or whatness, is sourced from the essence of something, whereas existence
emanates from the being of the thing. Alternatively, Quiddity can be
perceived as the constraint of the mind in comprehending unity. Molla Sadra
posits that the mind functions in a way that when it seeks to comprehend
existence, Quiddity simultaneously imposes itself on existence, hindering a
true realization of reality. For instance, the commonality in the phrase "man
is," "tree is," "table is" lies in the word "is," serving as the representative of
existence shared among them. This essential commonality is integral to their
existence; without it, they cannot exist. This shared concept of existence also
explains the multiplicity observed in the external world, emphasizing the
external correspondence of the concept of existence.

In Molla Sadra's philosophy, the external world, dominated by unity, is
considered the realm of existence. Accepting existence as possessing external
correspondence implies recognizing it as the original event in the external
world, prioritizing it over Quiddity. An illustrative example highlights the
precedence of existence: encountering an unfamiliar creature from a distance
prompts an immediate recognition of its existence, while its identity
(Quiddity) remains unknown. As the creature approaches, its identity
becomes apparent, demonstrating that existence is independent of Quiddity.

Molla Sadra elucidates his doctrine of the unity of existence through two
key theories: Gradational Unity of Existence and Individual Unity of

“Metafizika” Journal
2024, vol 7, issue 2, serial 26, pp.112-131

115

Existence. These theories offer a framework for understanding the intricate
relationship between existence and essence, providing insights into the
fundamental nature of reality in Molla Sadra's philosophical system.
3.1.Gradational Unity of Existence in Molla Sadra's System

Within this framework, Molla Sadra endeavors to establish the proposition
that existence constitutes a singular reality with diverse degrees. In this
conceptualization, being is comprised of individual entities that exhibit
distinctions in their existence. The crux lies in recognizing that the variations
among these entities stem from both their shared attributes and the factors
that render them dissimilar or unified. The differentiation between these
individuals is contingent upon the intensity of existence, spanning from lower
levels to higher echelons.
For instance, consider the degrees of numbers, which encompass an infinite
plurality. Simultaneously, what distinguishes these numerical degrees is
precisely what they share in common. Analogously, contemplate the diverse
intensities of light-strong and weak. The distinguishing factor between these
variations is, again, the commonality inherent in both. The underlying
principle articulated by Molla Sadra is that existence finds its foundation in
unity, and the existence of entities is a consequence of the varying degrees of
intensity within existence itself.
Molla Sadra posits that unity manifests in multiplicity, and conversely,
multiplicity is inherent in unity. This nuanced perspective captures the
intricate interplay between unity and diversity within the philosophical
framework. [Hamidreza Ayatollahi, 2005].

Thus, Molla Sadra's Gradational Unity of Existence offers a profound
exploration of how the varying degrees of existence contribute to the rich
tapestry of reality, illustrating the dynamic relationship between unity and
multiplicity in the fabric of existence.

The doctrine of gradation not only supports the reality of diversity, but
also points out the all-encompassing simplicity of being qua being. Hence the
famous dictum that is frequently repeated in Mulla Sadra‘s works, ―the
Simple Reality (basit al-haqiqa) is all things but none of those things in
particular‖ [al-Asfar VI 111]. [Metafizika Journal- Clid, Say, 2, 2018]
3.2.Individual Unity of Existence in Molla Sadra's Philosophy
In this theoretical framework, Molla Sadra posits that existence is singular,
representing the being of the supreme God. In the ultimate reality, nothing
exists except existence itself, distinct from the sacred divine essence. All
objective entities in the realm of creation are perceived as manifestations and
shadows, with God being the sole exception. Consequently, the terms

Syed Mohammad Jaun Abdi
Comparative Analysis of the Unity of Existence in Hikmah Mutā‗ālīyah and Advaita Vedanta Philosophy

116

"existence" and "existent" are deemed unitary, leading to the profound
realization that only unity is genuinely real.
To substantiate the unity of existence within this theory, Molla Sadra initiates
his discourse with the Theory of causation. (Qanoon al Ellliyat) He proceeds
to explore the necessity of being and invisible entities, addressing each aspect
sequentially. According to this perspective, the effect is nothing more than
the manifestation and emanation of the cause. Thus, the authentic existence
resides in the cause, while the existence of the effect is merely a radiated ray
from it.
Within the framework of individual unity of existence, the core assertion is
that the essential, real existence is exclusive to the sacred Divine Essence. All
contingent beings, ranging from pure existence to primordial matter, are
considered manifestations and rays of this Unitary Real Existent. In this
theory, absolute multiplicity is not negated; rather, it is absorbed into the Real
Existence and attributed to
manifestations and appearances. Molla Sadra asserts that by transferring
multiplicity from existence to manifestation, the commencement is also
transferred from existence to the manifestation. The appearances of existence,
as per Molla Sadra, exhibit gradational levels based on their proximity to the
Real Existence. The closer they are to the sacred Divine Essence, the more
intense and powerful they become, while those farther away are weaker.
Importantly, these variations in intensity do not compromise the unity, purity,
and simplicity of the Real Essence.
Molla Sadra concludes this line of reasoning by asserting that the world, as
perceived, is nothing more than an illusion lacking any genuine existence.
[Ibid., p.294] He emphasizes that the reality of existence lies solely in the
sacred Divine Essence. In the final section of his discussion on causality,
Molla Sadra underscores that contingent entities do not possess real existence
in their essences. Instead, their existence is derived from the light of
existence, and their intelligibility is acquired through various manifestations
of existence. The contingent quiddities, such as the meaning of man and
animal, are viewed as superficial aspects and not fundamental elements of
existence. According to Molla Sadra, the reality of existence is the Necessary
Existence, and it is indivisibly one, with apparent multiple beings being mere
shadows of this singular existence. Contingent beings exist incidentally, not
essentially or genuinely, according to Molla Sadra's viewpoint.
In the individual unity of existence, Molla Sadra establishes the existence of
God through the Theory of causation and emphasizes the simplicity or non-
compositeness of God to demonstrate His encompassing nature. This stands
in contrast to the gradational unity of existence, where Molla Sadra explores

“Metafizika” Journal
2024, vol 7, issue 2, serial 26, pp.112-131

117

the intensity of existence to establish the idea of multiplicity within unity.
These two perspectives collectively contribute to Molla Sadra's
comprehensive understanding of the unity of existence within his
philosophical framework.
4.Sankara's Concept of the Unity of Existence

Drawing upon the revered triple texts-the Bhagavad-Gita, the Vedanta
Sutras, and the Upanishads - Sankara anchors his philosophical system in the
foundational idea of the non-difference between the individual soul and
Brahman. [Molla Sadra, 1987]. The central tenet of Sankara's philosophy
asserts the identity of Brahman with Atman, emphasizing that there exists
only one indivisible and indefinable entity in existence, referred to as
Brahman. This reality, according to Sankara, is indescribable and transcends
comprehension through intellect or teaching alone.

Sankara employs negation to describe Brahman, asserting what it is not
rather than prescribing positive attributes. For example, Brahman is declared
as not Acit or unreal, not Asat or ignorance, and not Dukkha or suffering. This
leads to the characterization of Sankara's philosophy as non-dualism rather
than monism. [Masih Yakub, 1987]

Brahman, in Sankara's philosophy, is delineated as changeless and
indivisible, encapsulated by the Upanishadic declaration of "one without a
second." Defined as knowledge, consciousness, and bliss, Brahman is
considered the only reality, as nonexistence is inconceivable [Ibid., pp.69-
70]. Sankara states that Atman, the individual self, is identical with Brahman,
representing pure consciousness or an unchanging essence [Ibid., p.66].
The world, in Sankara's perspective, is regarded as Maya-an illusion that
cannot be accepted as real. The question regarding the relationship between
the real Brahman and the illusory world is, for Sankara, deemed unauthorized
and thus unanswerable. When one intuitively apprehends the absolute
Brahman, questions concerning the nature of the world become irrelevant, as
the ultimate truth is perceived as a self-evident fact. [Radhakrishnan,
Volume: 2, 2008]

Maya is characterized as illusion or false appearance, and Avidya is termed
ignorance. Maya, according to Sankara, is neither real nor unreal, existing in
a realm beyond such distinctions. Avidya is described as the innate
obscuration of knowledge, representing the finite self's mental deformity that
fragments the divine into myriad aspects. Duessen know Avidya as ―The
innate obscuration of our knowledge‖ [Paul Deussen, 1906]. ―Avidya is the
fall from intuition the mental deformity of the finite self that distinction the
divine into a thousand different fragments‖ [Radhakrishnan,Volume: 2,
2008].

Syed Mohammad Jaun Abdi
Comparative Analysis of the Unity of Existence in Hikmah Mutā‗ālīyah and Advaita Vedanta Philosophy

118

Realizing oneself as Brahman becomes challenging due to Avidya, and
liberation (Moksa) is achieved when Maya's influence ceases, leading to
ultimate enlightenment. Maya is considered neither different from Brahman
nor an attribute; it is the inherent nature of Brahman, indivisible from it.
[Masih Yakub, 1987]. As Radhakrishnan asserts ―It is neither real as
Brahman nor unreal as flower of sky‖ [Radhakrishnan, Volume: 2, 2008].

Despite debates over whether Maya is real or illusory, its essential role is
acknowledged in creating multiplicity in the world. Sankara posits that
Brahman serves as the material cause of the universe through the intervention
of Maya, which is viewed as the essential operating condition. This intricate
interplay between Brahman, Maya, and Avidya forms a key component of
Sankara's philosophical discourse on the unity of existence. Pasariraka says
―Brahman is the material cause of universe through the intervention of Maya,
which is the essential operating condition‖ [Ibid., p.571].
5.Sankara and Molla Sadra: A Comparative Analysis on the Nature of
Absolute

Sankara and Molla Sadra, two eminent philosophers from distinct cultural
and philosophical traditions, share a recognition of an ultimate reality—the
Nirguna Brahman in Sankara's philosophy and the Necessary Existence
(Wujud al Wajib or Wajib Al Wujud) in Molla Sadra's thought. While these
concepts exhibit similarities, they also diverge, and their connections with
intellect contribute to the nuanced understanding of the absolute.
In Molla Sadra's philosophical framework, the Intellect (Aql) holds a
paramount position, representing the first and highest division among
Essential-Substantive and Instaured-Beings. (al-maj‘ulàt al- jawhariyyah)
Notably, the Intellect is characterized by its independence from any need,
except for God. This intrinsic connection between Intellect and the divine
underscores Molla Sadra's emphasis on the role of intellect in grasping the
ultimate reality.

Sankara, on the other hand, introduces the concept of Nirguna Brahman,
acknowledging an innate knowledge of Brahman within the human intellect.
The human experience, according to Sankara, involves a state of
consciousness where the personal atman transcends its limiting adjuncts and
expands into Pure Consciousness. This aligns with Molla Sadra's recognition
of Intellect as a means to access deeper truths.

Examining Sankara's categories of consciousness adds further depth to the
comparison. The waking state of consciousness, in Sankara's view, is marked
by nescience and an illusory 'I' notion. This state involves continuous mental
impositions and limiting adjuncts, perpetuating an erroneous cognition that
creates the illusion of a separate self. Alston, in describing this situation,

“Metafizika” Journal
2024, vol 7, issue 2, serial 26, pp.112-131

119

emphasizes the self-perpetuating nature of the illusory 'I' notion within the
waking state. [A.J,Alstonsi , (Trans.), 2004a]

In essence, both philosophers acknowledge an ultimate reality, with
Sankara using the term Nirguna Brahman and Molla Sadra referring to it as
Necessary Existence. The role of intellect is crucial in both systems, whether
as the first and highest division among Essential-Substantive and Instaured-
Beings in Molla Sadra's philosophy or as the medium through which innate
knowledge of Brahman is realized in Sankara's thought.

While the similarities highlight common ground in their recognition of an
ultimate reality and the significance of intellect, the differences in
terminology and contextual nuances reflect the distinct cultural and
philosophical backgrounds from which Sankara and Molla Sadra emerged.
This juxtaposition illuminates the richness of their respective contributions to
metaphysical inquiry.
6.Unity in Multiplicity and Multiplicity in Unity and Unity of Non-
Dualism
A Comparative Analysis of Sankara and Molla Sadra's Philosophies

The philosophies of Sankara and Molla Sadra offer distinct perspectives
on the nature of existence, unity, and multiplicity. While Sankara advocates
for the non-dualism of Brahman and Atman, Molla Sadra posits the
coexistence of unity in multiplicity and multiplicity in unity. This comparison
explores the nuanced differences between their approaches and their
implications for the understanding of reality
6.1.Sankara's Non-Dualism

Sankara's philosophy centers around the concept of non-dualism, wherein
he seeks to identify Atman with Brahman. His endeavor is to transcend
multiplicity and achieve pure unity through the doctrine of Maya. According
to Sankara, the phenomenal world is an illusion created by Maya, and true
unity lies in recognizing the oneness of Brahman. In this framework, Sankara
emphasizes the non-dual nature of reality and asserts the illusory nature of
the material world. The goal is to dismantle the structure of multiplicity and
unveil the singular reality of Brahman.

Sankara declares, "I am one alone; No other than that (Brahman) is
thought to be mine... I do not need you nor your work since I am non-dual".
[Sengaku Mayeda, 1992]
6.2.Molla Sadra's Unity in Multiplicity and Multiplicity in Unity

Molla Sadra, on the other hand, acknowledges the reality of multiplicity
and asserts that unity is derived from the varying intensities of existence. In
his system, multiplicity is not an illusion to be dispelled but a real state
arising from the different levels of existence. Molla Sadra introduces the

Syed Mohammad Jaun Abdi
Comparative Analysis of the Unity of Existence in Hikmah Mutā‗ālīyah and Advaita Vedanta Philosophy

120

theories of gradational unity of existence and individual unity of existence to
explain the interconnectedness of unity and multiplicity. Unity is not
achieved by negating multiplicity but by understanding the gradation of
existences leading to a necessary existence.

According to Molla Sadra, the unity (Wahdat. ٚدذد) of God is not akin to
the specific (shakhsiyyah. ٗشخظ١) unity found in an individual (Fardفشد ) of a
particular nature, nor is it the generic (Jinsiyyah ٗجٕغ١) or specific
(naw‘iyyah ٗٔٛػ١) unity present in any general notion (ma‘na ِؼٕی ) or
quiddity (Mahiyyah ِٗب١٘ ). It doesn't align with the unity that arises when
various things are assembled into a single entity (Ijtemaiyah ٗاجزّبػ١), or the
unity of contiguity (Ittisaliyyah ٗارظب١ٌ) observed in quantities and measurable
things. In essence, it doesn't fall into the categories of relative (Nisbiyyah ٗ ٔغج١
) unities such as unity of resemblance (tamathul ًرّبث), homogeneity (Tajanus
(رطبثك tatabuq) ,correspondence ,(رشبثٗ tashabuh) analogy ,(رجبٔظ
reduplication, (tadayuf رؼب٠ف) or any other types of unity that aren't the true
unity, even though some philosophers have acknowledged certain forms of
congruence.

Molla Sadra emphasizes that God's unity is distinct from these relative
forms, and its essence remains unknowable, (majhulat ِجٙٛلاد) much like His
innermost root (kunh ٕٗک). His unity serves as the origin of all other unities,
just as His being is the source of all individual beings. It is crucial to note that
God has no counterpart or second entity.

In Molla Sadra's words, "His unity is the source of all unities... He has no
second" [Molla Sadra, 1962].
7.Points of Comparison
7.1.Nature of Multiplicity

 Sankara sees multiplicity as an illusion created by Maya, a cosmic
illusion that obscures the true unity of Brahman.

 Molla Sadra views multiplicity as a real state, arising from the varying
intensities of existence, emphasizing unity in this diversity.

7.2.Approach to Unity
 Sankara strives to attain pure unity by dispelling the illusion of

multiplicity through the recognition of the non-dual nature of Atman
and Brahman.

 Molla Sadra recognizes unity in the midst of multiplicity, with his
theories highlighting the interconnectedness and gradation of
existences.

7.3.Role of Cosmic Illusion or Maya

“Metafizika” Journal
2024, vol 7, issue 2, serial 26, pp.112-131

121

 For Sankara, Maya is the cosmic illusion that veils the true nature of
Brahman, creating the illusion of a diverse and separate world.

 Molla Sadra does not attribute the cause of multiplicity to an illusion;
instead, he focuses on the different intensities of existence.

7.4.Emphasis on Transcendence and Immanence
 Sankara maintains a balance between immanence and transcendence,

using Maya to explain the immanent aspect of Brahman while
asserting its ultimate transcendence.

 Molla Sadra also incorporates both immanent and transcendent views
but does not rely on an illusion to balance these perspectives.

In conclusion, while Sankara and Molla Sadra share the goal of
understanding the nature of existence and the relationship between unity and
multiplicity, their approaches diverge significantly. Sankara's NonTheory of
Causationdualism seeks to dispel the illusion of multiplicity, while Molla
Sadra's philosophy embraces the reality of multiplicity and finds unity within
it through the gradation of existences.
8.The Role of Intellect in Realizing the Absolute
8.1.Comparative Perspective of Sankara and Molla Sadra

Both Sankara and Molla Sadra acknowledge the significance of revelation
in understanding the absolute reality-Brahman in Sankara's philosophy and
Necessity Existence (Al Wujud al wajib) in Molla Sadra's thought. While
there are parallels in the principle of incorporating revelation into their
mystical systems, there are also nuanced differences, especially in their views
on the role of intellect and the methods of realization.
8.1.1.Sankara's Perspective

Sankara emphasizes the importance of Vedic revelation and asserts that
true knowledge of Brahman cannot be conceived without the light of Vedic
revelation. However, he takes a somewhat dismissive view of the intellect's
ability to comprehend the absolute reality directly. According to Sankara,
Brahman, being transcendent and devoid of perceptible qualities, cannot be
the object of direct perception or inference. Instead, Sankara believes that the
knowledge derived from the Vedas serves as the guiding force for the
intellect to understand Brahman.

Sankara states, "Having no color or other perceptible quality, [Brahman] is
not an object of perception. And because it can have no inferential signs... it
cannot be the object of inference or of other indirect means of cognition".
[A.J,Alston, (Trans.), 2004d].

Sankara's approach is characterized by the rejection of independent
intellectual thought as a means to liberation. He asserts that knowledge

Syed Mohammad Jaun Abdi
Comparative Analysis of the Unity of Existence in Hikmah Mutā‗ālīyah and Advaita Vedanta Philosophy

122

obtained without Vedic revelation is akin to speculative knowledge about the
future. [Ibid.,p.200]
8.1.2.Molla Sadra's Perspective

Molla Sadra shares the idea that revelation plays a crucial role in
understanding the absolute reality (Necessity Existence), but he takes a more
nuanced approach regarding the role of intellect. While Molla Sadra
acknowledges the role of intellect in proving the unity of existence, he posits
that true realization of God must come through intuition (Shuhood) rather
than intellect alone.

In Molla Sadra's system, the intellect is instrumental in establishing the
logical foundations and proving the unity of existence, but the deeper
understanding and realization of God require intuitive insight. Molla Sadra
distinguishes between proving the unity of existence by intellect and
comprehending God, which he asserts can only be achieved through intuition.
8.2.Methodological Paths

Both philosophers employ a methodological path that involves using
theological statements, which may initially seem dualistic. However, they
balance this duality by referencing a transcendent existence that encompasses
all realms of dualism. Sankara, for instance, uses theological statements to
provide a Nondualistic foundation in his philosophy, even when discussing
Brahman's role as the ruler and controller of manifest existence.
Sankara recognizes theistic elements within the non-dualistic system,
asserting that the individual is identical to Brahman. The theological
statements in Sankara's philosophy serve as a means to convey Nonduality.
Molla Sadra's monotheistic perspective in Islam also involves the use of
divine names and relationships. While Molla Sadra acknowledges the ability
to prove the unity of existence through intellect, he reserves the
understanding of God for intuition.
9.Conclusion

In conclusion, both Sankara and Molla Sadra agree on the importance of
revelation in grasping the absolute reality. Sankara tends to diminish the role
of intellect in directly comprehending Brahman, relying on Vedic knowledge
as a guide. Molla Sadra, while acknowledging the intellect's role in proving
the unity of existence, emphasizes the necessity of intuition for a profound
understanding of God. Both philosophers navigate the intersection of intellect
and intuition in their respective paths to realizing the absolute reality.
Theory of Transmigration: A Comparative Analysis

The theological differences between Sankara and Molla Sadra become
evident in their perspectives on the Theory of Transmigration, which
encompasses concepts such as Karma and Samsara.

“Metafizika” Journal
2024, vol 7, issue 2, serial 26, pp.112-131

123

1.5. Sankara's Perspective
Karma and Samsara

Sankara integrates the concepts of Karma (action) and Samsara (cycle of
birth and rebirth) from Hindu Darshanas into his philosophy. He contends
that in the present life, merit and demerit accumulate, and their fruits are
experienced through attachment and aversion arising from false identification
with the mind-body organism. Sankara asserts that transmigration is a
beginning-less and endless process rooted in nescience. According to him,
the cessation of transmigratory experience is achievable through the path of
knowledge and the renunciation of all actions. The resolution lies in ending
self-identification with the body, leading to the cessation of transmigration.
Brahman and Transmigration:

Sankara, in his interpretation, views the extension from the absolute
(Brahman) as indistinguishable from Brahman itself. He suggests that the
idea of transmigration is inseparable from the inherent nature of Brahman,
and the transmigratory cycle continues until nescience is eradicated.
[A.J.,Alston, (Trans.), 2004f]
2.5. Molla Sadra's Perspective
Rejection of Transmigration

Molla Sadra, aligned with Ibn Sina, rejects the theory of transmigration.
He views the connection between the soul and body as intimate, akin to the
relationship between Form (Al-Surah) and Matter (A-Maddah). For Molla
Sadra, the removal of one necessitates the removal of the other. He argues
against the notion that a Form (soul) can transmigrate into another Matter,
especially for developed souls that have become pure intellects. In such
cases, the concept of Metempsychosis becomes absurd.
Connection of Soul and Body

Molla Sadra emphasizes the interdependence of the soul and body,
negating the possibility of transmigration. He contends that a developed
human soul, having reached the state of a pure intellect, no longer requires a
body. The dissolution of the soul and its connection with a new body is
considered nonsensical.‖ [Molla Sadra, 1958].
Intellect and Revelation

Similar to Sankara, Molla Sadra rejects the idea that intellect alone can
explain metaphysical truths. He advocates the need for divine revelation
alongside intellectual inquiry. This aligns with his emphasis on the role of
intuition in realizing the absolute reality.
Comparative Analysis
Divergence on Transmigration:

Syed Mohammad Jaun Abdi
Comparative Analysis of the Unity of Existence in Hikmah Mutā‗ālīyah and Advaita Vedanta Philosophy

124

While Sankara integrates the Hindu concepts of Karma and Samsara into
his philosophy, Molla Sadra firmly rejects the theory of Transmigration.
Their perspectives diverge on the continuity of the soul's journey across
different bodies.
Intellect and Revelation

Both philosophers share a common stance in recognizing the limitations of
intellect alone in explaining metaphysical truths. They advocate the
integration of divine revelation (Vedas for Sankara and Islamic sources for
Molla Sadra) with intellectual inquiry.
Interconnectedness of Soul and Body

Sankara's acceptance of Transmigration implies a certain independence
between the soul and body, whereas Molla Sadra stresses the inseparability of
the soul and body, leading to the rejection of transmigration.

In conclusion, the theory of transmigration serves as a significant point of
divergence between Sankara and Molla Sadra. Sankara incorporates Hindu
concepts, while Molla Sadra vehemently rejects the idea, emphasizing the
intimate connection between the soul and body. Both philosophers, however,
concur on the necessity of integrating intellect with divine revelation to grasp
the deeper truths of metaphysics.
1. Theory of Causation:

Both Sankara and Molla Sadra delved into the theory of causation with the
aim of establishing the unity of existence.
1.6. Sankara‟s perspective

According to Sankara, the notion of causation cannot be deemed prior and
tangible because cause and effect are essentially one. There exists no
distinction between cause and effect, as the effect doesn't possess anything
more than the cause. It's comparable to a jug that lacks more clay than its
cause. In this perspective, the effect is merely the manifestation of the cause.
2.6. Molla Sadra‟s perspective

Molla Sadra posits that the effect is contingent on the cause. The effect is
akin to quiddity, involving a psychological process, and is not inherently real.
Hence, a relationship in which one side is deemed real (Cause) and the other
unreal (Effect) cannot be acknowledged as genuine. Therefore, the causation
relationship is not truly real. According to Molla Sadra, all contingent beings
necessitate a cause, which tips the balance between existence and non-
existence in favor of the former. Nothing can come into existence without a
cause. The world, being contingent on this First Act, not only necessitates the
existence of God but also attributes the responsibility for this First Act of
creation to God.

“Metafizika” Journal
2024, vol 7, issue 2, serial 26, pp.112-131

125

Molla Sadra also dismissed the possibility of a causal regress, asserting
that the causal chain can only function in a framework with a distinct
beginning, middle, and end - a pure cause at the beginning, pure effect at the
end, and a nexus of cause and effect.

Furthermore, the text delves into the simplicity of the effect and the cause
when considered in isolation. When we abstract the cause from elements
unrelated to its causation and influence, and similarly abstract the effect from
factors unrelated to its causedness, it becomes evident that the so-called
effect has no reality beyond the reality of its originating cause. The intellect
cannot refer to the essence of the effect without considering the entity of its
originator. Thus, the effect, in isolation, lacks reality in its causedness except
for being dependent, relational, and devoid of meaning other than being an
effect - a subordinate without an essence. This parallels the absolute
originating cause being principle, source, origin, and followed, all
encapsulated in its essence [Molla Sadra, 1958].

Radhakrishnan notes that Sankara perceives cause and effect as
undifferentiated. He simplifies the transitions from causes to effects, which
underlie the dynamic evolution of reality, into a static relation of sequence
akin to certain types of logical and theoretical connections [Radhakrishnan,
Volume: 2, 2008]. Both mystic philosophers strive to elucidate the first cause
as the ultimate reality, acknowledging only the cause as truly real.
2. Spiritual Texts: A Common Ground in Mystical Realization

Sankara and Molla Sadra, while rooted in distinct religious traditions,
share a common foundation in their acceptance of classical spiritual texts-
namely, the Vedas for Sankara in Hinduism and the Quran for Molla Sadra in
Islam. Their philosophical systems are built upon the premises and assertions
derived from these sacred texts, emphasizing the importance of spiritual
wisdom and mystical realization.
1.7. Sankara's Relationship with Vedas:
1. Vedas as the Eternal Source: Sankara, as a key figure in Advaita
Vedanta, acknowledges the Vedas as the eternal and authoritative source of
knowledge. The Vedas, comprising texts like the Upanishads, Bhagavad
Gita, and Vedanta Sutras, form the basis for understanding Brahman and
Atman.
2. Integration of Spiritual Wisdom: Sankara's philosophy is deeply
intertwined with the spiritual wisdom found in the Vedas. He uses the Vedas
to elucidate the non-dualistic nature of reality, emphasizing the identity of
Atman with Brahman.
3. Intellect and Divine Revelation: While Sankara recognizes the role of
intellect, he underscores the significance of divine revelation in

Syed Mohammad Jaun Abdi
Comparative Analysis of the Unity of Existence in Hikmah Mutā‗ālīyah and Advaita Vedanta Philosophy

126

comprehending the ultimate reality. The Vedas, for him, serve as a guide to
realizing the non-dual essence of Brahman.
2.7. Molla Sadra's Reliance on Quranic Wisdom:
1. Quran as Divine Guidance: Molla Sadra, within the Islamic
philosophical tradition, places great importance on the Quran as the ultimate
source of divine guidance. The Quranic verses become foundational for his
exploration of existence, unity, and the nature of God.
2. Incorporation of Mystical Insights: Molla Sadra incorporates mystical
insights from the Quran into his philosophical framework. His engagement
with Sufi mysticism and the teachings of the Imams contributes to the
development of the school of Transcendent Philosophy (Hikmat al-
Muta'aliyah).
3. Role of Intuition: Similar to Sankara, Molla Sadra emphasizes the
limitations of intellect and the necessity of intuition in realizing the deeper
truths of existence. The Quran serves not only as a scriptural guide but also
as a source of mystical intuition.
Common Ground in Mystical Realization
1. Intuition over Pure Logic: Both philosophers, despite their intellectual
rigor, emphasize the role of intuition in mystical realization. The direct
experiential understanding of ultimate reality transcends the limitations of
pure logic and intellectual discourse.
2. Secondary Importance of Philosophy: Sankara and Molla Sadra share
the perspective that philosophy, while significant, takes a secondary role
compared to mystical realization. The experiential journey towards
understanding the divine essence holds primary importance.
3. Reverence for Spiritual Traditions: Both thinkers show deep reverence
for their respective spiritual traditions. The Vedas and the Quran are not only
sources of wisdom but also guides for the spiritual journey and the realization
of the ultimate truth.

In essence, Sankara and Molla Sadra, each within their cultural and
religious contexts, find common ground in their reliance on classical spiritual
texts for developing profound philosophical systems. The Vedas and the
Quran serve as foundational sources that guide their mystical explorations
and shape their perspectives on the ultimate reality.
Conclusion: Unveiling Unity in Diversity

In this comparative exploration of the Unity of Existence in the
philosophies of Sankara and Molla Sadra, we have discovered both shared
themes and nuanced distinctions in their mystical perspectives.
Shared Themes

“Metafizika” Journal
2024, vol 7, issue 2, serial 26, pp.112-131

127

1. One Reality and Unity: Both philosophers concur on the existence of a
stable essence, a singular reality that forms the foundation of their
philosophical frameworks. Unity of existence is a central theme in both
Sankara's non-dualism and Molla Sadra's multiplicity in unity.
2. Spiritual Texts as Foundations: Sankara and Molla Sadra rely on
classical spiritual texts-the Vedas for Sankara and the Quran for Molla Sadra-
as foundational sources of wisdom. These texts guide their philosophical
inquiries and serve as gateways to mystical realization.
3. Importance of Mystical Realization: The mystic philosophers prioritize
mystical realization over pure philosophical speculation. They emphasize the
experiential journey and intuitive understanding of the ultimate reality,
transcending the limitations of intellect.
4. Rejection of Pure Logic: Both thinkers express skepticism about the
sufficiency of pure logic and intellect in grasping the profound truths of
existence. Intuition, revelation, and direct experience play pivotal roles in
their paths to understanding.
Nuanced
1. Nature of unity

 Sankara: Non-dualism; Unity achieved by recognizing the illusory
nature of multiplicity through Maya.

 Molla Sadra: Unity in multiplicity and multiplicity in unity; Reality
derived from different intensities of existence.

2. Veiling Reality
 Sankara: Veiling through Maya-cosmic illusion and individual

ignorance.
 Molla Sadra: Veiling through Quiddity-the boundary of mind

postulating on existence.
3. Theories of Causation

 Sankara: Uses theory of causation to explain unity; Atman
identified with Brahman.

 Molla Sadra: Links causation to intensity of existence;
rejects causation as unreal.

4. Transmigration
 Sankara: Accepts the theory of Karma and Samsara, emphasizing

liberation through knowledge.
 Molla Sadra: Rejects transmigration, asserting an intimate connection

between soul and body.
The Unveiling of Unity in Diversity

Syed Mohammad Jaun Abdi
Comparative Analysis of the Unity of Existence in Hikmah Mutā‗ālīyah and Advaita Vedanta Philosophy

128

Sankara and Molla Sadra, rooted in Hinduism and Islam respectively,
share a common quest for understanding the ultimate reality. While Sankara's
non-dualism seeks to dissolve multiplicity through cosmic illusion, Molla
Sadra's multiplicity in unity embraces the diverse intensities of existence.
Both philosophers navigate the intricate balance between immanent and
transcendent views, leveraging spiritual texts as guiding lights in their
mystical journeys.

In essence, the Unity of Existence in the philosophies of Sankara and
Molla Sadra represents an unfolding tapestry where unity harmonizes with
diversity, and the veils of illusion and Quiddity are lifted to reveal the
profound reality that underlies the multifaceted nature of existence.

REFERENCES
1. Alston, A. J. (Trans.), (2004a). Sankara, “Texts on Going beyond the

Mind,”. in A Sankara Source Book volume: 1, London: Shanti Sadan,
p.163. (in English)

2. Alston, A. J. (Trans.), (2004b). The Self and the Not-Self. in A Sankara
Source Book volume: 1, London: Shanti Sadan, 2004, p. 90. (in English)

3. Alston, A. J. (Trans.), (2004c). Texts on the Absolute as Already Known in
a General Way. In A Sankara Source Book volume: 1, London: Shanti
Sadan, pp. 82, 122-130. (in English)

4. Alston, A. J. (Trans.), (2004d). Sankara, “Texts on: The Self Can Only Be
Known through the Veda,”. in A Sankara Source Book volume: 5,
London: Shanti Sadan, pp. 200-202. (in English)

5. Alston, A. J. (Trans.), (2004e). Sankara, “Texts on: The Absolute as
Creator and Controller,”. in A Sankara Source Book volume: 2, London:
Shanti Sadan, p. 6. (in English)

6. Alston, A. J. (Trans.), (2004f). Sankara, “Texts on the Wheel of
Transmigration,”. in A Sankara Source Book volume: 5, p. 9. (in English)

7. Chittick, (1989). The Sufi Path of Knowledge. Albany NY: State
University of New York Press, p. 179. (in English)

8. Schuon, F. (1975). Logic and Transcendence. New York: Harper & Row,
p. 89. (in English)

9. Fazlul Rahman, (1975), The Philosophy of Molla Sadra. State University
of New York Press, p. 247. (in English)

10. Hamidreza Ayatollahy, (2005). The existence of God Molla Sadra’s
Seddiqin Argument versus Criticism of Kant and Hume. Siprin
Publication, Tehran, pp. 6, 294. (in Persian)

11. Masih Yakub, (1987), Sankara’s Universal Philosophy of Religion.
Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, pp.66, 67-70, 84. (in English)

“Metafizika” Journal
2024, vol 7, issue 2, serial 26, pp.112-131

129

12. Imanov, E. (2018). The comparative study of the idea of "simplicity of
existence" in Peripatetic Philosophy and Transcendental Theosophy.
Metafizika Journal, 1(2), pp. 111-125.
https://doi.org/10.33864/mtfzk.2019.12
http://metafizikajurnali.az/yukle/files/Vol.2-111.pdf (in Persian)

13. Mull Sadra, (1962). Al-Arshiyyah. Isfahan: Shahriyar Books, pp. 96-98.
(in Arabic)

14. Molla Sadra, (1958). Asfar. (Al-Asfar; Al-Hikmat Al-Muta‘Aliyah Al-
Arba‘ah), Volume: 2, pp. 40, 299-230. (in Arabic)

15. Molla Sadra, (1981). Al-Hikmat Al-Muta’aliya fil asfar Al- Aqliyya Al-
Arba’a. Beirut, p. 110. (in Arabic)

16. Molla Sadra, (1987). Al-Shavahid Al- Rububiyyah. Tehran, pp. 7-8. (in
Arabic)

17. Nagaraja Rao, P. (1943). The Schools of Vedanta. Bharatiya Vidya
Studies No. 2, Bharatiya. Vidya Bhavan, Bombay, p. 27 (in English)

18. Deussen, P. (1906). The Philosophy of the Upanishads. Edinburgh, T.
& T. Clark, p. 302. (in English)

19. Radhakrishnan, S. (2008). Indian Philosophy, Volume: 2, Oxford
University Press, pp. 497, 527, 571, 575, 577. ISBN: 978-0195698428 (in
English)

20. Sabzevari, M.H.H. (1977). Sharh-I Manzumah. (Trans. by M.
Mohaghegh and T. Izutsu), The Metaphysics of Sabzevari, Delmar:
Caravan books, p. 29. (in Arabic)

21. Sengaku Mayeda, (1992). (Trans.), A Thousand Teachings: The
Upadesasahasri of Sankara. Albany: State University of New York Press,
p. 120. (in English)

Varlıq vəhdətinin (vəhdət əl-vücud) hikməti mütəaliyə (Molla
Sədrəddin Şirazinin transsendental fəlsəfəsi) və Şankaranın Advayta

Vedanta fəlsəfəsi ilə müqayisəli təhlili
Seyed Mohammad Cun Abedi




Beynəlxalq əl-Mustafa Universitetinin doktorantı; Ġran

E-mail: smjabdi82@gmail.com
https://orcid.org/0009-0004-7449-2906
Məqaləyə istinad: Abedi, Seyed Mohammad Cun. [2024]. Varlığın vəhdətinin (vəhdət əl vücud) Hikməti
Mütəaliyə (Molla Sədrəddin ġirazinin transsendental fəlsəfəsi) və ġankaranın Advayta Vedanta fəlsəfəsi ilə
müqayisəli təhlili. “Metafizika” jurnalı. 7(2), səh.112-131.
https://doi.org/10.33864/2617-751X.2024.v7.i2.112-131

Məqalənin tarixçəsi:
Məqalə redaksiyaya daxil olmuĢdur: 20.02.2024

Təkrar iĢlənməyə göndərilmiĢdir: 18.03.2024
Çapa qəbul edilmiĢdir: 29.04.2024

Syed Mohammad Jaun Abdi
Comparative Analysis of the Unity of Existence in Hikmah Mutā‗ālīyah and Advaita Vedanta Philosophy

130

Abstrakt. Varlığın vəhdəti anlayıĢı xüsusilə Molla Sədranın
Transsendental fəlsəfəsində olmaqla həm islam fəlsəfəsində, həm də mistik
filosof ġankara tərəfindən müdafiə olunan Hind fəlsəfəsinin Advayta-vedanta
məktəbində əksini tapmıĢdır. Molla Sədranın fəlsəfi sistemi ―vəhdətdə çoxluq
və çoxluqda vəhdət‖ (Kəsrət fil vəhdət, vəhdət fil kəsrət) olaraq bilinən
prinsipə əsaslanır. Bu prinsip aĢağıdakı iki əsas nəzəriyyə vasitəsilə
iĢıqlandırılır:

1.Varlığın dərəcəli vəhdəti (əl-vucud ət-təĢkiki)
2.Varlığın individual/Ģəxsi vəhdəti (vəhdət əĢ-Ģəxsi).
Vedanta ənənəsinə aid mistik filosof olan ġankara, Atmanın (fərdi ruh)

Brahman (universal Ģüur) ilə eyni olduğunu irəli sürərək, varlığın birliyini
qeyri-dualist aspektdən Ģərh edir. Onun fəlsəfi dünya görüĢündə idrak edilən
çoxluq dünyası ―maya‖ doktrinası olaraq adlandırılan kosmik illüziya
anlayıĢı əsasında rədd edilir.

Bu məqalə varlığın birliyi anlayıĢına dair Molla Sədra və Sankaranın
yanaĢmasını öyrənir. Hər iki mütəfəkkirin yeganə gerçəkliyin metaforik
pərdə ilə gizlədilməsi fikrini bölüĢməsinə baxmayaraq, onların hər biri öz
müqəddəs mətnlərindən – Molla Sədra Qurandan, ġankara isə Vedalardan
ilham alır. Nəticə etibarilə, onların formalaĢdırdığı düĢüncə sistemlərinin
əsaslandığı prinsip və düĢüncələr tədqiqata cəlb edilmək baxımından ciddi
maraq oyandırır.

Lakin, qeyd etmək lazımdır ki, onların görüĢlərində müəyyən fərqliliklər
mövcuddur. Bu məqalənin hədəfi Molla Sədra və ġankaranın varlığın vəhdəti
anlayıĢları arasında mövcud olan bənzər və ayrılan nöqtələr üzərinə iĢıq
salmaqla onların fəlsəfələri arasında mövcud olan oxĢar və fərqli cəhətləri
müəyyən etməkdir.

Açar sözlər: varlığın vəhdəti, islam fəlsəfəsi, Advayta-vedanta, Molla
Sədra, ġankara, dərəcəli vəhdət, individual vəhdət, qeyri-dualizm, Atman,
Brahman, Kosmik illüziya, Maya doktrinası, Quran, Vedalar, mistik fəlsəfə,
bənzərliklər, qütblülüklər

Сравнительный анализ единства бытия (вахдат аль-вуджуд) с
трансцендентальной теософией (хикмат аль-мутаалиййа) моллы
Садраддина Ширази и философией адвайтой ведантой Шанкары
Сайед Мухаммед Джун Абеди

 Докторант Международного университета Аль-Мустафа; Иран
E-mail: smjabdi82@gmail.com
https://orcid.org/0009-0004-7449-2906
Цитировать статью: Абеди, С.М.Дж. [2024]. Сравнительный анализ единства бытия (вахдат аль-вуджуд) с
трансцендентальной теософией (хикмат аль-мутаалиййа) моллы Садраддина Ширази и философией
адвайтой ведантой Шанкары. Журнал «Metafizika», 7(2), с.112-131.

“Metafizika” Journal
2024, vol 7, issue 2, serial 26, pp.112-131

131

Абстракт. Понятие Единства бытия особо проявлено путем
трансцендентальной теософии (хикмат аль-мутаалиййа) моллы
Садраддина Ширази в исламской философии, а также в индийской
философии посредством школы Адванта-веданта философа-мистика
Шанкары. Философская система моллы Садра основывалась на принцип
«единство во множестве и множество в единстве» (касрат фил вахдат,
вахдат фил касрат»). Данный принцип освещен двумя основными
теориями:

1.Градационного единства бытия (аль-вуджуд ат-ташкики);
2.Индивидуальное/личное единство бытия (вахдат аш-шахси).
Мистик философ Шанкара, предоставляющий обычаи Веданты,

утверждал о сходстве Атмы (индивидуальный дух) с Брахманом
(универсальное мышление) и единство бытия разъяснял согласно анти-
дуалистическому аспекту. Мир множества, именованный доктриной
«Майя» отражает его философское воззрение, но опровергается
понятием космической иллюзии.

В статье исследованы взгляды Моллы Садра и Шанкары о понятии
единство бытия. Оба философа согласны в мысли о единой правде,
скрытой метафорической занавесью, но каждый из них вдохновлен
своим святым текстом: Молла Садра Кораном, а Шанкара – Ведами. В
итоге отмечены выводы о важности привлечения к исследованию
принципов и замыслов системы мышления, сформированного этими
учеными.

Особо следует отметить определенную разницу в воззрениях этих
ученых. Целью статьи является определить единые и отличительные
пункты о понятии единого бытия моллы Садры и Шанкары и осветить
итоги их философии.

Ключевые слова: единство бытия, исламская философия, Адвайта-
веданта, Молла Садра, Шанкара, градационное единство,
индивидуальное единство, анти-дуализм, Атман, Брахман, космическая
иллюзия, доктрина Майя, Коран, Веды, мистическая философия,
сходства, полюсы

https://doi.org/10.33864/2617-751X.2024.v7.i2.112-131

История статьи:
Статья поступила в редакцию: 20.02.2024

Отправлена на доработку: 18.03.2024
Принята для печати: 29.04.2024