What do you think?
Rate this book
Being And Existence In Sadra And Heidegger: A Comparative Ontology
Ontological concepts – from the branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature of being – occupy a central position in philosophy. This is primarily because human beings are interested in understanding the nature of existence, the question of why there is “something” rather than “nothing”, of enquiring into the meaning of existence, and so forth. Sadr al-Din al-Shirazi (d. 1661), known as Sadra or Mulla Sadra, developed a new philosophical system based totally upon the concept of existence (wujud). The same attempt was made by the German philosopher Martin Heidegger (d. 1976). This book is a fascinating comparative case study of both philosophers and demonstrates how, from the Islamic and the Western traditions, they both base their philosophy on the concept of existence.
193 pages, Hardcover
First published November 30, 1993
1 person is currently reading
72 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
August 18, 2025
Reading this book the second time after more than 5 years provided me with more insights on the metaphysics of Islam.
Being only a novice acolyte of the Order and neither a formal learner of Islamic sciences, it took all of my strength to join classes and programs under CASIS (or any of them which I could join, due to my unfortunate schedule). The first striking thing I noticed is that the contents of the Prolegomena are not really put there at the front, even though almost half of it is about pure metaphysics instead of the usual critique against secularism, etc. etc. As an outsider, I made a mental classification that perhaps there exist two main approaches among the school of al-Attas, which are the Risalah-ist and the Prolegomena-ist. It is harder to find the second (as far as my outsider pass allows me to hover around).
So, I drew a long, glad sigh when one of the first sentences uttered by Dr Roslan in his first class on the Introduction to the Prolegomena was something about this: “(That the metaphysics of Islam)… is about clarifying about Being and Existence… about the sober kind of Sunni Sufi metaphysics.” For it is exactly the idea of the unity of Existence that the second half of the Prolegomena is spent on. The idea, in my humble opinion, is one of the sole proofs that the religion of Islam is the one monotheistic religion which defended the Unity of God in the most steadfast way.
One might wonder: if this idea is so obscure that most people, including Muslims, are not aware of it, might it not be an important idea at all? For me, the answer is in the negative. For the eventual question the idea wishes to answer and clarify is about the relationship between the Divine and the Creations, between the One and the Many. This is certainly not a recent discussion; when Plotinus described the dynamic processes of procession and reversion as the systole–diastole of the Universe, the discussion pertaining to this was already ancient.
In describing the relationship between two such discrete entities, there are generally two patterns: static and dynamic. Static patterns either adhere to the monolithic idea of being either utterly transcendent or grossly immanent in describing the relationship of the Divine to its creation. The first’s ancient form can still be seen among certain living, primitive people such as the Yoruba, who believe in Olódùmarè who, while a Supreme Being, is regarded as too remote for worship. This basic idea of an utterly remote god, or deus otiosus (“retired” God), found its modern form in Deism, which many of the Enlightenment thinkers adhered to.
Its opposite, the immanentists, found their expression among many natural religions of the world. The Supreme Being is conceived, through many ways, as part of the universe in order to explain the Divine’s connection with the temporal. An infamous example would be Puruṣa, who was sacrificed to create the cosmos, effectively sending the message of a divine background to all creations. The succeeding manifestations of these schools came in the form of many cults of incarnationists, pantheists, and anthropomorphists.
But the model of the Unity of Existence, as intuited by the rightful metaphysicians of Islam such as Ibn al-ʿArabī, al-Qūnawī, al-Qayṣarī, and the rest of the rightful saints, strikes a golden mean between the two. God is not utterly remote, but neither is He contradictorily inside the universe.
The majority of the corpus of al-Attas sought to expound this model of rigorous Unity, starting from his showcasing of local Sufistic practices in Some Aspects of Sufism as Understood and Practised among the Malays, A Commentary on the Hujjat al-Siddiq, down to the last 3 monographs of the Prolegomena — they are all elucidating this matter.
Educated by a Master of a previous generation, the Master would employ heavily symbolic and metaphoric language in extolling this most delicate matter. And rightly so, as Izutsu has pointed out, in the overwhelming vision of Unity experienced by the Sufi Masters, an inversion of metaphors occurred. Instead of using a concrete, sensory image to express the abstract meaning, the spiritual experience becomes so primary that the literal word is subordinated. Their mention of Nūr (light) is the closest meaning they can use in describing their experience; it becomes primary instead of a mere metaphor (such as when we say, “You are the light of my life”).
So, the corpus of al-Attas helped me in conceptualizing the idea and allowed me to discuss this with the Master. And it helped a lot, but a major caveat here — I am blessed to have such an understanding Master who is willing to engage in a discussion with me, despite my lowly rank and understanding.
In this volume, Professor Alparslan compares and contrasts the ideas of Ṣadrā and Heidegger. To save writing space, it can be safely concluded that both of them shared only one commonality: they viewed Existence as the primary stuff of reality. And then the similarity stopped. Ṣadrā investigates Existence as the ontological prior principle, thus metaphysical in nature. Heidegger, on the other hand, viewed Existence (Sein) as the ground for the common existence of all entities, and this Existence can only be understood via the one who is experiencing the disclosure of Existence: humans. We humans experience Existence in a specific way Heidegger termed Dasein (being-there). For Existence as we experience it a priori includes the there-ness in the world, and out of this arise many existential structures of Dasein: being-in-the-world, understanding, disclosedness, care, being-with, temporality, etc.
Ṣadrā, as one of the main representatives of the existentialists of Islam, asserts that Existence/Being is the primary stuff of reality which is unitary in nature. Multiplicities arise from analogical gradation between different degrees or intensities of Existence, with physical beings at the lowest end and God at the highest. This certainly causes a problem, as it can be perceived as many forms of immanence since it can be understood as God differing from creation not in kind but in degree. Professor Alparslan also pointed out that the epistemology of this model would be challenging, as the difficulty would be to distinguish the difference between mental and external existences if the substratum is the singular, unitary Existence.
Al-Attas’ corpus avoided these problems by advocating another subtle position, which preserves the inherent intimate relationship between the divine and mortal while at the same time safeguarding God’s transcendence. The metaphysicians of Islam, as al-Attas explained, conceived of God in an utterly undetermined form, where even the special name of God has yet to be assigned to Him. He is utterly transcendent and unknowable, but through the principle of Love, He made Himself known through successive levels of determinations. He made Himself known through His Names and Attributes, which are distinct but not separate from Him, and thus there does not exist an absurd position where there are pluralities of divinities whatsoever.
And these Names and Attributes possess infinite potentialities, which through His Will, came forth the Breath of the Merciful, which further determines them into Permanent Archetypes. And then towards External Archetypes, which is the general, shadowy existence — existing as the primal stuff from which everything in Reality originates. This general existence does not partake of the Divine Essence, just as the shadow does not partake of the Gazer. And this shadowy existence is contingent on the necessary fact of the Gazer: when the Gazer moves away, the shadow is utterly abolished. The general shadowy existence would then be further determined into individual existences. And the similarities between the cases of individual existences are what are conceptually grasped and understood as essences.
Then comes the second part of the problem: what differentiates mental and external existence? Consciousness is intentional in nature; it is always a consciousness about something. And this something is depicted as self-evident and apodictic (for we cannot doubt that we exist, for instance), but it has different levels of fulfilment. When I think about a pen, this is as self-evident to me as when I perceive a pen; they only differ at the levels of fulfilment: the first is only being fulfilled imaginally, the second in propria persona. Adopting this model of Unitary Existence would require a non-representational, experiential intuition of existence, rather than the usual representational, discursive model of Reality — which, in reality, would cast further scepticism. What is the guarantee that what is being given in the mind is the exact copy of what is being seen in the mind?
Non-representational accounts of perception simply assert that what we really behold and witness in our experience is already the concrete existence, only being demarcated post hoc into mental and physical existence. The fact that I am in pain is primary; the fact that I found something causing me pain in the external world is only proof that the cause exists in the external world, but it does not necessarily reject my inner experience as derivative.
Being only a novice acolyte of the Order and neither a formal learner of Islamic sciences, it took all of my strength to join classes and programs under CASIS (or any of them which I could join, due to my unfortunate schedule). The first striking thing I noticed is that the contents of the Prolegomena are not really put there at the front, even though almost half of it is about pure metaphysics instead of the usual critique against secularism, etc. etc. As an outsider, I made a mental classification that perhaps there exist two main approaches among the school of al-Attas, which are the Risalah-ist and the Prolegomena-ist. It is harder to find the second (as far as my outsider pass allows me to hover around).
So, I drew a long, glad sigh when one of the first sentences uttered by Dr Roslan in his first class on the Introduction to the Prolegomena was something about this: “(That the metaphysics of Islam)… is about clarifying about Being and Existence… about the sober kind of Sunni Sufi metaphysics.” For it is exactly the idea of the unity of Existence that the second half of the Prolegomena is spent on. The idea, in my humble opinion, is one of the sole proofs that the religion of Islam is the one monotheistic religion which defended the Unity of God in the most steadfast way.
One might wonder: if this idea is so obscure that most people, including Muslims, are not aware of it, might it not be an important idea at all? For me, the answer is in the negative. For the eventual question the idea wishes to answer and clarify is about the relationship between the Divine and the Creations, between the One and the Many. This is certainly not a recent discussion; when Plotinus described the dynamic processes of procession and reversion as the systole–diastole of the Universe, the discussion pertaining to this was already ancient.
In describing the relationship between two such discrete entities, there are generally two patterns: static and dynamic. Static patterns either adhere to the monolithic idea of being either utterly transcendent or grossly immanent in describing the relationship of the Divine to its creation. The first’s ancient form can still be seen among certain living, primitive people such as the Yoruba, who believe in Olódùmarè who, while a Supreme Being, is regarded as too remote for worship. This basic idea of an utterly remote god, or deus otiosus (“retired” God), found its modern form in Deism, which many of the Enlightenment thinkers adhered to.
Its opposite, the immanentists, found their expression among many natural religions of the world. The Supreme Being is conceived, through many ways, as part of the universe in order to explain the Divine’s connection with the temporal. An infamous example would be Puruṣa, who was sacrificed to create the cosmos, effectively sending the message of a divine background to all creations. The succeeding manifestations of these schools came in the form of many cults of incarnationists, pantheists, and anthropomorphists.
But the model of the Unity of Existence, as intuited by the rightful metaphysicians of Islam such as Ibn al-ʿArabī, al-Qūnawī, al-Qayṣarī, and the rest of the rightful saints, strikes a golden mean between the two. God is not utterly remote, but neither is He contradictorily inside the universe.
The majority of the corpus of al-Attas sought to expound this model of rigorous Unity, starting from his showcasing of local Sufistic practices in Some Aspects of Sufism as Understood and Practised among the Malays, A Commentary on the Hujjat al-Siddiq, down to the last 3 monographs of the Prolegomena — they are all elucidating this matter.
Educated by a Master of a previous generation, the Master would employ heavily symbolic and metaphoric language in extolling this most delicate matter. And rightly so, as Izutsu has pointed out, in the overwhelming vision of Unity experienced by the Sufi Masters, an inversion of metaphors occurred. Instead of using a concrete, sensory image to express the abstract meaning, the spiritual experience becomes so primary that the literal word is subordinated. Their mention of Nūr (light) is the closest meaning they can use in describing their experience; it becomes primary instead of a mere metaphor (such as when we say, “You are the light of my life”).
So, the corpus of al-Attas helped me in conceptualizing the idea and allowed me to discuss this with the Master. And it helped a lot, but a major caveat here — I am blessed to have such an understanding Master who is willing to engage in a discussion with me, despite my lowly rank and understanding.
In this volume, Professor Alparslan compares and contrasts the ideas of Ṣadrā and Heidegger. To save writing space, it can be safely concluded that both of them shared only one commonality: they viewed Existence as the primary stuff of reality. And then the similarity stopped. Ṣadrā investigates Existence as the ontological prior principle, thus metaphysical in nature. Heidegger, on the other hand, viewed Existence (Sein) as the ground for the common existence of all entities, and this Existence can only be understood via the one who is experiencing the disclosure of Existence: humans. We humans experience Existence in a specific way Heidegger termed Dasein (being-there). For Existence as we experience it a priori includes the there-ness in the world, and out of this arise many existential structures of Dasein: being-in-the-world, understanding, disclosedness, care, being-with, temporality, etc.
Ṣadrā, as one of the main representatives of the existentialists of Islam, asserts that Existence/Being is the primary stuff of reality which is unitary in nature. Multiplicities arise from analogical gradation between different degrees or intensities of Existence, with physical beings at the lowest end and God at the highest. This certainly causes a problem, as it can be perceived as many forms of immanence since it can be understood as God differing from creation not in kind but in degree. Professor Alparslan also pointed out that the epistemology of this model would be challenging, as the difficulty would be to distinguish the difference between mental and external existences if the substratum is the singular, unitary Existence.
Al-Attas’ corpus avoided these problems by advocating another subtle position, which preserves the inherent intimate relationship between the divine and mortal while at the same time safeguarding God’s transcendence. The metaphysicians of Islam, as al-Attas explained, conceived of God in an utterly undetermined form, where even the special name of God has yet to be assigned to Him. He is utterly transcendent and unknowable, but through the principle of Love, He made Himself known through successive levels of determinations. He made Himself known through His Names and Attributes, which are distinct but not separate from Him, and thus there does not exist an absurd position where there are pluralities of divinities whatsoever.
And these Names and Attributes possess infinite potentialities, which through His Will, came forth the Breath of the Merciful, which further determines them into Permanent Archetypes. And then towards External Archetypes, which is the general, shadowy existence — existing as the primal stuff from which everything in Reality originates. This general existence does not partake of the Divine Essence, just as the shadow does not partake of the Gazer. And this shadowy existence is contingent on the necessary fact of the Gazer: when the Gazer moves away, the shadow is utterly abolished. The general shadowy existence would then be further determined into individual existences. And the similarities between the cases of individual existences are what are conceptually grasped and understood as essences.
Then comes the second part of the problem: what differentiates mental and external existence? Consciousness is intentional in nature; it is always a consciousness about something. And this something is depicted as self-evident and apodictic (for we cannot doubt that we exist, for instance), but it has different levels of fulfilment. When I think about a pen, this is as self-evident to me as when I perceive a pen; they only differ at the levels of fulfilment: the first is only being fulfilled imaginally, the second in propria persona. Adopting this model of Unitary Existence would require a non-representational, experiential intuition of existence, rather than the usual representational, discursive model of Reality — which, in reality, would cast further scepticism. What is the guarantee that what is being given in the mind is the exact copy of what is being seen in the mind?
Non-representational accounts of perception simply assert that what we really behold and witness in our experience is already the concrete existence, only being demarcated post hoc into mental and physical existence. The fact that I am in pain is primary; the fact that I found something causing me pain in the external world is only proof that the cause exists in the external world, but it does not necessarily reject my inner experience as derivative.
April 11, 2019
Being and being_ I as in I, und In-der-welt-Seine would be the starting point that I carry in and through time.
reality of gravity or gravity is the reality? if you know you can let me know, thats time. understand that and you get the finite cycle of life, understand that and you get biology. you make and you make, and compare and comprehend leading to this verses that to get what can count as art, and thats that and on and on (DO we have a plausible Ending, even though you didn't see it, its lake of imagination, rather then indeterministic future) we have arrived at our imagination, from here on it leave it physical body, to imagine (or marry) a best approximation of a line drawn from infinity to infinity. The complexity of existence is not one, only standing under or over the complexity it appears as one, there has been only one notion in motion from nothing to everything, and the possibilities. logic is not that notion, as physical will never comprehend the essence of logic as is not logical to have a meaning with the logic, as we can set that logic. There is an other notion thats transcendence, its the definition of meaning. meaning is infinite pool of arrived possibilities and is always transient. The question is should the past mean to us is way the past imagined us? do we have faith is transandance of truth in time? I am not questioning the existence, I am simply asking will we ever see the future in enough-details? so it doesn't matter if we are there or not? are we ourself capable of answering this question? or we have given up to our imagination (for God to take care of it, and we just follow the line) The precision of this line is too narrow, the computer can only be fit inside a black hole, with never arriving infinity, the problem is there is now way out of the black hole, except the half truth (in a form that can belong to our reality), and the other half is always left to imagination as it will dance towards infinity, forever getting out of reach from this reality. Our time is only till the last black hole dies, what happens next is only imaginary, and there is no escape from that condition, for all that could happen behind that curtain is the separation of gravity from time. see me if you can, for I will be divided into two again and again, so that you can imagine me? or feel me? but not both at once, that the power singularity a line from an end to end.
The only way to exist in the now is to observe and absorb, and not take any action without
reality of gravity or gravity is the reality? if you know you can let me know, thats time. understand that and you get the finite cycle of life, understand that and you get biology. you make and you make, and compare and comprehend leading to this verses that to get what can count as art, and thats that and on and on (DO we have a plausible Ending, even though you didn't see it, its lake of imagination, rather then indeterministic future) we have arrived at our imagination, from here on it leave it physical body, to imagine (or marry) a best approximation of a line drawn from infinity to infinity. The complexity of existence is not one, only standing under or over the complexity it appears as one, there has been only one notion in motion from nothing to everything, and the possibilities. logic is not that notion, as physical will never comprehend the essence of logic as is not logical to have a meaning with the logic, as we can set that logic. There is an other notion thats transcendence, its the definition of meaning. meaning is infinite pool of arrived possibilities and is always transient. The question is should the past mean to us is way the past imagined us? do we have faith is transandance of truth in time? I am not questioning the existence, I am simply asking will we ever see the future in enough-details? so it doesn't matter if we are there or not? are we ourself capable of answering this question? or we have given up to our imagination (for God to take care of it, and we just follow the line) The precision of this line is too narrow, the computer can only be fit inside a black hole, with never arriving infinity, the problem is there is now way out of the black hole, except the half truth (in a form that can belong to our reality), and the other half is always left to imagination as it will dance towards infinity, forever getting out of reach from this reality. Our time is only till the last black hole dies, what happens next is only imaginary, and there is no escape from that condition, for all that could happen behind that curtain is the separation of gravity from time. see me if you can, for I will be divided into two again and again, so that you can imagine me? or feel me? but not both at once, that the power singularity a line from an end to end.
The only way to exist in the now is to observe and absorb, and not take any action without
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews