The Concept and Reality of Existence

by Toshihiko Izutsu

Genres: Philosophy, Islam, Metaphysics

167 pages

First published January 1, 1971

About the author

Toshihiko Izutsu was a university professor and author of many books on Islam and other religions. He taught at the Institute of Cultural and Linguistic studies at Keio University in Tokyo, the Imperial Iranian Academy of Philosophy in Tehran, and McGill University in Montreal, Canada.

Reviews

[S.M.Y Kayseri · Rating 5 out of 5]

This might be the only book/author that expounded the doctrine of transcendental unity of existence in a lucid and systematic manner, aside from Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas. While the discussion understandably involved heavy scholastic discussion, but with the guidance of the author, the progress to understand the book and the doctrine could be cushioned well.

In short, this is a quintessential secondary reading on the doctrine.

The doctrine of transcendental unity of existence (wahdah al-wujud) as presented in this book focused on the ontological and grammatical side, as it centered upon the problem of subject-predicate. Before delving deep into the summary of the book, it is vital to have a brief summary on what is this doctrine.

Theologically speaking, Islam stood as one of the most stalwart defender of monotheism par excellence. Islam also stand in opposite to the Pauline Christianity, which they believed to be not adhering to the strictest tenet of monotheism. But we cannot conclude Islamic monotheism par excellence to be a mere reaction to the Trinity; it must be conceived as the revitalization of the true monotheism, untouched by sophisms and philosophers opinion. The vision of unity as understood by great Muslim theologians and mystics are in its purest conception; to the discerning eye it might be brushing too closely with Spinoza's monism (but this couldn't any farther from the truth).

Islam cleansed the conception of God from any minute association with the created things; it rejects reincarnation and unity, returning God to His untouchable throne. In the same time, Islam has to explain away the dynamic nature of God that actively involved in the created things. God, according to Islam due to the concept of Unity (tawhid) must simultaneously be forever escaped man's conceptual reasoning yet the single active and dynamic Source for everything phenomenal. In answering this, Islamic scholars in unison (excluding very few aberrant cults) answered that the Unity of God must be preserved in any cost. The theologians and the mystics answered in a single voice; the coincidentia oppositorum; the one in many, the many in one.

God is both the Hidden Treasure, but from He is the eternal dynamic Source of everything phenomenal. He is light of Light. He is the unconditioned unconditioned. His Face is the Hidden Side of Moon, yet shined his Light to the entire realm with his Revealed Face. He is the farthest from man's estimation, yet He is closer to us than the jugular vein.

Islamic conception of God via the concept of Unity has the advantages of escaping the aberrant monster of a deity that shares similarities with his creation, yet retaining his Glory as the Unconditioned Unconditioned. The truth, I believe, must be in the resolution of contradictions, not the attainment of an extreme polar opposite. Neither the resolution of contradictions belongs to the synthesis between the opposites, as it would only produce chimeras. The resolution of contradictions must be transcendental, its witnessing is veiled due to inherent constraints of man's apparatus, but forever waiting to be discovered.

Speaking in a philosophical words, following Isutzu's discussion; the conception of wahdah al-wujud might be originated from the observation that the structure of external reality is incongruous with the form of the external world as presented in a proposition. Regarding the proposition "the table is existent", what does it really mean? Taken in a normal sense, the proposition is saying that the table is the subject and to-exists is its predicate. The table retains its specific whatness and existence is a super-added entity to it. But cannot we witness that everything must be exists first, and then its specific what-ness is then super-added to it? The father is first of all a man that exists, it is only when he is considered in terms of specific relation to him, in this case being-a-progenitor that he is then considered as a father.

The being-a-progenitor does not constitutes the defining essence of the man; it is only accidental to the prior existence of the man. It does not provide the thing, but serve to define the limit of a thing. The limit of a thing is not a thing; when it is considered by itself is nothing, non-existence. Just as the waves could not be conceived without the sea that it is part of; its specific conception is only a specific mental attitude in distilling its particulars, but considered in itself, waves is no-thing.

Thus, the proposition should be reversed. It is the particular table that emerged from the pervading existence. The table, just like the waves and the being-a-progenitor is just a modification of this overwhelming limitless reality. The to-exists is now the subject, the table is merely its predicate.

What is this implication of this doctrine is that it is the zenith of monotheistic expression; that the Absolute Existence pervades and constitutes everything. As Spinoza puts it, the eternal could not be limited in its unlimitedness. If there's a border between God's expansiveness and man's limitedness, then it amounts to drawing a line to God's unlimitedness, but God is unlimited; thus it is absurd. It is only by accepting the idea that there is a single Real existence that this jettison could be bypassed.

But a jarring question remains; if there's only a single Real existence, would everything be divine, including this pile of manure, or Hitler? The fact that this question exists shows that this concept has yet been understood perfectly. If there's only a single Real reality, how can it be multiple in the form of that manure or Hitler? The problem is not in the question of multiplicity, but in the ontological status of the external world.

As there's only one single Real reality, the rest stood as an ontological shadow that essentially is no-thing, just like the waves in the limitless ocean. When the Gazer gazed into the mirror, its shadow conjured. But it is unconceivable to say that this shadow has its own subsistent reality except when it is being conceived in relation to the Gazer, neither that the shadow somehow shares any parcel of essence with the Gazer. The Unity of Gazer is preserved all way along, His existence is unconditional while the shadow, even with its defined features has no real existence except an unconditional and metaphorical (i'tibari) one.

But does this mean that the external reality is just an illusion? Of course not. Just as the rope grasped in the dark was really thought to be a snake, owing from the perception of a snake was induced by the REAL perception of the rope. The world is real as long as it is considered in relation with its Source, but necessarily nothing when conceived by itself. Just as the existence of a shadow without a Light would forever escaped our understanding. The relation between the shadow and the Light is the illuminative relation, a term owed to Suhrawardi's Illuminatists tradition.

This is certainly heavy stuffs to be processed. But a metaphor by a great Sufi would bridge the curve. When we are writing, what we see are the letters, but never the ink. We are not being aware of the ink, while in reality we see nothing except the various forms of the ink. The letters is then a relative, fictitious (metaphotical) existence in relation to the ink.

The rest are technical discussion, discussing on how the united become many, and the many become one. I already covered the discussion quite extensively in the review for al-Attas's Degrees of Existence.

[Muhammad Aizzat · Rating 5 out of 5]

Alhamdulillah. I think the writer managed to present issues on existence & quiddity in a very easy yet comprehensive way. Even his brief explanation on existence from the Eastern school ( Mulla Sadra & Sabzawari) and the Western (Heidegger & Sartre) is easy to understand & digest.

I would recommend this book to anyone who are taking their first step in metaphysic of the Muslim world.

[Muhammad Iqbal · Rating 5 out of 5]

should have read this first before having al-Attas' Degree of Existence

[Hesham · Rating 4 out of 5]

يشرح ايزوتسو بسلاسة ووضوح كبير لمصطلح الوجود كما تجلى في الكتابات الفلسفية والصوفية في الحضارة الإسلامية . وهو يوضح أن الممارسة الفلسفية في الإسلام-مدار (islamicate World) لم تتوقف مع موت ابن رشد ، فهو أي ابن رشد لا يشكل الا تياراً من تيارات الفلسفة الإسلامية الا وهو التيار المشائي الأرسطي . اما في شرق العالم الإسلامي وتحديدا بلاد فارس فهناك اشتغالات وتطورات فلسفية لم تنقطع حتى العصر الحديث ، يمثل هذا الاشتغال (islamic scholasticism) الإسلامية المدرسية التي اشتغلت وطورت نتاجات المتصوف الأندلسي محيي الدين بن عربي ، وما آلت إليه كتاباته من عملية اشتغال ومراكمة وتفلسف لم ينقطع كما تمثّلت في كتابات افذاذ مثل نصير الدين الطوسي وشهاب الدين السهروردي و جلال الدين الدواني والقونوي والفيض الكاشاني وعبد الرزاق اللاهيجي والميرداماد وصولاً الى ذروة الفلسفة الإسلامية متمثلة بصدر الدين الشيرازي التي تشكل فلسفته المظهر الأبرز لعلاقة الحضارة الإسلامية بالحضارات السابقة عليها التي نهلت واستفادت وأضافت عليها بما يجعلها الهاضمة للحضارة الاغريقية وللحضارة الفارسية كذلك الأمر مع ملا صدرا الشيرازي فهو في فلسفته المسماة الحكمة المتعالية يعد هضماً للفلسفة المشائية الأرسطية وللفلسفات الإشراقية ذات المنزع الصوفي كما تتجلى لدى الشيخ المقتول والشيخ الأكبر . وعلى ذلك يتتبع ايزوتسو مفهوم الوجود في تبلوراته المبكرة في الكتابات الفلسفية في الحضارة الإسلامية كما نجدها لدى ابن سينا ومن ثم لدى السبزواري حتى وصولها لمرحلة النضج لدى الملا صدرا ، وما يميز منهجية أيزوتسو ، هو أسلوبها الفلسفي المقارن ، حيث يعقد صلات بين أوجه التشابه بين الفلسفات الشرقية كما لدى البوذية والطاوية والكونفوشيوسية ونظيرتها الإسلامية . موضحاً سوء الفهم الذي تعرضت له كتابات ابن سينا حينما وضعته الكتابات التأريخية للفلسفة في عداد المنزع الماهوي. وفي خضم ذلك يبين لنا ببراعة ايزوتسو عن مفهوم الوجود لدى الفلاسفة المسلمين يحمل الكثير من المشتركات مع الفلاسفة الوجوديين الغربيين مثل سارتر وهايدجر ، على الرغم من اختلاف المباني الفكرية بينهما ، الا ان دراسة مقارنةً للمفهومين مع كلا المدرستين ، تعطينا تصورات أوضح حول نشوء وتطور المفهوم واماكن الالتقاء والافتراق بينهما. إن ايزوتسو يوضح أن الاسلوب الفلسفي المتبع في شرق العالم الاسلامي تبنى الأخذ بالكشف الصوفي ومايقدمه من حدوسات مع النظر العقلي الفلسفي مدمجاً مع بعضهما البعض ،وهو ما يتيح امكانية مجاوزة العقبات التي واجهت الفلسفة المشائية كما مثلها ابن رشد وابن سينا والفارابي وبين فلسفة الإيمان التي تريد حصر الحقيقة بالتصوف كما مثلها الغزالي .

** النسخة التي لدي توجد بها عدة صفحات (145-161) محذوفة طباعياً ، وتبديل لاماكن الصفحات ، في منتصف اللحظة التي كان ايزوتسو يشرح مفهوم الوجود كما درسه السبزواري في كتابه شرح المنظومه.

[Mohd Jamizal · Rating 5 out of 5]

reading this book make my life easier because it simplify the concept of Wujud as initially difficult for me to grasp. the intellectual are those who can make difficult concept easy to understand either by metaphor or examples in this space temporal world.

[Muhammad Hamdan · Rating 5 out of 5]

It is as Prof Syed Naquib Al-Attas said one of the best books on Islamic Metaphysics. I admire Prof Toshihiko Izutsu’s analytical lucidity in discussing a difficult topic as this.