Happier Abroad Forum Community

https://sayyidamiruddin.com/women/

https://sayyidamiruddin.com/monism/
here he makes some arguments for islamic neoplatonism and the insufficiency of typical dualistic theism





This makes alot of sense to me.

https://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ir/tt/tt-ch5.htm

https://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ir/tt/

willymonfrete wrote: ↑

February 4th, 2023, 9:03 am

here he makes some arguments for islamic neoplatonism and the insufficiency of typical dualistic theism

That was a really good video. Despite its title, it has little to do with Islam and everything to do with the Neoplatonic conception of the Supreme Being.

The presentation aptly covers the main philosophical arguments for the existence of a Supreme Being including the Kalam cosmological argument, the nomological argument and divine conceptualist argument.

Is the Universal Soul of the Neoplatonist model the same as the concept of Purusha in Vedanta?

Lucas88 wrote: ↑

February 4th, 2023, 4:36 pm

willymonfrete wrote: ↑

February 4th, 2023, 9:03 am

here he makes some arguments for islamic neoplatonism and the insufficiency of typical dualistic theism

That was a really good video. Despite its title, it has little to do with Islam and everything to do with the Neoplatonic conception of the Supreme Being.

The presentation aptly covers the main philosophical arguments for the existence of a Supreme Being including the Kalam cosmological argument, the nomological argument and divine conceptualist argument.

Is the Universal Soul of the Neoplatonist model the same as the concept of Purusha in Vedanta?

Hey brother,it is a legitimate sunni islamic position also,namely through the akbarian theological school of ibn arabi the andalusian Sufi saint,which was the most common position in india and the ottoman empire,aswell I think in some sufi moroccan circles,aswell of course in islamic spain(al-andalus).

Islam is very diverse,in sunnism you have the athari-wahabbi anthropomorphic God,the ashari-maturidi God,and the akbari conception of Allah as divinely simple,and utterly transcendant.

No,Akbarian theology is not 'vedanta',we are not Allah,nor is the creation Allah,we are rather mirror like reflections in attributes of Allah,in the phenomonal world,the one identical attribute of allah are many as variegated relations,and thus the 99 names are reflected as many in creation.

what this means is that The creation is a limited reflection of Allah and has a reflected divine character,but not being identical with his perfect essence,because his essence cannot be divided into many or have aradh(contigencies,accidental qualities)etc

Vedanta believes we are 'God'in essence,being fooled by 'maya'to experience duality.



Allah in akbarian sufism has no internal or external parts,no quiddity,nor is He a personalist entity,he is unlimited by internal or external restrictions and boundaries,thus he is infinite in a qualititative sense but not a quantitative one,and he is utterly simple,contemplating only himself perfectly,without change,but he creates eternally the first intellect or the Muhammadian light.or the 'pen'as said by some saheeh ahadeeth which creates the imperfect demiurge (the tablet)which most wahabbi or ignorant simple muslims think is a anthropomorphic allah that lives 'fi-samaa alaal a3rsh'or in the sky on a literal throne,when allah is spaceless,bodyless and timeless,all of these things of course being created things and limitations.

akbarian and ismaili theology believes the cosmos and creation ARE NOT ETERNAL.

As for Neoplatonism,I'm not sure but I think plotinus believed in pantheistic monism,that we are essentially the same as the Monad,which is not the position in any authentic islamic traditions.one would have to explain how a necessary absolute self-sufficient unity can be divided,and experience aradh(accidents,dependencies,contigencies)or how it's necessary perfect nature can be subject to limitations and finitehood.

sufism and the ikhwaan al-safaa or brethren of purity did not 'copy'neoplatonism,rather thru shuhuud or spiritual experiences like fanaa fillah they found that neoplatonism had a similar language as their experiences and a logical basis to put this in,but it's based on quran and sunnah and sufi experience.

Most religions have a similar basis,thru various samadhis or shuhuud,but sufis believe islam corrected the mistakes of some systems who's prophetic messages were somewhat distorted,like hinduism and the vedas which once were likely true religions,but then the vedas got corrupted(1) and various manmade movements sprung up.same for the prophet dhulkifl or buddha(peace be upon him),he in the nikayas taught the universal spirit as the sole refuge,but then the sectarians distorted his message,theoria apophasis on youtube has alot of videos on that,he's a Pali linguist and buddhist scholar,he's also a self-described vedantin and neoplatonist.

1.https://vedkabhed.com/index.php/2014/01 ... the-vedas/

If you are saying that 2 or more beings are necessary beings then you have limited both of them since each depends on the other and this goes against the characteristic of God as an unlimited and absolutely independent being. if there would be two "necessary beings", each one of them is incapable without the other.

This further makes each one of them incapable as "necessary being".

I find this quote from ibn rushd,ibn arabi's teacher interesting:

That this primary disjunction is faulty, as Ghazali asserts, is not true. He says that the meaning of ‘necessary existent’ is ‘that which has no cause’, and that the statement ‘that what has no cause, has no cause, either because of its own essence or through another cause’, and similarly the statement ‘that the necessary existent is a necessary existent, either because of its own essence or through another cause’ are meaningless statements. But this is by no means the case. For the meaning of this disjunction is only whether the necessary existent is such, because of a nature which characterizes it, in so far as it is numerically one, ‘ or because of a nature which it has in common with others-for instance, when we say that Amr is a man because lie is Amr, or because of a nature he has in common with Khalid. If he is a man because he is Amr, then humanity does not exist in anyone else, and if he is a man because of a general nature, then he is composed of two natures, a general one and a special one and the compound is an effect; but the necessary existent has no cause, and therefore the necessary existent is unique. And when Avicenna’s statement is given in this form it is true.

and

If there were two necessary existents, the difference between them must consist either in a numerical difference, or in a specific difference, or in rank. In the first case they would agree in species; in the second case in genus, and in both cases the necessary existent would have to be composite. In the third case, however, the necessary existent will have to be one, and will be the cause of all the separate existents. And this is the truth, and the necessary existent is therefore one. For there is only this tripartite disjunction, two members of which are false, and therefore the third case, which necessitates the absolute uniqueness of the necessary existent, is the true one. ‘

Very interesting!

it is true that if there would be 2 unconditioned beings,that they would be composed of parts because their differentiating factor is a part plus their shared essences,and thus such a being would not be necessary or unconditioned because it would have parts,and would be compound.