Volume 12. December 2011 Transcendent Philosophy

grasped in its fullness. It ever recedes. Truth escapes all our searching. 
We can have a vision of it, rather a faint glimpse of it through the 
phenomena which are His symbols. 
 
Agnosticism and skepticisms of various orientations in the 
contemporary world have a point if understood as the declaration of 
impossibility of conceptually knowing the Reality, Transcendent 
Principle, the Ground of existence, the whole Truth, the Mystery. 
However these are often presented in cruder versions that deny men 
any knowledge of the supraphenomenal or the very existence of the 
sacred for which the Shaykh will have zero tolerance. 
 
  
Conclusion 
  
The discipline of philosophy of religion, is generally speaking, 
uncomfortable with the notion nof transcendence. It has attempted 
various ways of demystifying reality and conceptually approaching it 
and in the process has been committed to various forms of 
reductionisms. It is often said that following Nietzsche we can no 
longer talk unembarassingly of transcendence. The general tenor of 
modern thought is to either deny transcendence or reduce it to 
something that can be appropriated in received framework that has little 
space for traditional understanding of transcendence. But the fact 
remains that despite all adventures of rationalism the presence of 

Religious Studies and the Question of Transcendence 303 
mystery (to substitute less “ponderous” term for transcendence as Stace 
would suggest) in the world of manifestation can’t be written off. The 
world is ultimately a Mystery, a Mystery of Mysteries and no rational 
or scientific approach could finally and completely demystify it. The 
world being ultimately a mystery that resists being demystified by 
means of conceptual intellect is what transcendence implies as Stace 
has explained in his Time and Eternity. There is no humanely 
discoverable ultimate truth. All representations of the Real are 
provisional. Godhead/ Absolute/ Zat-uz-Zat is opaque, deep deep 
darkness, impenetrable, the absolutely inscrutable unknowable Other. 
Gnosis consists in knowing that God can’t be known as Abu Bakr is 
quoted time and again by Ibn Arabi. As the world is not-He and man 
ever a worshipper of his Lord or conditioned by his belief and nothing 
is ever repeated as God’s theophanies change ceaselessly imply that the 
world will never cease to be an object of wonder and fascination and 
Beauty never cease to be worshipped and act as an efficient net through 
which God catches most of his servants vas Plato also noted. God is 
ever glorified by every creature and exalted over whatever man can say 
about Him as Ibn Arabi keeps us reminding of the Quranic statements 
such as “Glory be to God the exalted.” This implies that the Real or 
Truth can’t be appropriated in absolute terms. Man must be content to 
have only relative knowledge of things or God. There are countless 
veils on the countenance of God which though continuously being 
lifted can’t be wholly lifted. Man can’t afford to behold the naked truth. 
The Real has infinite aspects and can be approached from infinite 
contexts and thus perspectives. Man must travel ceaselessly as Kitab-
al-Isfar attempts to argue. Ibn 'Arabî says in Risâlat al-Anwâr: "You 
should know that man has been on the journey ever since God brought 
him out of non-being into being.” The goal is not reached. For it is “the 
unspeakable, the impossible, the inconceivable, the unattainable.” The 
goal is only glimpsed, sensed, and then lost. Meaning or Truth is never 
grasped in its fullness. It ever recedes. Truth escapes all our searching. 
We can have a vision of it, rather a glimpse of it through the 
phenomena which are Its symbols. This follows from the doctrine of 
God as Infinite and All-Possibility. God is not an object that one could 
somehow ever encompass or possess or grasp. Man’s quest for the 
Absolute will have no full stop in all eternity. Life is perpetual 

304 Muhammad Maroof Shah 
becoming as God’s infinite riches are inexhaustible and the Beauty that 
never ceases unveiling its infinite faces never ceases to attract its 
seekers to move on and on. Artists, scientists, mystics, philosophers 
and lovers shall never be out of business. God is continuously 
experienced, ever afresh in all new experiences. Rationalization, 
familiarization, demystification and descaralization of the world that 
ultimately make it inhuman, alienating and absurd and disrespectful 
towards the environment can’t happen in the Akbarian perspective that 
sees the mysterious, sacred divine face in everything. Western 
philosophy, as Heidegger pointed out, is oblivious to the ground of 
being. It is not open to the sacred mystery of Being. It is not the 
philosopher but the poet who can show the track of the holy, to the 
sacred mystery of Being. Nothing in the world of known can express 
the Divine Darkness. All quests end in wonder. In the last analysis man 
knows nothing to its depth by means of senses and reason. Other modes 
of knowledge such as intellectual intuition give us another kind of 
knowledge that instead of making things comprehensible dissolves the 
knowing subject in the object preserving the ultimate mystery of things 
in the process. If to comprehend means to have discursive conceptual 
knowledge we comprehend nothing ultimately. All our explanations, 
analyses stop at a certain point. Things are as they are. There is 
something instead of nothing. Being or wajud  is in the last analysis a 
miracle or a scandal to reason. Why should there be a knowing subject 
and why should our universe be comprehensible are perhaps 
unanswerable. Man knows but little and this applies to everything from 
God to quarks. God is incomparable, transcendent. Symbols are all we 
know. God alone knows or is Knowledge. The knowledge of reality 
given to mystics and prophets is of a different order. God remains 
inscrutable and the sacred inapproachable. Man’s prerogative is to 
contemplate and dissolve in the mystery of being. Though being is 
aware of itself this awareness has no analyzable or knowable structure. 
We must ceaselessly move and act and desire. All our movements are 
because of love according to Ibn Arabi. Man loves and worships beauty 
without ever knowing why. Love drives everything to the Beauty that 
there is. Neither love nor beauty can be grasped or explained. This 
simply is the case. As Ibn Arabi would see it, man, by virtue of his 
existential state, is poor, absolutely poor in relation to the Merciful who 

Religious Studies and the Question of Transcendence 305 
bestows existence. Man worships by virtue of his very state of being a 
creature. We are here and there is no cure for it. But, more precisely, 
we are not. Only God is. Only the play of divine names is and man 
happens to be a locus of their action rather than some independent 
subject or agency. The cloak of mystery can’t be removed from the 
universe. All human knowledge is progressive unveiling of the ultimate 
impenetrability of the veil that disguises Reality. Essences are not 
discursively known. Existence is a mystery and its grandeur and 
sublimity defy our reason and its categories. Rereading of Kantian 
sublime by such writers as Derrida or Lyotard is based on increasingly 
felt inability of reason to contain the brutal power of imagination. We 
can’t conceptualize or represent in language the infinity which human 
beings do encounter. The highest station is that of bewilderment 
according to the Shaykh. All this implies that dogmatisms are 
unwarranted. Ibn Arabi, despite what his theological critics assert, 
maintained divine transcendence uncompromisingly. His emphasis on 
similarity (tashbih) that Sufism has been characteristically associated 
with never encroaches on the rights of transcendence of the Essence. It 
is God and not the name of God that religions seek. Exoteric theologies 
may not always distinguish between the Truth and the descriptions or 
representations of Truth. Nothing can capture the Reality in rational 
propositional framework. This means we can only know our inability to 
know God and this means humility in the face of the Great Mystery that 
God is. This vetoes all self righteous fundamentalist ideologies. Jaina 
doctrine of syadvada is a corollary of the fundamental mystery and 
transcendence of the First Principle, the Absolute. This rules out all 
totalistic or totalitarian claims. Ideological conflicts are based on one’s 
exclusive claim to have access to truth and denying one’s fallibility. 
Religions by relegating truth to transcendent realm and its access to 
transcendent intellect (which is in us but not ours) veto all quarrels 
about accessibility to it of any worldly ideology and self-centric person. 
Secular philosophies that require no moral purification on the part of 
the philosopher are barred from entering the doors of the great King or 
Truth. 
 
 
 

306 Muhammad Maroof Shah 
References 
 
Guenon, Rene, 2000 (1945), An Introduction to the Study of Hindu Doctrines, 
Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 
…………, 1953, Crisis of the Modern World, London:Luzac. 
…………, 1988, The Multiple States of Being, trans. Joscelyn Godwin, Larson 
Publications. 
Nasr, S. H., 1972, Living Sufism, London: George Allen & Unwin.  
Qaiser, Shahzad, 1990, Of Intellect and Reason: Writings in Metaphysics, Philosophy 
and Religion, Lahore: Institute of Islamic Culture. 
Qaisar, Shahzad, Iqbal and Khawja Ghulam Farid on Experiencing God, Iqbal 
Academy, Lahore 
Puligandla, R., 1997, Reality and Mysticism: Perspectives in the Upanishads, New 
Delhi: D.K. Printworld Ltd. New Delhi. 
 

Transcendent Philosophy © London Academy of Iranian Studies 
 
 
 
Relationship of Theoretical and Practical Rationality in 
the Philosophy of Kant and Mulla Sadra and Some of its 
Consequences 
 
Sima Mohammadpour Dehkordi 
Tehran Azad University of Research & Science, Tehran, Iran 
  
  
Abstract  
  
In the philosophy of Mulla Sadra and Kant, reasoning is the natural 
and existential right of the human being and reason is the best 
criterion for perception and evaluation of reality. Both philosophers 
have considered rationality and thought as the most fundamental 
characteristics of human; with this difference that the theoretical 
function of reason is regarded more in Sadraei’s philosophy and the 
practical and ethical function is more in Kant’s philosophy thus, 
Mulla Sadra pays attention to the sphere of “speculation and theory” 
and considers that the criterion of rationalism is for man to be a 
“knowing-agent”. On the other hand Kant pays attention to the sphere 
of “action and practice” and considers the criterion of rationalism to 
be an “ethical-agent” for man. One pays attention to the intellectual 
potential and man’s knowledge base -- that which man knows – and 
the other pays attention to the potential to act and be ethical – that 
which man wills for.  
 
Therefore,  
 
1- Because in Sadraei wisdom, reason finds its meaning in 
relationship with Active Intelligence, Sadraei rationality has a divine 
origin and “the existential dignity” of human is regarded. In Kant’s 
philosophy, the rationality has human origin based on autonomy of 
man and independence of practical reason. Thus, “legal dignity” of 
human is regarded. 

308 Sima Mohammadpour Dehkordi 
2- Because Mulla Sadra’s philosophy has shown its “knowledge” and 
Sadraei rationality regards more supernatural life of human far from 
troubles and their daily life. And Kant’s philosophy is like appeared 
“life” that manages practically the earthly life of humans in some 
societies.  
 
3- Rational training in Sadraei wisdom needs motives, guarantees and 
non-human and religious supervisions. In Kant’s philosophy, the 
conscience is invisible itself and it is the judge with human; however, 
it needs a kind of exalted guarantee.  
 
Keywords:Sadr-al-Din Shirazi(
Mulla Sadra)
,
 Kant , Rationality
, 
Transcendental Philosophy, 
Human Dignity
.   
  
 
Introduction 
 
According to the philosophical basis of Mulla Sadra
1
 and Kant 
reasoning is the natural and existential right of the human being. 
Reason is the supreme faculty of the soul and rational knowledge is the 
highest level of cognition. Reason is the best criterion for perception 
and evaluation of reality. In both the philosophies the most fundamental 
quality of the human being is the faculty of reasoning. Moreover, 
rationality is the most fundamental principle that assures the respect 
and dignity of the human being. In the current dissertation the 
difference between the rationality in the philosophy of Kant and Mulla 
Sadra would be researched and some of its consequences would be 
highlighted. 
 
The Concept of Reason and Rationality in the Philosophy 
of Kant and Mulla Sadra 
 
‘Reason’, in its all-inclusive meaning, has been defined as the faculty 
of inference and argument. This Arabic term is the translation of the 
Greek word ‘Nous’.  According to the definition of Aristotle reason is a 
non-material substance, which is conscious and is the source of 
movement and immortality sempiternity. He holds reason and thought 

Relationship of Theoretical and Practical Rationality in the Philosophy of Kant and Mulla Sadra… 309 
as the real perfection, the goal of goals and the best thing. He considers 
the sagacity and wisdom as a virtue of reason. 
 
‘Reason’ has various meanings in the transcendental philosophy of 
Mulla Sadra and the philosophy of Kant. Moreover, it has two facets – 
the theoretical and the practical. According to the views of Mulla Sadra 
our intention from reason in this article is the reason which is identified 
as a part of the faculties of man. This reason sometimes has an 
inferential, sometimes an intuitive and sometimes a practical meaning 
( Mulla Sadra, 1368, Vol. 3: 418-420). The meaning of reason in Kant’s 
view, which has been considered in this article, is its most general 
meaning, which is the origin of all the elements and of the priori 
principles and is considered the agent of knowledge. It also has two 
facets – the theoretical and the practical. 
 
By circumscribing the limitations of theoretical reason, Kant has paid 
considerable attention to the practical reason common amongst human 
beings( Kant, 1996:59). However, in both the opinions utilizing reason 
is the natural right of human beings. And it is the best criterion of 
knowledge and perception of reality. Kant holds reason as the most 
effective tool and the only touchstone for all kinds of reality( Ibid: 22). 
Similarly Mulla Sadra also holds reasoning as the highest form of 
perception ( Mulla Sadra, 1368, vol. 3: 366). With this difference that 
in the Sadrian philosophy the theoretical function and in Kant’s 
philsophy its practical function is more important.  Thus, the centre of 
gravity of the Sadrian philosophy is “theoretical” reason and the centre 
of gravity of the Kantian philosophy – in the field of anthropology – is 
“practical” reason, which is the reason equipped with ‘will’ or in other 
words is ‘rational will’.  
 
In the transcendental philosophy of Mulla Sadra, rationalism and 
thinking are identified as the most fundamental quality of human 
beings. Thinking is one of the most fundamental pivots of Islamic 
philosophy. We see the rationalistic expressions in the philosophers like 
Farabi and Avicenna( Ibn Sina). Even Islamic gnosis( Irfan-e-
Islami)has been categorized as the zenith of rationalism (Dinani, 1383, 
vol. 1: 24) . Moreover, the blessing of reason has been identified as the 

310 Sima Mohammadpour Dehkordi 
cause for the veneration of man in the Divine Scripture (Tabatabai, 
1347 Hijra, vol. 13: 151). 
 
Kant as well identifies the human ability of thinking as the most 
fundamental quality of the nature of this being. He holds reason to have 
an intrinsic and objective value. He believes that this quality is specific 
to the human being. Kant also believes that rationalism is the only 
quality that is specific to the most perfect link – man from amongst the 
chain of natural existents (Kant, 1384: 11).  
 
However, it must be noted that explaining the human being as a rational 
being by Kant with the specific meaning of “self-awareness” and 
“wisdom” is particular to the modern times and has been defined with  
qualities like “self-authority(or autonomy)” and the “autonomy of the 
human will”. This is an autonomy that has been identified as the 
fundamental principle of ethics (Kant, 1996: 89). 
 
It is important to point out that in spite of the fact that both the 
philosophers consider reason and wisdom as the intrinsic qualities of 
the human being, that is man has the ability and the potential to be 
wise, they look at the problem from two different viewpoints. Thus, 
Mulla Sadra pays attention to the sphere of “speculation and theory” 
and considers that the criterion of rationalism is for man to be a 
“knowing-agent”. On the other hand Kant pays attention to the sphere 
of “action and practice” and considers the criterion of rationalism to be 
an “ethical-agent” for man. One pays attention to the intellectual 
potential and man’s knowledge base -- that which man knows – and the 
other pays attention to the potential to act and be ethical – that which 
man wills for. We shall analyze this difference in continuation of this 
article. 
 
The Relationship between Theory and Practice in the Two Views 
 
We have said that both Mulla Sadra and Kant have identified rationality 
as the most fundamental quality of human beings. A question arises 
here:  The gamut of reason and rationalism in the opinion of the two 

Relationship of Theoretical and Practical Rationality in the Philosophy of Kant and Mulla Sadra… 311 
thinkers is related to which of the two spheres -- theory or practice? 
And what would be the results of this consideration? 
 
Both Mulla Sadra and Kant have accepted the division of reason into 
theoretical and practical. But they differ in the area of application of 
each one of them. Paying attention to the philosophical and Gnostic 
basis of Mulla Sadra like: ontological primacy of being ( Asalat al 
Wujud), unity of subject and object (Ittehad Aqil o Maaqool), 
abstraction of imagination (Tajarrud e Khayal), contingency of poverty 
( Imkan Faqri), intensified substantial motion ( Harakat Ishtidadi 
Johari), corporeal origination and spiritual continuity of man 
(  Jismaniat al-Hudooth wa Rohaniat al-Baqa) and especially the 
doctrine of the hypostatic unity of being ( Asl Wahdat Shakhsi Wujud), 
points out that: 
 
1) “Reason” and “knowledge” both belong to the category of existence. 
All the laws that apply to existence apply to these two as well. 
Therefore, not only is reason an existing entity (not only a mental 
faculty) but also knowledge is from the category of existence (not only 
a mental quality). Thus, knowledge and perception in this thought is an 
existential journey and movement that is both abstract and has a 
spiritual value ( Mulla Sadra, 1368, vol. 3: 291-299). 
 
2) Man from one end has roots in the physical world and from the other 
is related to the metaphysics. Moreover, according to the doctrine of the 
contingency of poverty (Imkan Faqri), man has no identity other than 
an existential dependence on the Exalted Knower. Thus, the rational 
dignity of man and the spiritual grandeur of knowledge is achieved 
through the connection and unity of “individual intellect” (Aql Juz’i) 
with the “Sacred Intellect” (Aql Qudsi). As a consequence knowledge is 
an existential journey and movement that is attained by man with the 
help of the Sacred Intellect (Ibid: 384). 
 
3) According to Mulla Sadra the aim of philosophy is the perfection of 
man in terms of “thought” and “action”. He holds that the essence of 
theoretical and practical reason is one and the same (Mulla Sadra, 1382: 
292-293) and also considers that theoretical wisdom is concomitant 

312 Sima Mohammadpour Dehkordi 
with practical wisdom. The first few sentences of Asfar  (The Four 
Journeys) point at the complete attention of Mulla Sadra on the 
intellectual and practical potential of human beings. This is because he 
holds “wisdom”(hikmat) as perfection for man. It is the source of 
“existential” honor and it increases the worth of man. Moreover, from 
another angle he identifies the final end of philosophy as resembling 
God -- that is becoming a perfect manifestation, a supreme sign and a 
mirror of God ( Mulla Sadra, 1368, vol 1: 20). 
 
4) Although Mulla Sadra believes that without “speculation or theory”, 
“action or practice” on its own cannot achieve much and without 
action, speculation would be unfruitful but, since “knowledge” for him 
is a graded reality (it possesses many levels), at the initial level 
speculation is the antecedent for action and at the higher level action is 
the antecedent for speculation. However, in any case the role of 
practical reason is to serve theoretical reason. It is under the shadow of 
theoretical reason that real humanity is achieved. The perfection of 
rationalism is when man becomes the world of intellect (Alam Aqli) 
that resembles the world of actuality (Alam Aini). The secret of this 
resemblance and identity in the words of Mulla Sadra himself is the 
spiritual unity of man with the realities of existence (Mulla Sadra, 
1375: 98). Hakim  (philosopher) is someone who reaches this stage. 
Thus the worth of reason depends on its speculative work. Theoretical 
reason governs the entire life and practical reason is meaningful only