تحلیل و بررسی تفسیر ملاصدرا از روایت إعرفوا الله بالله
آرشیو
چکیده
متون دینی ضمن بیان طرق متعدد شناخت خداوند، راهی با مضمون «معرفةالله بالله» پیش روی انسان ها قرار داده است؛ برای نمونه از امیرالمؤمنین(علیه السّلام) نقل شده است: اعْرِفُوا اللهَ بِاللهِ.... ملاصدرا به شرح و تفسیر این روایت پرداخته است و برای توضیح این روایت سه تفسیر ذکر می کند که یکی بر اساس فناء فی الله است و دیگری بر اساس تنزیه و تقدیس حق تعالی و تفسیر سوم نیز بر اساس اشراقات الهی به قلب مؤمن است. تفسیر اول علاوه بر اینکه بیانگر معارفی عمیق است، با ظاهر روایت نیز سازگاری بیشتری دارد، برخلاف دیدگاه دوم و سوم که فارغ از اینکه شرحی بر این روایت باشند، بیانگر مطلبی صحیح و دقیق هستند، اما نمی توان آنها را شرح و تفسیری مناسب برای این روایت به حساب آورد.این پژوهش در صدد است تا با روش تحلیلی- توصیفی به تحلیل و بررسی دیدگاه ملاصدرا در این زمینه بپردازد. آنچه پرداختن به این مسأله را مهم می کند این است که؛ اولا دیدگاه ملاصدرا با این تفصیل در جای دیگر نیامده و کسانی که اشاره ای به دیدگاه او کرده اند تنها یکی از این سه دیدگاه را آورده اند که به نظر نگارنده از آن هم تبیینی نادرست شده است و ثانیا این بررسی، جایگاه فلسفه را در تبیین و تفسیر متون دینی روشن تر می کند.Analysis and analysis of Mulla Sadra's interpretation of the narration of I'rafwa Allah Ballah
Religious texts, while describing various ways of knowing God, have put before humans a way with the theme of "Knowledge of God"; For example, it has been narrated from Amir al-Mu'minin (peace be upon him): ``Arifwa Allah bi Allah.... Mulla Sadra has explained and interpreted this narration and to explain this narration, he mentions three interpretations, one of which is based on the annihilation of God and the other based on Tanziyyah and The sanctification of Almighty God and the third interpretation are also based on divine revelations to the heart of the believer. In addition to expressing deep knowledge, the first interpretation is more compatible with the appearance of the narration, unlike the second and third views, which, regardless of whether they are an explanation of this narration, express a correct and accurate content, but they cannot be a suitable explanation and interpretation for this Narration is taken into account.This research aims to analyze and investigate Mulla Sadra's point of view in this field with analytical-descriptive method. What makes addressing this issue important is that; First of all, Mulla Sadra's view is not mentioned in this detail anywhere else, and those who have mentioned his view have only given one of these three views, which the author thinks has been wrongly explained, and secondly, this review examines the place of philosophy in the explanation and interpretation of texts. It makes religion clearer. Extended Abstract Introduction Undoubtedly, one of the universal and constant concerns of mankind is to know God and His attributes. There are many ways to know God; Including; 1. Innate knowledge of God that is unacquired and semi-conscious within every human being; 2. Narrative theology based on narrative data; 3. Intuitive qstheology that is specific to a certain number of perfected people; 4. Rational theology that is obtained through rational reasoning. Religious texts, while describing various ways of knowing God, have presented a way with the content of "Knowing God by God" before the researchers; For example, Amir al-Mu'minin Ali (peace be upon him) has been quoted as saying: Know Allah by Allah... Now the question is, how is this content interpreted and under which of the four types of knowing God is it placed? This research aims to analyze and investigate Mulla Sadra's point of view in this field with analytical-descriptive method. What makes addressing this issue important is that; First of all, Mulla Sadra's view is not mentioned in this detail anywhere else, and those who have mentioned his view have given only one of these three views; Secondly, the same point of view they have expressed can be analyzed in a different way and according to its other words. And thirdly, this review makes the position of philosophy clearer in the explanation and interpretation of religious texts. Findings Mulla Sadra says in the interpretation of this narration: Almighty God is not perceived by anyone other than himself; Because perception is either acquired or presential; And both of these perceptions about God are impossible; Because perception is general and can be shared with others; And now that, firstly, the truth of existence is neither general term nor particular that has similitudes, and secondly, basically, the reality of existence cannot be realized in the mind; For this reason, knowledge of existential identities is possible only through the presence of that existential identity to the perceiver. On the other hand, the existential matter is only present for itself or its cause; Therefore, God Subhan, who is not the effect of any cause and is the pure existence and necessary existent, cannot be known for anything other than Himself, and the only way to know God Subhan is to know God by God. He offers three interpretations to know God by God; The first interpretation is through annihilation in God (Fana-fi-Allah) and intuition and explicit mysticism, which is exclusive to divine mystics and is not accessible to anyone except truthfuls (Siddiquin). That is, only those can achieve this knowledge that the hereafter has appeared on their essence and have been freed from the bondage of the soul to this material body and naturalization. As long as the identity of the servant remains, it is still under the veil of his egoism and nature. For this reason, it is not possible for him to achieve complete realization and even if he has reached the status of immateriality, he will still not meet and see the complete vision. As long as the identity of the servant remains, it is still trapped under in his egoism and nature. For this reason, it is not possible for him to achieve complete arriving and even if he has reached the status of immateriality, he will still not meet and see the complete vision. But if the servant becomes a mortal from his own nature and the walls of his egoism collapse and he becomes immersed in the truth (reality) and disappears from everything, even himself and his absorption and intuition, in this case the true knowledge of God is achieved for him and he knows God by God. This is the position of the truthfuls (Siddiquin). The second interpretation is based on the divine transcendence and sanctification of the almighty God; Non-truthfuls, in terms of the fact that their identity still remains and they have not reached the state of annihilation in God, even if they have reached the state of immateriality and have found the ability to see God, there are still a bit of egoism and independence in them. For this reason, they only see God from their own perspective; It means that he is connected to the truth to the extent of his ability and he gets an understanding of the truth; For this reason, he still needs to “negation” so that he can see the essence of God free from his own defects and limitations. This is the truth of divine transcendence in the same similitude or the dignity between similitude and divine transcendence. This statement can be a continuation of the first statement, but since Mulla Sadra has written it as Marafahullah-Bellah (knowing God by God), it is considered a separate interpretation. But the third interpretation is based on divine revelations to the believer's heart; It means that the servant reaches the levels where God makes himself known to him. In this interpretation, the knowledge of God is the action of God and divine illumination, and the mystic provides only the ground and equipment for this illumination. In other words, a mystic with heavy scientific and proof work as well as spiritual struggle that he performs reaches the levels that his soul is ready to receive high levels of knowledge and that God Subhan makes himself known to him in an intuitive way. Conclusion The second and third interpretations, although they carry a lot of knowledge, but due to the considerations in them, they cannot be a suitable interpretation for this narration. But the first interpretation, in addition to expressing deep knowledge, is also more compatible with the appearance of the narrative; Although this statement also needs to be completed; That is, he considers this type of knowledge to be acquired, while the right is that this knowledge is inside every human being, but it is neglected and This neglectoon should only be removed from it.
تبلیغات
