167- The Questions by Mr. Maleki Moayyeri, the Respectable Scientist and Chemist at Azerbaijan Textile Co
In the Name of the Sublime Allah
There have been many discussions regarding "the existence" and its different forms, characteristics, and distinctions. However, as Haji Sabzevari denoted: "its mental concept is among the most well-known notions, while its verity is among the most concealed." I believe that this issue has not been thoroughly investigated yet. Scrutinizing this ambiguous notion is essential to prove the entity that made this universe does exist and to understand the relationship between the cause and the reason. If we do not have concrete proofs, it will produce many more problems later and lose all its meanings and principles.
What is evident is that the first thing human beings perceive is existence. In other words, humankind will reach a resolute understanding after searching the world and its surroundings. At this state, what he experiences is existence. If humankind fails to experience this "existence," he will have a negative perspective and believe in nothingness.
So, in this fashion, the meaning of existence is realization, and the meaning of non-existence is non-realization.
Now we turn back to investigate the universe. We can objectively observe the universe, and we need no reasoning for that. However, after further investigation and pondering, one realizes that there are many hidden distinctive secrets and varieties in the universe's essence, even though simple on the surface. Here is where we seek the causes for the distinctions. Scholars conclude the universe's circumstantiality and tangentiality from the various distinctions called essence or the limitations of existence.
Furthermore, they assume that the universe came into existence at some point. However, we should know that such an assumption is valid only when there is a distinction between existence and non-existence. It is only accurate when we consider the essence as a distinct entity, while the essence themselves are norms and attributes of existence, not something distinct. Therefore, the universe will be nothing but existence and its norms.
Another basis for circumstantiality and tangentiality of the universe arises from the changes in it. Like before, this hypothesis can be correct when the universe is considered distinct from its changes and realize a factor for changes. When we consider the universe (or nature) in constant movement (just as Mulla Sadra denotes connecting the variables to constants and connecting the "created" to the "uncreated.") This notion is the object of the continually changing nature and the fact that it conforms with the novel atomic theorems. Now that we know "change" was the essence of the universe, we cannot conclude anything beyond that.
Furthermore, because the essence is an entity of truth and realities, the universe's truth and realities do not need any proof. The differences between realities and changes are also due to the essence of existence. Therefore, we must show real proof when encountering and discussing with atheists and materialists.
Moreover, in the fourth stage of the four trips, Mulla Sadra objects to the partition of existence and confirms an existence that is supreme and expanded, absolute, even from the boundaries of absoluteness (the entity of God); with an existence that is a constant, external and apparent being. An existence of infinite expansion was not created and has always been the creator of all events and objects.
Of course, when we acknowledge such expansive existence that exists by itself and objects are parts of it, how can we question the perfect expansion of the concealed of all those concealed? Even if we do not consider all these changes from the essence or reactions to many causes, we still need to answer the doubts of dualists (people who believe two origins) and believers of multiple gods and the ten-fold minds, considering that they are independent.
Besides, if we see the universe as waves and the sea, or shadow and causes of shadow, or the reflection and the reflector, then all religions and beliefs will lose their meaning, and we will not have a firm answer to reject destiny.
Moreover, of course, answers for other questions such as the infeasibility of multiple absolute causes for one action and the decline of true scientific stages and other mischiefs require further comprehensive explanations.
In short, the problems provided here need to be clarified through discussion. In conclusion, if we move from Unity to multiplicity, all religions will lose their meaning. Furthermore, if we are to move past the multiplicity, even if we move past the independent intangible existences, we will never find our way past the natural Unity.