Sadrian Metaphysics

Essence is the answer to the question 'what is it?' and Existence is the answer to the question 'Is it?'. Now according to the philosophers existence is a univocal [mushtarek-e-ma'nawi] reality as opposed to being equivocal [mushtarek-e-lafzi]. A term  is said to be univocally applied if it is predicable to different subjects with the same meaning, and it is said to be equivocally applied when it is predicated to different subjects in different meanings. So for instance if the predication of existence to God yields a meaning distinct from its predication to 'the world' so we would say that existence is equivocal, but if existence is assumed to be equivocal and we know that existence is synonymous with reality [haqiqa] and thingness [shaiyi'at] so its predication in relation to 'the world' would mean reality but when predicated in relation to God it would mean something other than what is denoted by reality, and the other [ghayr] of existence is n

The philosophers describe God as a transcendental being, an immaterial reality, an entity that lies beyond the confines of both time and space, and is therefore neither temporal nor spatial, since time is the means of measuring motion, and motion is an accident of matter which means that time also is an accident of matter, therefore were God to be something temporal existing within time, so he would also have been something material, composite and changeable because the very  conception of time is inextricably wedded to the notions of motion and consequently matter. But since God being the cause of matter and all things material, cannot itself be matter or material, therefore He cannot be something temporal as well. Therefore in relation to God there is no time since he does not exist in time, on the contrary it is the enigmatic reality of time that exists within the Divine, encompassed and enveloped by His all-embracing Mercy. Hence for God there is no past and neither any future,

If an essence exists so it self-evidently cannot be impossible in essence because had it been essentially-impossible for it to exist so it could never have existed in the first place, therefore it must either be Necessary or Contingent; now if it is Necessary so this establishes the above assertion, but if it is contingent then it would ultimately lead to a Necessary Being since both circular-causation and infinite regress are impossible. Circular Causation implies that an existent becomes the cause of its cause or in other words that an existent causes its own cause and thereby necessitates its own existence, for instance if 'A' causes 'B' that in turn causes 'A', so by causing 'A', 'B' is actually acting as the cause of its own existence since 'A' is assumed to be the cause of 'B', and by doing so 'B' is actually necessitating its own existence or causing itself by itself, which is impossible since nothing can be the cau

" What may cause a problem in this connection is the [question of ] potency in the sense of power . For it is thought that it exists only for those who have the prerogative ? of acting and the prerogative of not acting . If [potency is attributed] to one who is given only to act,' then they do no t perceive that he has power . This, however, is not true . For [this is only true] if this thing that only acts, acts without wishing or willing, in which case he would have neither power nor potency in this sense . If, however , he acts through will and choice, except that he is perpetually willing a d does not undergo change, then, [regardless of whether] his will constitutes an existence which is coincidental or [one] whose change is impos - sible in an essential manner,' he acts with power . This is because the definition of power with which these people prefer to define it is present here . This is because [this definition] would be true for the [agent] to act whe

This is from a part of the Imam’s commentary on the 75th sura of the Qur’an, verses 5-6, which read: "But man desires to defile what lies before him (75:5); asking ‘when is the Day of   Resurrection?'(75:6) From  Tafsīr  al-Kabīr , ed. S. ͑Imrān (Cairo, Dār al-ḥadīth: 2012, vol. 15) 526-527: […]. Know that a denial of the Resurrection is sometimes born of doubt ( shubha ) and sometimes of passion ( shahwa ). As for what is from doubt, it is that which God relates by His statement “Does man suppose that We shall not gather his bones?” [Qur’ān 75:3]. The full statement ( taqrīr ) of [the doubt] is as follows: the human being is this body. When he dies, the parts of the body separate, and then those parts mix with all the rest of the parts of the earth, and [end up] scattered all over the whole world. And their differentiation from each other after that is impossible. Hence, the Resurrection is impossible. Know that this doubt can be eliminated in two ways. The first [