lbn Sina and Mysticism
S. Inati, translator. Ibn Sina and Mysticism: Remarks and Admonitions (Al-Isharat wa al-Tanbihat), Part Four. London and New York: Kegan Paul International, 1996, pp. 114. The book is an Fhglish translation and analysis of the fourth part of Ibn Sina’s Al-Isharat wa al-Tanbihat. This book “announce...
Guardado en:
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
International Institute of Islamic Thought
1998
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/0eaff0188a6a456584b5a40b6d628b52 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | S. Inati, translator. Ibn Sina and Mysticism: Remarks and Admonitions
(Al-Isharat wa al-Tanbihat), Part Four. London and New York: Kegan
Paul International, 1996, pp. 114. The book is an Fhglish translation and
analysis of the fourth part of Ibn Sina’s Al-Isharat wa al-Tanbihat.
This book “announces” a contribution to a specific aspect of Ibn Sina’s
thought. Its main focus is the fourth part of his Al-Isharat wa al-Tanbihat
(Remarks and Admonitions), which deals in a systematic manner with
Islamic Sufism (mysticism), its different modifcations, and the kind of
ternpod and transcendental experience that the soul undergoes in its
journey back to its origin. Dr. S. Inati’s translation is the first into English
of this part of the Isharat.’ It includes Ibn Sina’s dissertation in which he
employs a form of descriptive psychology and scant aspects of his metaphysical
system, as a focal point, to explain the drama of mystical life,
its actualities, horizons, and pretensions. The Archimedean point of the
Isharat is the experience of the Sufi (mystic) described in a crisp, vivid,
and resonant Arabic. There is an excited, dynamic, and luminous simplicity
in his style with sparse metaphors and practically no symbols or
enigmas to hinder a direct comprehension of the themes discussed therein.
Dr. Inati’s position on the Isharat is in harmony with the popularly
held beliep that it is entirely a symbolic composition (pp. 2-3) which
stands for or represents his othewise clear naturalistic doctrine? I disagree
and shall defend this position later. The best part of this work is
directly communicated, employing his conceptual categories as a device
to illuminate the process of mystical gnosis. He must have believed that
an appeal to his rational determinations from his cosmology and theory
of the soul would provide models or “ideated structures” that enhance a
better understanding of mysticism by himself and by his competent der.
The Shaykh’s contribution in Isharut lies in his methd of description
and inteptation and not in major novel themes about mysticism; the ...
|
|---|