Abstract

This paper is a critique of the article of "bodily ressurection in the Transcendent Philosophy" by Muhammad Reza Hakimi, and, in fact, a rejection of the separatist approach attributed to Mull a Sadra.The separation of the two philosophical and revelatory approaches basically originates from lack of deliberation on the works of this great philosopher. The "Transcendent Philosophy" is a school of philosophy based on revelation, rather than the transition from philosophy to revelation, as separatists emphasize.By bodily resurrection Mulla Sadra does not mean the elemental resurrection in which theologians believe and which originates from materalistic dogmatism concrning the Hereafter and the belief in the materiality of souls.Rather, according to the Divine Law, too, resurrection does not necessarily mean just elemental resurrection.As a result, imposing such a meaning as what the Divine Law dictates to Mulla Sadra's bodily resurrection is naturally wrong. What religion necessitates is the principle of bodily resurrection, not the quality of the other worldly object, especially considering the fact that the world and the Hereafter are substantiaaly different from each other in terms of their existential modes and aspects.In Mulla Sadea's view, the Hereafter is the world of creation, and the criteria for the individuation and identity of the worldly and otherworldly bodies and determining the objectivity of their component parts, is the soul. There fore, the other worldly body comes into being through the creation of the soul or the Giver of forms in the world of creation in a more pleasant and delicate way, and without those natural and worldly determinations.