Abstract

In this part, the author refers to two philosophers who claimed to have demonstratively resolved the dispute over origination and eternity :1. Mir Damad, relying on the theory of atemporal origination.2. Mulla Sadra, relying on the existential analysis of effusion and the theory of trans-substantial motion.Mulla Sadra divides the discussion into two different domains as follows:1. With regard to the first domain which is the sphere of the immaterials and pure inventions, he believes in the eternity and durability of effusion and the effused.2. With regard to the second domain which is the sphere of the material and the corporeal, he believes in the eternity of effusion and origination of the effused.In the discussion of effusion, after referring to five premises, Mulla Sadra concludes that there is a fundamental difference between the immaterials and the materials with regard to origination and eternity. Though "the durability of effusion" is proved in both immaterial and material beings, in the former it results in "the durability of the effused" while it is not the case in the latter, since time is a property essential to corporiality and gradation is a part of its ipseity.As a result, on the basis of trans-substantial motion, no existent is immortal in the material world, let alone be eternal.Thus, Sadra considers the effused as being originated, that is, as being in perpetual origination and decline. In order to clarify his point, he brings many illustrative examples and assimilates the dependance of this world on God to that of speech to the speaker, and that of light to the sun. If the sun stops shinning for even a single moment, darkness will spread everywhere. The sunlight only indicates the appearence of the sun and is not an equivalent to it; likewise, the world is not a part of Him and is purely a sign of the manifestation of the Truth or His very Effusion.