بازخوانی ناسازگاری کاربست وجود رابط با خوانش توحیدی از هستی در دیدگاه آقاعلی مدرس

Abstract
The ontological principles of divine and transcendental wisdom are the basis of monotheistic knowledge. One of these principles is the division of existence into independent and dependent existences. In transcendental wisdom, the dependent existence is divided into copulative and inhering existence. Although the inhering existence depends on the independent existence, there is a distinction between them, and with such a view, the individual unity of being cannot be achieved. In scientific journals, similar articles have considered Hakim to be opposed to the individual unity of being. The present study intends to critically review the published article entitled "A Comparison of the views of Hakim Modarres Zenozi and Lady Amin on the Unity of Essence" (Ahlesarmadi & Izadi, 2013) in order to investigate the claim of Hakim’s confusion between the copulative and inhering existence leading to the existence of dualism. They believe the origin of this accusation is known in the interpretation that Aqa Ali erred for the copulative existence and experienced dualism. Because of dualism, he is a dualist who relates causality to the elaboration principle. Not only has this view not been successful, but it has also been in conflict. While the explanation of Aqa Ali Modarres about the individual unity of being such as introducing a copulative made existence as a pure connection to the creator, the introduction of copulative existence as a letter existence, the praiseworthy and detailed efforts of Hakim in the expression of unity in diversity and diversity in unity, returning causality to the elaboration principle, explaining the relationship between evident and manifested aspects, and other similar teachings all show that Hakim thinks in pure unity and he is acquitted of the charges. The mentioned article seeks to address the issue of confusion between the copulative and inhering existence to prove the accusation of Hakim's opposition to the individual unity of being. But, the article has turned to accusation both in terms of extracting and gathering opinions and in terms of inferring and judging. Fragmentation of expressions and showing paradoxical the coherent and transcendent approaches of Hakim has also been a tool for this purpose. Referring to explicit statements and strong positions of Hakim shows that the article did not understand the basis of Hakim’s thoughts and the instauration of individual unity of being and also did not present a just judgment.