![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This paper analyses the concept of the Imagination of Henry Corbin (1903–1978) in relation to Daisetsu T. Suzuki (1870–1966). Besides being a renowned orientalist and scholar of Islamic thought, Corbin was a philosopher par excellence whose original thought deserves to be studied. So, I present this paper as a contribution to the evaluation of Corbin as a philosopher. In doing so, I shall shed light upon the philosophical affinity between Corbin and Suzuki, which has thus far rarely been discussed in depth. Their ideas, in fact, resonate with each other—or Corbin is sympathetic to Suzuki—at a deep level, especially on the argument of Imagination, through Suwedenborgian thought, into whom both channel their interests. An exploration of this relationship of influence with Suzuki shall make a great contribution to a better understanding of Corbin’s own concept of Imagination, which could shake up our taken-for-granted idea of “imagination.”
Notes
1 E.g. Hillman Citation1975; Avens Citation1980. Apart from Jungian and Transpersonal psychologists, some French thinkers who are contemporary with him cite his thought.
2 Cheetham is one of the earliest scholars to focus on the originality of Corbin’s own thought and has been a persistent explorer of it (Cheetham Citation2003; idem Citation2015). In addition, Daniel Proulx should be mentioned as a leading recent scholar of Corbin’s philosophy (Proulx Citation2017; idem Citation2019). In cooperation with Camilleri, he has also made a valuable contribution to the scholarship of Corbin’s thoughts through his editing of Corbin’s documents related to Heidegger (Camilleri and Proulx Citation2014). Another recent Corbin study worth mentioning is Elmarshafy’s work on three French scholars of Islamic mystical thought, Massignon, Corbin, and Jambet, and their impacts on contemporary French thoughts (Elmarshafy Citation2021). Moreover, Hallward’s study is also interesting in that it treats Corbin’s philosophy and his study of Islamic philosophy in the context of contemporary French philosophy, especially Gilles Deleuze’s philosophy (Hallward Citation2006).
3 To the best of my knowledge, Suzuki, unlike Corbin, makes little substantial mention of Corbin in his writings. His letters, of course, record Suzuki’s meeting with Corbin. See SDZ 37: 421, 422. In a letter, Suzuki asked his student Shoukin Furuta to send his English translation of Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra to Corbin, so perhaps Corbin told Suzuki that he wanted to read it. Incidentally, Suzuki also once used the term “creative imagination (kuriēthibu imajinēshon),” although he does not mention Corbin’s name then. See Suzuki SDZD 1: 163–164.
4 Besides their interest in Swedenborg and their attendance at Elanos, they also have in common that they were involved with Heidegger. While it is well known that Corbin is a researcher of Heidegger and translator of his works and even corresponds with him, Suzuki also met Heidegger in person. Suzuki and Heidegger are shown together in a photo taken in Freiburg on July 8, 1953, with Mrs. Heidegger and Mr. and Mrs. von Dürckheim. For a record of Suzuki’s meeting with Heidegger, see SDZ 37: 412.
5 The basic literature that must be read to understand the influence of Swedenborg in Suzuki’s thought is Yoshinaga Citation2014; idem 2016, 280–312. For an exposition of Suzuki’s reception of Swedenborg, see also Bernstein Citation1996; Darling-Smith 1999; Okajima Citation2009; Sgarbi Citation2020.
6 See Yoshinaga Citation2014, 137–138; idem Citation2021, 305–307.
7 This terminology of “conspiration,” “σύμπνοια,” or “ham-damī” is Corbin’s. For his descriptions of the term, see e.g. Corbin Citation1958 61, 83, 116, 117–118, 124, 131–132, 180, 211, 249, n. 88, 264–265, n. 139, esp. 116.
8 SDZ 6: 75. See also Darling-Smith 1999, 233.
9 SDZ 5: 380–381. See also SDZ 5: 387, 6: 80, 286. See also Mori Citation2014; Yusa Citation2019; Hasunuma Citation2020, 249–292.
10 SDZ 1: 304–305. Suzuki, indeed, applies a type of contradictory identity to his argument on Shinshu and the Pure Land. Cf. SDZ 6: 239, 10: 16–17, 20: 354.
11 SDZ 6: 113–114, 6: 236–237, 6: 254; SDZ 6: 276, 6: 283–284, 8: 106–107.
12 SDZ 8: 55–56.
13 French texts between parentheses are Corbin’s original ones.
14 The same episode of Suzuki is also cited in Corbin Citation1983, 44, n. 4.
15 Indeed, Suzuki himself clearly states that both “compassion” and “sympathy” have almost the same meaning as Daihi. Cf. SDZ 28: 455–456. See also Corbin Citation1958, 131–132.
16 As will be mentioned shortly, Corbin, in fact, states, “because there is Imagination, there is taʾwīl: because there is taʾwīl [i.e., spiritual hermeneutics], there is symbolism[.]” (Corbin Citation1958, 161, tr. by Manheim)
17 Corbin Citation1958, 160; idem Citation1986, 31–32.
18 Corbin Citation1958, 161.
19 Corbin Citation1958, 165–166.
20 Corbin Citation1958, 148.
21 Corbin Citation1958, 168.
22 Corbin Citation1958, 148, tr. by Manheim: “The Divine Being is a Creator because He wished to know Himself in beings who know Him.”
23 Corbin Citation1986, 298–302. For a discussion of the transformation of the subject in Suhrawardī’s philosophy, see Miyajima Citation2023, 99–127.
24 Corbin Citation1990, 153.
25 For God, Imagination or Will in itself is tantamount to the act of Creation, as mentioned in Qurʾān 36:82: “Surely His Command, when He wishes something, He says to it, “Be!,” and it is.” (innamā amruhū iḏā arāda šayʾan an yaqūla lahū “kun” fa-yakūnu)
26 SDZ 6: 223: “There is a chasm between worlds of limitless light and complete darkness that cannot be crossed, but in fact, it is precisely because of this chasm that light must spill through from the other side to this side.”
27 See Jambet Citation1983, 88–89; Vieillard-Baron 1981, 91.
28 This text continues as follows: “By virtue of the sharing of roles, the Divine Compassion, as theophany and existentiation of the universe of beings, is the Prayer of God aspiring to issue forth from His unknownness and to be known, whereas the Prayer of man accomplishes this theophany because in it and through it the “Form of God” (ṣūrat al-Ḥaqq) becomes visible to the heart, to the Active Imagination which projects before it, in its Qibla, the image, whose receptacle, (epiphanic form, maẓhar) is the worshiper’s being in the measure of its capacity. God prays for us (yuṣallī ʿalaynā), which means that He epiphanizes Himself insofar as He is the God whom and for whom we pray (that is, the God who epiphanizes Himself for us and by us). We do not pray to the Divine Essence in its hiddenness; each faithful (ʿabd) prays to his Lord (rabb), the Lord who is in the form of his faith.”
29 Suzuki contends that prayer lies in trying to transcend this mundane world. See SDZ 8: 143.
30 SDZ 24: 284.
31 Corbin’s theory of Imaginal Imagination is a crucial and seminal subject for which a book should be written. I would like to discuss it in detail at another time, taking into account the previous scholarship on it. For a brief exposition of the notion of “Imaginal” by himself, see Corbin Citation1983, 7–40.