Although the explanations of beauty (Jamal) in the theory of Avesina are limited, it seems that they point to a very deep relation between beauty (Jamal) and perfection (Kamal). Therefore, perfection in the idea of some investigators has been expressed as the main reason for the beauty. They have introduced the second perfection in the sense objects as the beauty. They construe sense objects from the one of important phrase of Avesina, while it seems that proving this claim from that phrase is not easy and acceptable. For this reason, in this paper, while the common approaches of this issues are critiqued, by the descriptive-analytical method the relationship between beauty (Jamal) and perfection (Kamal) base of Avesina's books is evaluated and analyzed. The conclusion of this paper shows that base on the concept of perfection (Kamal) for creatures, there are two kind of beauty; one of them appertain to substantial Beings and other to Insubstantial Beings. The perfection for the first part is the second perfection (Second Kamal) and for Insubstantial Beings is the first perfection (first Kamal).

According to metaphysical and mystical point of view, there are five degrees of unity and multiplicity, as follows: Essence, Attributes, Intellect, Soul and Body. The first two degrees belong to Divine Realm, and the rest to the Manifestation. Al-Ahad, the Divine principle, is pure attribute but the level of Attributes and Names, Al-Wahid, receives all predicates. All-Ahad is beyond Being and Al-Wahid is Being. In this paper the difference between these two terms is indicated by clarifying the concepts Absolute-Relative, Alma- Maya, and impersonal Divinity and personal God.

Aristotle considers metaphysics a science that discusses Being qua Being (or "Being insofar as it is Being") and its essential attributes. Alongside "Being qua Being," he also speaks of absolute Being. The multiple meanings of "Being" in Aristotle's thought have led interpreters to diverse understandings of what Aristotle truly meant by "Being qua Being? "They would have disagreements. A disagreement that starts from ontology and impacts their theology. Among Muslim philosophers, Avicenna and Averroes (Ibn Rushd), and among Christian philosophers, Albert the Great(Albertus Magnus) and his student Thomas Aquinas, have commented on this matter. In Avicenna's view, what is meant by 'Being qua Being' is a universal concept that applies to all Beings, including the Necessary Existent per se. Consequently, the Necessary Existent is part of the subject matter of philosophy. However, Averroes introduced the highest substance to explain "Being qua Being" and considered God the subject of philosophy. Consequently, he regarded the proof of God as part of the problems of natural science. In Albert the Great's view, "Being qua Being" is the simple existence as the first creation of God, and this simple existence is the subject of philosophy. In Thomas Aquinas's perspective, "Being qua Being," although the subject of philosophy, applies only to contingent Beings, and God is the cause of this "Being qua Being." A comparative study of these disagreements and the reasons behind them forms the framework of this article.

The precedence of divine knowledge to the objective Being of possibilities is among the issues agreed upon by all divine ontologists.However, the differences in their intellectual principles and interpretations of scientific and objective Beings have led to their different analysis of the way of this precedence. In Aristotelian approach, the causal chain of Beings, which finally culminate in God the Almighty, constitutes the objective Beings. The Praiseworthy God, who is the root-cause of this causal system, through His knowledge is knower of all possibilities. This knowledge is acquisitive, which is general and simple and is among the requirements of His Sublime Being and regarding the causal precedence is prior to all possible effects. On the basis of transcendental philosophy in which Being is the only original objective issue, the objective Being includes a chain of possible Beings which finally leads to the Almighty as the only essentially independent objective Being. But the knowledge of the Truth which causes the issuance of the possibilities is not in the form of conceptual forms but is the knowledge of Truth of its simple essence, which, regarding all existential perfections, while Being simple is the very comprehensive discovery. But in mystical viewpoint, the true and objective Being is confined to the quiddity of the Almighty and all possibilities are a manifestation of His statuses.The present paper is an attempt to study the precedence of scientific Being to objective Being in Aristotelian philosophy and transcendental philosophy and mystical principles.