 His interest in the Shaykh al-ishraq rested primarily with the latter’s hikmat al-ishraq, Corbin’s ‘Oriental theosophy’ — the lost mythological traditions of the Ancient sages of the West and the East — Suhrawardi was reviving, also with his Persian allegories, (views shared by Nasr). Interested mainly in his mystical views and metaphysics of light and irradiation, he saw little interest in editing Suhrawardi’s works on logic and physics. These ‘gnostic’/‘mystic’, ‘esoteric’/‘theosophical’ wisdom, or even pre-Aristotelian philosophia perennis or universalis (Nasr 1964, 60–3) approaches to Suhrawardi’s works often overemphasize the mystical and the theosophical at the expense of the philosophical, and thus blur the distinction between philosophy, theology and mysticism (cf. Pourjavady 2013). Proponents of this approach highlight Suhrawardi’s aim to expound on Avicenna’s incomplete project to develop an ‘Eastern’ (mashriqiyya) (not ‘illuminative’) philosophy of Khurasan, in spite of the fact that Avicenna’s ‘Eastern’ philosophy was not a mystical enterprise; rather, it aimed at developing a philosophical tradition distinct from the ‘Western’ philosophical school of Baghdad (Gutas 2000). Many scholars often overlook the fact that Suhrawardi’s major works are largely devoted to technical philosophical questions and theories of which even his allegorical or minor works are not devoid. More generally, the proponents of the mystical approach interpret Suhrawardi’s ishraqiviews as a break or a departure from the philosophical tradition. Some, like Fakhry (1982), go so far as to question the originality of the isharqi elements of his work, deeming it a mere transposition of Avicennan philosophy into a light terminology. 