Ghiyaseddin Mansur Dashtaki Shirazi initiated a rational argument on material resurrection in the 10^th century. Through, compiling his book, ''Theological argument'', he proposed a new theory. Sadrol Moteallehin who had access to this book, considered and challenged Dashtaki's innovative theory. Thus, he was faced with ''Transmogrification'' problem.

Resorting to his exquisite foundations of ''Transcendent philosophy'', Mulla sadra offered a philosophical reason as a proof of material resurrection. Since he quoted most of Dashtaki's materials and phrases without mentioning his exact name, the critics such as Ziaaddin Dorri Isfahani denied the innovation of his ideas.

The present thesis aims at investigating whether Mulla Sadra's material resurrection theory is copied from Dashtaki's ideas or in spite of the fact that Mulla Sadra was influenced by Dashtaki's ideas, his theory was an innovation The research indicates that quoting a large part of Dashtaki's book, ''Theological Argument'' by Mulla Sadra without mentioning his name hs not considered plagiarism, since Mulla Sadra has not attributed the words to himself. Due to the fact that the two philosophers had major different viewpoints with regard to the material resurrection, despite their similar statements and phrases, they obtained different results. In brief, we can say that Mulla Sadra in his philosophical ideas such as: principiality of existence, the trans-substantial motion, the united combination of body and soul, the physical occurrence of soul and immateriality of imagination has been influenced by Dashtaki's works. However, this has only had a trivial and preliminary effect on him and on the development of Mulla Sadra's particular fundamental ideas.

Key words: Ghiyaseddin Mansoor Dashtaki, Mulla Sadra, Corporeal resurrection, Soul, Material body, Imaginative body, External body, Transmogrification.