{"id":252,"date":"2009-04-16T16:37:05","date_gmt":"2009-04-16T23:37:05","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/doctorsoroush.com\/english\/?p=252"},"modified":"2012-09-26T16:41:18","modified_gmt":"2012-09-26T23:41:18","slug":"boundlessness-and-enclosures","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/drsoroush.com\/en\/boundlessness-and-enclosures\/","title":{"rendered":"Boundlessness and Enclosures"},"content":{"rendered":"

(Forms and Formlessness 5 )<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

This is the published version of the last of a five-part series of talks given by Dr Soroush under the general heading \u201cSurat va bi-Surati\u201d (Forms and Formlessness). This fifth part was published in the November-December 2001 edition of the now-banned journal Aftab.\u00a0 It also includes the question and answer session that followed the talk.<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

This time, I would like to talk about what Mowlana Jalaleddin Rumi\u2019s conception, impression and understanding of religion was; what religiosity meant to him; and what role religiosity played in his life and in shaping his personality.<\/p>\n

From the elements and components of religious knowledge, we\u2019ve chosen to look at the theory of God.\u00a0 In the divine and Abrahamic religions, the richest element is the element of divinity, and all the concepts that prophets brought us obtain their meaning with reference to this pivotal concept.<\/p>\n

When I discussed the Prophetic mission, as well as on other occasions, I drew your attention to the fact that the most important thing that all prophets – and especially the noble Prophet of Islam – did was to give people\u2019s lives a new meaning and fulcrum.\u00a0 Prophets didn\u2019t change the outward shape of people\u2019s lives.\u00a0 They didn\u2019t even bring them a new rationality.\u00a0 They didn\u2019t instigate a rational rupture in people\u2019s knowledge. No, the important thing that they did was to take people\u2019s faces and turn them from one direction to another.\u00a0 They redirected people\u2019s eyes to new vistas and poured a new meaning into the terminology and vocabulary of people\u2019s lives.\u00a0 This was the main thing that prophets did.\u00a0 And the new meaning and the new fulcrum was, precisely, the concept of God and godliness, which arrived on the scene, took pride of place and gave a new meaning to all the previous husks and outward appearances.<\/p>\n

So, whenever we speak about religious understanding, we will not have said all that there is to say and we will not have completed our investigation unless we refer to this extremely important and determining concept and explain where we stand with respect to it.\u00a0 This also holds true about our own personal religiosity.\u00a0 Whenever someone wants to examine what the nature of their own religiosity is and to what extent they\u2019re truly religious and observant, they have to look at their own relationship with God and see what kind relationship they have established, in their heart and soul, with what they know as God.\u00a0 This is the pivotal component of religiosity and everything else is woven around it and nourished by it.\u00a0 Whenever someone wants to assess their own religiosity, they shouldn\u2019t look at the extent to which they perform the ritual prayers and observe outward rites;\u00a0 they should look at their heartfelt relationship with what they know as God (although rites and rituals are also important in their own place).\u00a0 This relationship also determines an individual\u2019s conduct and seeps into their actions.\u00a0 It makes them sensitive to religion\u2019s prescriptions and proscriptions.\u00a0 It affects their moral conduct and demeanour.\u00a0 The fulcrum of religiosity and the inward element of religiosity and religious observance is the extent to which God is present in one\u2019s being and the extent to which one has internalized spirituality and godliness.\u00a0 This is where religiosity in the true sense manifests itself.<\/p>\n

This godliness and spirituality has to be measured and examined in the case of Rumi and in the case of anyone who has religious experiences, such as prophets.\u00a0 The main point as far as Rumi was concerned – and he expressed it in numerous ways – was that this world is the world of forms.\u00a0 Not just the material world, but also the world of our concepts, cognition and perception is the world of forms, whereas God is formless.\u00a0 And our world of forms originates from that formlessness.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The sea and the jug<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The relationship between this world and God is the relationship between forms and formlessness:\u00a0 \u201cForm emerged from that Formlessness \/ And, in the end, it is to This that we return\u201d.<\/p>\n

Rumi conveyed and expressed this idea in very many ways; the idea that the world of the Almighty is formless and featureless, whereas this world is the world of forms and features;\u00a0 that reflection about the Almighty bewilders us because knowledge attaches itself to forms, facets and features.\u00a0 When we\u2019re faced with a featureless being, we can only react with bewilderment.\u00a0 Bewilderment means drowning in something that we cannot grasp conceptually and cognitively.\u00a0 In our encounter with God, we\u2019re bewildered.\u00a0 Mystics like Rumi even advised people not to spend too much time seeking apparent learning, especially philosophy and theology, because it would rob them of bewilderment and give them a false sense of understanding causes.\u00a0 These fields claim to teach people the secrets and causes of events.\u00a0 Hence, in these fields, the world leaves behind formlessness and featurelessness, and appears in the guise of forms, features and chains of causes and effects, robbing people of bewilderment.\u00a0 Rumi was of the view that this loss of bewilderment reduces one\u2019s knowledge of God; a knowledge that is intermingled with bewilderment or is <\/em>bewilderment.<\/p>\n

As to how forms emerge from formlessness, this is one of the world\u2019s secrets; a secret that we can recognize as such without understanding it in depth and unravelling it fully.\u00a0 This is something of which the mechanism, routes and channels are totally hidden to us.\u00a0 We know, in brief, that limited beings have come forth from a boundless Being and are reliant on Him and belong to Him.\u00a0 But the means of this coming forth and the means of this reliance and belonging are hidden to us.\u00a0 This is, precisely, the boundary or meeting point between the natural and the supernatural, and it is an area that is laden with secrets.\u00a0 One example of this secret-laden area is the relationship between the body and the soul.\u00a0 And a bigger example is the relationship between nature and the supernatural or the physical and the metaphysical, and, in particular, the relationship between something that has a form and something that lacks form, something that is delineated and something that is not delineated, and the way in which one can emerge from the other.<\/p>\n

The form that we\u2019re talking about here doesn\u2019t only apply to material forms; it applies to all forms and anything that\u2019s delineated and defined, even scientific and conceptual notions.\u00a0 All the concepts that we have are defined, specific concepts. This is what we mean by delineated and defined; any concept that we have consists of that concept and not some other concept.\u00a0 Since God is infinite, formless and boundless, no form or delineation can apply to Him.\u00a0 Any concept is that concept itself;\u00a0 it cannot step beyond itself.\u00a0 This is what we mean by having a form and being defined.\u00a0 A human being is a human being; a human being isn\u2019t a pigeon.\u00a0 And a pigeon isn\u2019t a sparrow.\u00a0 And a sparrow isn\u2019t a pigeon. Any being is that being.\u00a0 This is what we mean by defined.\u00a0 But God is not defined;\u00a0 i.e., we can\u2019t say God is this and nothing but this. He\u2019s everything.\u00a0 This is what formless means in God\u2019s case.\u00a0 You cannot draw a line around God and say:\u00a0 God is within this perimeter and, beyond the perimeter, there are other things, such as human beings, trees, material entities and so on.\u00a0 This isn\u2019t the case.\u00a0 You cannot draw any kind of boundary around God.\u00a0 You cannot say:\u00a0 Up to this point is God\u2019s terrain and, beyond this point, it\u2019s not God\u2019s terrain.\u00a0 In this sense, God encompasses everything.\u00a0 Everything is within Him and within His being.\u00a0 If we view things in any other way, we\u2019ve limited God.\u00a0 In Rumi\u2019s words:\u00a0 \u201cEverything that you can imagine is worldly \/ and that which you cannot imagine is God\u201d.<\/p>\n

The fact that God cannot appear in our imagination means that none of the concepts that we have corresponds to Him; no concept can encompass Him fully and tell us everything about Him.\u00a0 If it were otherwise, then God would be delineated and have a form.\u00a0 Being delineated and having a form is inconsistent with God\u2019s boundlessness.\u00a0 This is why God is beyond our thoughts and imagination.\u00a0 We just have a name to denote God, but the name cannot delineate Him.\u00a0 Hence, in the actual world, we have no name that can convey God\u2019s substance and we have no concept that reflects His being.\u00a0 We\u2019re like people who hear a faint call from a distance.\u00a0 Be that as it may, we know that all these forms and defined things have come forth from that undefined being.\u00a0 This is why our mysticism bears so much affection for things that have no specific shape or form but can take different shapes.\u00a0 The language of mysticism is a figurative and allusive language.\u00a0 It speaks of forms so that, through them, you can learn about the formless. Things such as water, light and even the wind have been some of these favoured means, because light itself, on the face of it, has no specific shape or place but it can take different shapes. \u00a0The same is true of water.\u00a0 Water, in itself, has no boundary or form but it can be poured into vessels, thus taking different shapes.\u00a0 This is why Rumi was so fond of light and water and the sea and the sun.\u00a0 People who were unfamiliar with Rumi\u2019s thought have said in some of their writings that Rumi acquired his love of the sun\u2019s light from Mitraism and Zoroastrianism and the like.\u00a0 Observations of this kind are very superficial.\u00a0 It\u2019s even been said that Rumi loved Shams-e Tazbrizi because he was named after the sun (shams<\/em>) and that this shows that, in the back of his mind, Rumi had Zoroastrian views and so on.\u00a0 These suggestions show a lack of familiarity with Rumi\u2019s spirit and thought.\u00a0 Light is dear to Rumi because it is formless.\u00a0 It is something that seems to have no boundaries but can take different shapes.\u00a0 Water or the sea is dear because it is formless and extends boundlessly in every direction, because it is translucent and gentle, because it is forgiving. But it can take different shapes.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf you pour the sea into a jug \/ the amount that you have will last you a day\u201d<\/p>\n

This is precisely the tale of God and this world.\u00a0 It is as if each one of us and each and every being is like a jug and God has poured Himself into each jug in keeping with its size. The bigger the jug, the bigger its share of godliness and fellowship with Him.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe one light of the sun \/ divides up into every house \/ If the walls come tumbling down \/ then, the believers will all stand as one\u201d<\/p>\n

The same can be said of the relationship between the sun and houses.\u00a0 When we build houses, the light is divided up, a bit shines into this house, another bit shines into the next house and so on.\u00a0 But if we remove the walls and the enclosures, a single light will appear and we\u2019ll become acquainted with light\u2019s unity, vastness and boundlessness.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Numerousness, dissonance<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u201cEyes are like coloured\u00a0 bits of glass \/ unto which shine the rays of the sun \/ be the glass red, yellow or green \/ so the sun\u2019s rays will appear therein\u201d<\/p>\n

The sun\u2019s light is uniform, but when it passes through a prism or, in Jaami\u2019s words, when it passes through coloured bits of glass, it appears in these colours.\u00a0 Hence, we have different colours because light has acquired an external definition, delineation and form, but before taking on these forms, it was colourless.\u00a0 This is the same formulation that we saw in Rumi too:\u00a0 \u201cWhen colour colourlessness seizes \/ Moses comes to blows with Moses \/ When we return to that colourlessness \/ Pharaoh is reconciled with Moses\u201d.<\/p>\n

Colourlessness is seized by colour; in other words, it becomes coloured.\u00a0 The colours that we see in this world are the delineations of colourlessness, which is originally undelineated.\u00a0 This is why someone like Rumi loved light.\u00a0 Light symbolizes a colourless, undelineated, boundless being, which is broken up into pieces when it is seized by size, delineation and colour, so that it becomes afflicted with numerousness and even opposition and dissonance.\u00a0 But this numerousness and dissonance is incidental and can be resolved.\u00a0 When you look at the essence, you see that there is none of this numerousness and dissonance.\u00a0 This is also true of water and the sea.\u00a0 \u201cWe\u2019re from the sea and to the sea we flow \/ We\u2019re from above and to there we\u2019ll float \/ We\u2019re not from this place nor from that \/ We\u2019re from nowhere and to there we\u2019ll go\u201d.<\/p>\n

\u201cAbove\u201d means beyond numerousness and opposites.\u00a0 The prime, distinguishing feature of this world is that it is a world of numerousness and opposites. It is a world that is afflicted with dissonance; you\u2019ll either see numerousness in it or individuals\/things that are clashing and in conflict.\u00a0 But when you transcend this and rise above it, you\u2019ll arrive at a level and an aspect of the world that doesn\u2019t display any of this numerousness and dissonance.\u00a0 \u201cWe\u2019re from above\u201d means that we\u2019re forms – as we said earlier – that have emerged from formlessness. And it goes without saying that we\u2019ll be returning to whence we came.<\/p>\n

Closeness and farness, left and right, north and south are all attributes of the delineated world that we live in.\u00a0 The world from which this world has emerged has no south or east or west.\u00a0 These are attributes that come into being in this world.\u00a0 Anything that admits of opposites belongs to this world.\u00a0 There is absolutely nothing in the world \u201cabove\u201d that can take on the hue of opposites;\u00a0 otherwise, it wouldn\u2019t be formless.\u00a0 Anything that can be the opposite of something else – even if it is kindness – is this-worldly.\u00a0 When we talk about God\u2019s love, it isn\u2019t a love that\u2019s defined as the opposite of hate;\u00a0 it is of another fabric, which doesn\u2019t admit of numbers or opposites. The same can be said of God\u2019s unity.\u00a0 When we say that God is One, this oneness is not the kind of oneness that can be contrasted with two-ness or three-ness.\u00a0 Otherwise, God\u2019s unity would be a numerical unity;\u00a0 whereas, God\u2019s unity is a \u201cnon-numerical unity\u201d as Western philosophers would put it or\u00a0 \u201ctrue unity\u201d as our philosophers would say.\u00a0 True oneness means a kind of oneness that cannot be contrasted with two-ness;\u00a0 otherwise, it would fall into the realm of opposites and step into the world \u201cbelow\u201d.\u00a0 God\u2019s unity is non-numerical, just as any other attribute of God belongs to the world \u201cabove\u201d and is beyond this-worldly numbers and opposites. This was why Rumi loved the sea and water.\u00a0 The sea gives us a sense of boundlessness.\u00a0 The sea has many attributes that make mystics love it.\u00a0 It is not only boundless,\u00a0 it is also awesome and forgiving.\u00a0 It is also impervious to human life.\u00a0 It is also deep and full of secrets.\u00a0 But one of the reasons why it is emblematic to mystics is that, whilst it is formless, it can take on different forms.\u00a0 This quality makes it impossible for mystics to overlook the sea and water.<\/p>\n

\u201cUndulate, undulate, for we\u2019re a sea of dictums \/ other than love, other than love, we have no purpose.\u201d<\/p>\n

Being a sea of dictums is the attribute of a mystic; undulating endlessly, being boundless and striving to move closer to boundlessness and formlessness.\u00a0 On the basis of this metaphor, we can also understand our mystics\u2019 utterances about perishing. Perishing means a drop of water joins the sea. This doesn\u2019t mean that the drop perishes;\u00a0 it means that it becomes submerged in something that\u2019s boundless.\u00a0 Perishing doesn\u2019t mean being destroyed.\u00a0 What kind of longing would this be for us to have?\u00a0 Being destroyed means losing all the excellent qualities that we have, which would amount to no excellence at all.\u00a0 The height of excellence is when we preserve our excellent qualities whilst, at the same time, joining a boundless excellence.\u00a0 This is what perishing means. Perishing doesn\u2019t by any means mean disappearing, ceasing to exist and being reduced to zero.\u00a0 Even on those occasions when mystics have spoken about the disappearance of attributes, they\u2019ve been referring to the disappearance of human attributes; that is to say, the veils and impediments that prevent people from connecting to boundlessness.\u00a0 A shadow that moves into light or a drop of water that joins the sea; these are the metaphors that our great mystics have used for vanishing and perishing.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The reed pipe<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The first metaphor and image that you come across in Rumi\u2019s Masnavi <\/em>is the reed pipe.\u00a0 Why was the reed pipe so dear to Rumi and why did he liken himself to it?\u00a0 A great deal has been written on this subject and many different views expressed, but the clearest and most plausible is that Rumi saw himself in the guise of a reed pipe:\u00a0 \u201cListen to this reed pipe\u2019s plaints \/ and the tale of separation that it tells \/ since they chopped me off of the stem \/ I\u2019ve intoned every human being\u2019s laments\u201d.<\/p>\n

Why did Rumi see himself as a reed pipe?\u00a0 Because he saw God as the wind or a breeze.\u00a0 This, too, is an emblem of formlessness.\u00a0 It is an unknown, coming from we-know-not-where.\u00a0 You just feel it brushing against your face.\u00a0 You don\u2019t see anyone.\u00a0 You can\u2019t see the wind.\u00a0 You can\u2019t grasp it in your hand.\u00a0 But you can sense it; you can understand that something is happening and that a wind is brushing against your face, especially so because, on occasion, it carries the scent of the beloved.\u00a0 And, in addition to its boundlessness and formlessness, which, for mystics, makes it an emblem of the beloved – like water and the sea and light and the sun – the wind can also take on a delineation;\u00a0 that is to say, it can take different forms.\u00a0 And it does this when it enters different-sized reed pipes;\u00a0 just like when water enters different-sized jugs and just like light that can shine through different-coloured bits of glass.\u00a0 You find precisely this quality in the wind and in a breath:\u00a0 \u201cThe breath that the piper blows into the pipe \/ isn\u2019t the size of the piper but the pipe\u201d.\u00a0 This is precisely the point that Rumi has focused on.\u00a0 He says:\u00a0 I\u2019m speaking; the piper is breathing into the pipe.\u00a0 The breath is formless and undelineated, but the moment it enters the pipe, it becomes delineated.\u00a0 It takes on a form and shape.\u00a0 So, you hear different tones and tunes.\u00a0 Hence, you mustn\u2019t think that what comes out of the pipe is exactly what went into it.\u00a0 Something undelineated goes into the pipe and something delineated comes out of it: \u201cThe breath that the piper blows into the pipe \/ isn\u2019t the size of the piper but the pipe\u201d.<\/p>\n

What Rumi is telling us is this:\u00a0 The piper is blowing – the breath is formless and undelineated – and, in this way, I speak.\u00a0 The moment the breath enters the reed pipe, it becomes delineated and creates different tunes.\u00a0 So, you mustn\u2019t imagine that what goes into the pipe is precisely what comes out of it.\u00a0 Something undelineated goes into the pipe and something delineated comes out of it.\u00a0 The sound that comes out of the pipe is in keeping with the pipe not the piper, who has blown an undelineated breath into the pipe.<\/p>\n

But can we reach that undelineated boundlessness?\u00a0 Yes, but only when we\u2019ve relinquished being a pipe.\u00a0 But can we relinquish being a pipe?\u00a0 This was mystics\u2019 eternal longing.\u00a0 They\u2019d say:\u00a0 Would that this pipe didn\u2019t exist so that we could hear the sound straight from the piper\u2019s mouth.\u00a0 Would that there was no intermediary in the form of the pipe.\u00a0 But, if we lost our attributes and ceased to be a pipe, then, we\u2019d be in the position that Khayyam described:\u00a0 \u201cThe secrets of eternity neither you can know nor I \/ the explanation is one that neither you can read nor I \/\u00a0 The phrases all come to us from behind a veil \/ and when the veil falls away neither you remain nor I\u201d.\u00a0 To want this is to want the impossible.\u00a0 When we exist, the veil exists.\u00a0 In fact, we and the veil are one and the same.\u00a0 If we long for the impossible and ask that the veil falls away, we\u2019re asking that we cease to be:\u00a0 \u201cYou\u2019re your own veil, Hafez \/ fall away\u201d.\u00a0 These are things that our mystics have conveyed to us in various ways.<\/p>\n

So, one\u2019s breath or the wind is another symbol of the beloved for our mystics and we find it, in particular, in Rumi\u2019s works.\u00a0 It is a very expressive metaphor, revealing the extent of human beings\u2019 closeness to God.\u00a0 It is as if human beings, especially prophets and those who love God, are pipes held to God\u2019s lips.\u00a0 \u201cIf I sidle up to my breath-maker\u2019s lips \/ like a reed pipe, I\u2019ll tell so many tales\u201d.<\/p>\n

When does the reed pipe start to speak?\u00a0 When it is next to and close to the breath-maker\u2019s lips.\u00a0 Two ideas are conveyed here:\u00a0 one is a kind of proximity and communion, and, the other, is the action and the blowing of the breath.\u00a0 Hence, these two things are needed for the reed pipe to start telling its tales.\u00a0 This is what Rumi is saying to us:\u00a0 The words of prophets, lovers, mystics and people who have stepped into the blaze pour forth when they are in close proximity to their breath-maker\u2019s lips.\u00a0 It is in these circumstances that, in Rumi\u2019s words:\u00a0 \u201cI have ever so many things to say \/ Should I speak or should I refrain?\u201d\u00a0 But when they move away from the breath-maker\u2019s lips, they dry up, they fall silent; even that delineated wind and breath doesn\u2019t blow and flow through them.<\/p>\n

In Rumi\u2019s works, you find many references to eating and feasting on light:\u00a0 \u201cIf you ever eat the victual of light \/ You\u2019ll come to scorn ovens and bread\u201d.\u00a0 He advises us to be like eyes so that we can feast on light.\u00a0 He says that light is the food of angels.<\/p>\n

As for the wind, it is really a strange thing;\u00a0 that is to say, for mystics, it gives a sense of being far away from home, of drifting and being lost, of being on a journey and also of boundless and featurelessness.\u00a0 You find its aspect of drifting and being lost in Hafez when he said:\u00a0 \u201cThe poor wind and I are as lost as two drifters \/ I\u2019m drunk from the magic of your eyes and it, from the scent of your hair\u201d.\u00a0 You find its aspect of featurelessness in Rumi (as in the breath that is blown into the reed pipe).\u00a0 And you can find its aspect of being far away from home and being on a journey in the contemporary poet Sohrab Sepehri\u2019s\u00a0 works (e.g. \u201cAnd I\u2019m a traveller, O, incessant winds \/ take me to the immensity of leaves\u2019 edifice\u201d). I want to use this as a footbridge to the deepest layers of mystical thinking about God.\u00a0 Here, you gradually sense that a mystic\u2019s view of the sea, light and the wind is a divine and godly view.\u00a0 The mystic sees and reads subcutaneous layers in these things that ordinary eyes cannot see and read.\u00a0 And these are only the things that these great figures have perceived and recounted to us.\u00a0 These are the things that have been highlighted by them.\u00a0 I want to tell you this:\u00a0 everything is like the light, the wind and the sea of which they speak.\u00a0 If Rumi had been drawn to other aspects of the world, he would have drawn our attention to these other aspects in the way that he did the sun and the sea.\u00a0 The Masnavi <\/em>contains nearly 2,000 references to water, the sea, light and the sun.\u00a0 This repetition reveals Rumi\u2019s preoccupation with these things.\u00a0 It shows very clearly that, in the daily shining of the sun, he saw the manifest face of God.\u00a0 If he made love to the light, he was making love to God. If he went to stand by the sea, he stood on the shore of God\u2019s being;\u00a0 not metaphorically, but truly.\u00a0 \u201cMystics have a collyrium that you must seek \/ then, your eyes will find the sea like a stream\u201d.<\/p>\n

Rumi had collyrium-daubed eyes;\u00a0 so, everything that he saw revealed otherworldly things to him.\u00a0 He didn\u2019t argue that the existence of this-worldly things proved the existence of God, in the way that philosophers do.\u00a0 He didn\u2019t see the sea and the sun and conclude, on this basis, that there must be a God who created the sea and the sun.\u00a0 He did believe this, but there was more to what he was saying:\u00a0 \u201cO my friend, would you choose sugar over the sugar-maker? \/ Do you prefer the moon to the moon-maker? \/ Leave the sugar! Leave the moon! \/ There\u2019s so much more to what He is and what He makes!\u201d<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Cause and effect?<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Rumi said that God makes sugar and all that\u2019s sweet, of course;\u00a0 but what he said went beyond these things.\u00a0 He didn\u2019t reason from the existence of the wind, the sun and water to the existence of God.\u00a0 To him, these things were <\/em>God.\u00a0 Just imagine, if God wanted to descend from \u201cabove\u201d and to go on a walkabout, what form would He appear in?\u00a0 Rumi\u2019s answer was: in the form of the sea, the sun, the wind.\u00a0 You will find this point in the scientific works of Kepler, who was someone who worshipped the sun and was something of a mystic:\u00a0 if God wanted to choose a seat and a position for Himself in this world, no seat and no position would be as suitable as the sun.\u00a0 For a Christian like Kepler, it would not be too strange to think of God turning up and taking up a position in the material world.\u00a0 But for us Muslims – with the pristine notion that we have of God – of course it is inappropriate and unpalatable to think of God setting up house on a planet or a star or in any material location. But if we take a more mystical view and opt for a simplified way of expressing ourselves – which, of course, distorts the meaning to some extent – we can say that, from the perspective of someone like Rumi, if God were to appear in this world in some material form, He would undoubtedly appear as light or the sea.\u00a0 The best way in which God could reveal Himself would be in the form of the sea, light, the sun, the wind or air. It is in this sense that a mystic becomes enchanted with these things.\u00a0 Symbolizing or representing something means having some kind of affinity and closeness to it and being like it in some way; conveying some information about it. And the information is not rational-reasoned information, but perceived-intuited information; so that, if you sit next to it, you get a whiff of the unseen beloved\u2019s scent.<\/p>\n

For Rumi, if God were to appear in some form, what could be better than the sea?\u00a0 What better than light and the sun?\u00a0 What better than the wind?\u00a0 So, when the wind blew against his face, when light shined on his eyes, when he stood by the sea, it was as if God Himself was standing there in full majesty; not standing beyond them, but standing in them.\u00a0 In this way, he would find himself directly and personally face-to-face with the formless beloved who had, for the time being, appeared in this form.\u00a0 This is what we call the elucidatory or mystical perspective.<\/p>\n

As I\u2019ve said before, when Rumi addresses God, when he speaks of his relationship to God, he resorts to various examples and illustrations.\u00a0 One illustration is the relationship between spring and a lush, green garden.\u00a0\u00a0 Rumi says that God is like spring, which has no shape or form.\u00a0 But when it manifests itself, it appears as trees, grass, flowers and the scent of spring.\u00a0 These things are the apparent form of spring, but spring itself is eternal.\u00a0 Trees, grass and flowers may wither away and die.\u00a0 This or that garden may blossom and perish.\u00a0 But formless spring is eternal and determining, and it always manifests itself in some form or another.\u00a0 Another example is joy.\u00a0 Joy has no shape or form that you can think of.\u00a0 But, when it appears, it takes the form of laughter.\u00a0 God is joy, which is formless.\u00a0 When the joy takes on a form, when it appears in some guise, it appears as laughter.<\/p>\n

We can say one of two things about these two relationships; i.e., the relationship between laughter and joy, and between a garden and spring.\u00a0 First, we can say that the laughter is the result of or, as philosophers would put it, the effect of joy.\u00a0 The joy first appears in someone, as a cause;\u00a0 then, they break into laughter.\u00a0 Secondly, we can say that the laughter is not the effect of joy; it is <\/em>joy that has taken on a form.\u00a0 It is something formless that has taken on a form. It is not a question of a relationship between cause and effect, but a relationship between a thing and the thing itself.\u00a0 There\u2019s a difference between these two relationships. An effect is not the same thing as its cause;\u00a0 it comes forth from it.\u00a0 This is what philosophers maintain at any rate. Or let\u2019s say it is the prevalent view among philosophers and theologians.\u00a0 We\u2019ll set aside Mulla Sadra\u2019s school of thought for the moment, because Mulla Sadra\u2019s view in this respect is very similar to mystics\u2019 views.\u00a0 For now, we\u2019re looking at cause and effect in Peripatetic philosophy.\u00a0 Here, there is a cause and there is an effect.\u00a0 The effect is separate from the cause.\u00a0 But it is totally dependent on the cause in terms of its origin.\u00a0 In other words, the effect will not occur in the absence of the cause.\u00a0 If we say, laughter is the effect of joy and a lush garden is the effect of spring, we\u2019re saying that there are two things that are separate, but that the second (the effect) is dependent on the first.\u00a0 This is our understanding of our relationship with our parents.\u00a0 We are their effect, but we are separate and independent beings.\u00a0 But they were the precondition for our coming into existence.\u00a0 In other words, were it not for them, we wouldn\u2019t exist.\u00a0 But, if we say that laughter is <\/em>joy that has stepped down from its elevated position to move closer to us, here, we have nothing other than a descent.\u00a0 Joy hasn\u2019t created something that is other than itself;\u00a0 it has simply stepped down and descended a bit in order to become accessible to us.\u00a0 Here, it is a relationship between a thing and the thing itself, not a relationship between a thing and an other.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Mystics versus philosophers<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Mystics are of the view that this world is not the effect of God, it is a descent or stepping down by God.\u00a0 In other words, God has brought Himself down a bit in order to be accessible to us.\u00a0 You will find exactly this view in Mulla Sadra\u2019s school of thought.\u00a0 God brings Himself down to the level of objects and performs the same actions as the objects do.\u00a0 In fact, objects are nothing other than or separate from God.\u00a0 How could we possibly imagine that there could be objects that God would then bring Himself down to reach? This is an unacceptable idea.\u00a0 His descent is <\/em>the coming into existence of the objects.\u00a0 It is not as if the objects first exist and then He descends to their level.\u00a0 His descent is the coming into existence of the objects down below.\u00a0 If we take this perspective, then, the notion of cause and effect falls away and is replaced by the notion of pure reality and attenuated reality (as mystics would put it).\u00a0 This world is the attenuated form of pure reality;\u00a0 in other words, we have a thicker level and a thinner level.\u00a0 When the thicker, purer Almighty descends and becomes attenuated, He appears in the shapes and forms that we see all around us.\u00a0 In Rumi\u2019s words, Truth and Reality didn\u2019t increase when God created the world; nothing exists now that didn\u2019t exist before.\u00a0 The fact that God created things doesn\u2019t mean that these things were added to the universe, although this may be the commonly-held view.\u00a0 We say:\u00a0 There was a time when there was God and nothing else;\u00a0 now, there is God and millions of other things.\u00a0 This is the commonly-held view.\u00a0 But Rumi says:\u00a0 In the act of creation, God didn\u2019t add anything to God\/Truth\/Reality.\u00a0 God is still God and everything is as it was.\u00a0 Before, there was God and nothing but God;\u00a0 now, too, it is the same.\u00a0 The world is filled with one being – not billions of beings – and that being is God.\u00a0 It is our plurality-seeing vision that gives us the sense that there are billions of beings in the world.\u00a0 The world is filled with just one being, everything else is within Him and part of his layers and gradations.\u00a0 This was one of the reasons – although not the only reason – why Rumi was so irritated by philosophers and theologians\u2019 preoccupation with cause and effect.\u00a0 Rumi would say that the word \u201ccause\u201d should not be applied to God and that if someone rises high enough, in terms of gradations of religiosity, he will reach a level where he won\u2019t ask about a prime cause or unmoved mover.\u00a0 This was one of Rumi\u2019s disagreements and quarrels with philosophers and theologians.\u00a0 He said: You philosophers and theologians worship the prime cause or the unmoved mover, but that\u2019s not who we worship.\u00a0 \u201cUnmoved mover\u201d is an Aristotelian term and it was also taken up and used by Muslim philosophers.<\/p>\n

Peripatetic philosophy maintained that, if we probe further and further in this world, which is the world of causes and effects, we\u2019ll arrive at the cause of causes; i.e., the cause that is the first in the chain of causes and is not itself the effect of any cause.\u00a0 Philosophers maintained that that this cause of causes or the unmoved mover was what prophets had presented to people as God – although no prophet had used the word \u201ccause\u201d.\u00a0 And if you read the Qur\u2019an, you won\u2019t find a single instance of this word in it.\u00a0 This kind of philosophical terminology doesn\u2019t exist in the Qur\u2019an.\u00a0 Expressions such as \u201cnecessary existence\u201d, \u201cself-existence\u201d, \u201cunmoved mover\u201d and the like were coined by philosophers.\u00a0 But philosophers would conflate or equate what prophets had said and the terminology that they (philosophers) used.\u00a0 They would say:\u00a0 Prophets haven\u2019t mentioned \u201cunmoved mover\u201d or \u201cnecessary existence\u201d, but the God that they invited us to worship is the same thing as the unmoved mover or the self-existent being.\u00a0 In other words, philosophers equated these two things.\u00a0 This sparked off a protracted dispute between philosophers and mystics and religious chroniclers over whether this equivalence was valid or not.\u00a0 In fact, this is how the question arises as to whether religion can be made philosophical or understood philosophically.\u00a0 You take one concept (\u201cGod”) and you replace it with another concept (\u201cunmoved mover\u201d \/ “self-existent being”\/ \u201cprime cause\u201d) and you say that the two are one and the same.\u00a0\u00a0 This being the case, it makes no difference whether you say, \u201cI worship the unmoved mover\u201d or \u201cI worship All-Knowing, All-Hearing, All-Seeing, Merciful God\u201d.\u00a0 This was the philosophers\u2019 view.\u00a0 On the other side stood our religious chroniclers and, especially, our mystics, who strongly opposed this view.\u00a0 It has been stated in the shari\u2019ah that God\u2019s names are preclusive.\u00a0 That is to say, people cannot just invent new names for God;\u00a0 they must stop at the names that the Lawmaker has stated and not go any further.\u00a0 It has been stated in religion that God is Merciful and, so, we describe Him as Merciful.\u00a0 The same can be said of \u201cAll-Hearing\u201d, \u201cAll-Seeing\u201d, \u201cAlmighty\u201d, \u201cAll-Knowing\u201d and so on.\u00a0 But we\u2019re not allowed to add other names to these.\u00a0 \u201cThe unmoved mover\u201d hasn\u2019t been mentioned in the shari\u2019ah.\u00a0 Can you think of any prayer that begins with, \u201cO, Unmoved Mover!\u00a0 O, Prime Cause!\u201d?<\/p>\n

Our mystics have said that, since God\u2019s names are preclusive, we mustn\u2019t give him any other names or address Him by any other names in our prayers.\u00a0 We have to limit ourselves to the names that we find in our religion.\u00a0 There is a rationale to them.\u00a0 God has even been called Most-Learned but He hasn\u2019t been called a teacher; this isn\u2019t one of God\u2019s names.\u00a0 I\u2019m not saying that God is not a teacher, but addressing God as \u201cO, Teacher!\u201d is, on the face of it, inappropriate.\u00a0 Of course, if we go by what our mystics and chroniclers have said, All-Hearing and All-Seeing do <\/em>appear as God\u2019s names.\u00a0 And hearing and seeing are two of our senses.\u00a0 But touching has not been mentioned.\u00a0 We don\u2019t address God as \u201cO, All-Touching!\u201d\u00a0 As to why we can say \u201cAll-Hearing\u201d but not \u201cAll-Touching\u201d, there must be some hidden rationale.<\/p>\n

Someone like Rumi and other mystics would speak out against the designations that philosophers and theologians had coined for God.\u00a0 They were of the view that these terms and expressions produced an impression and an understanding of God that would drive away the mystical and prophetic impression and understanding, and would prevent people from arriving at a true grasp of God.\u00a0 Rumi said:\u00a0 \u201cOnce a man has been born again \/ upon causes he\u2019ll stamp his feet \/ He\u2019ll pray not to the prime cause \/ Causes will form no part of his creed”.<\/p>\n

By communing with God, purifying his being and striving to become a Perfect Man, a man can be born again.\u00a0 \u201cBorn again\u201d is a Christian notion.\u00a0 In the Bible, Christ is quoted as having said it several times.\u00a0 Those who are born again will go to heaven.\u00a0 Rumi said that someone who is born again will shun causes and cast away the idea of God as the prime cause.\u00a0 \u201cHe\u2019ll pray not to the prime cause.\u201d<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

God\u2019s unity<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

But why isn\u2019t God the prime cause?\u00a0 One reason – the one that Rumi has in mind in these verses – is that presenting God as a cause brings in an aspect of determination.\u00a0 Rumi says that cause is something that, want it or not, produces an outcome.\u00a0 A cause cannot prevent its own outcome from happening.\u00a0 Fire burns and if it doesn\u2019t burn, it\u2019s not fire.\u00a0 Fire causes burning.\u00a0 And light causes illumination.\u00a0 You can\u2019t say:\u00a0 Sometimes light feels like illuminating things and sometimes it doesn\u2019t feel like it.\u00a0 If light is light, it will per force illuminate.<\/p>\n

Mystics, such as Rumi, say that if we call God a cause, we impose a kind of determination on Him.\u00a0 We bind His will and tie His hands, so to speak.\u00a0\u00a0 We also find this idea in the Qur\u2019an: \u201cThe Jews have said, \u2018God\u2019s hand is fettered.\u2019 Fettered are their hands and they are cursed for what they have said. Nay, but His hands are Outspread; He expends how He will.\u201d (Al-Ma\u2019idah, 64) The Jews said that God\u2019s hands are tied;\u00a0 once He\u2019s created the world, He can no longer impinge on it.\u00a0 The Qur\u2019an curses them and says that it\u2019s the Jews\u2019 hands that are tied; God\u2019s hands are open.\u00a0 No cause or effect or law or rule bars God.\u00a0 We can\u2019t say that when God come up against this or that philosophical rule, He must back down and submit to it.\u00a0 And we can\u2019t say that there are imperatives that govern His being which He cannot escape.\u00a0 These statements conflict with God\u2019s omnipotence.\u00a0 This was why Rumi said that God cannot be called the prime cause.\u00a0 But there\u2019s another reason too:\u00a0 God\u2019s relationship to this world is not the relationship of cause and effect.\u00a0 If it were, then the \u201cotherness\u201d that I mentioned earlier would apply to God.\u00a0 Since God\u2019s relationship to this world is not one of cause and effect, the question doesn\u2019t even arise as to whether this cause \u201chas its hands tied\u201d or not.\u00a0 God\u2019s relationship to this world is the relationship between a transcendent being and an attenuated\/descended being. This attenuated\/descended being is the same as that transcendent being and the transcendent being is the same as the attenuated\/descended being.\u00a0 That which is up there and that which is down here are one and the same.\u00a0 Sometimes He comes down and shows Himself in particular forms and sometimes He ascends and goes off into the distance.<\/p>\n

So, as I said, the entire realm of existence is filled with a single being and this being is God.\u00a0 You will find this same notion in Mulla Sadra, because his school of thought is very close to Muhyiddin Arabi and Rumi\u2019s mystical school of thought.\u00a0 Mulla Sadra said: Some people think that God\u2019s unity means that we have one God and numerous other beings.\u00a0 But this is numerical unity and, in effect, it amounts to polytheism.\u00a0 God\u2019s unity means:\u00a0 This house has only one occupant and that occupant is God.\u00a0 There\u2019s no one standing beside Him. It is He who appears in different guises and forms.\u00a0 Hence, this world is God manifest; it is not the effect of God.\u00a0 In other words, God has manifested himself through this world.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Reading the world<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Now, having completed the above preliminaries, we must pass through an important gate.\u00a0 If this world is the manifestation of God – rather than the effect of God, in the Peripatetic sense of cause and effect – then, our encounter with this world and the lessons and meanings that we derive from it will be different.\u00a0 A philosopher\u2019s job is to argue from effect to cause.\u00a0 They say that effects have a contingent existence.\u00a0 Things that have a contingent existence require something that has a necessary existence.\u00a0 In this way, they prove the existence of the necessarily existent or the self-existent being.\u00a0 Then, they say that this self-existent being is what prophets have presented to us as God.\u00a0 This is the course that philosophers follow.\u00a0 They don\u2019t read the world like something that has meaning;\u00a0 they discover a relationship between something known as \u201ceffect\u201d and a different thing known as \u201ccause\u201d.\u00a0\u00a0 But if we set aside the philosophical approach and take up the mystical approach, we\u2019ll see this world as the manifestation of God.\u00a0 God has become manifest in the world in the form of me, you, a leaf, a tree, the sky, the sea, the sun and so on.\u00a0 This is Rumi\u2019s view.\u00a0 When I see the sea or the sun or anything else, whether ugly or beautiful, whether innocent or wicked, I have to be able to read God in it.\u00a0 In this way, God\u2019s relationship to this world becomes the relationship of meaning to words, not the relationship of cause to effect.\u00a0 No meaning\u2019s relationship with a word is one of cause and effect.\u00a0 Meaning doesn\u2019t create a word and a word isn\u2019t meaning\u2019s effect.\u00a0 Meaning is a spirit within the word;\u00a0 meaning lies in the heart of a word.\u00a0 We don\u2019t seek to understand sentences by imagining that the words are the effects of meanings;\u00a0 rather, we read the meanings that lie within the words and the sentences.\u00a0 And in order to read the meanings within words, we have to learn the language.<\/p>\n

In order to know the meaning of an English sentence, you have to know the English language;\u00a0 otherwise, no matter how hard you stare at the words, you\u2019ll only see unyielding, lifeless forms. In order to understand Rumi\u2019s poetry, you have to know Persian well;\u00a0 otherwise, you\u2019ll only see meaningless words.<\/p>\n

If the world\u2019s relationship to God is the relationship of word to meaning (which is the relationship that mystics have spoken of) – rather than the relationship of cause to effect – then, your task becomes one of interpretation or hermeneutics.\u00a0 That is to say, the task of discovering meaning, not the task of discovering causes, nor the task of discovering the laws of this world, whether scientific laws or philosophical laws.<\/p>\n

In order to discover meaning, you have to know the language.\u00a0 You can\u2019t understand a sentence unless you know the language.\u00a0 Hence, when we look at this world and want to understand its meaning, we have to know its language.\u00a0 This brings us to the threshold of the elevated notion that mystics have offered us; viz., the means whereby we can see and read God in this world.\u00a0 This notion rests on the assumption that God\u2019s relationship to the world is the relationship between a transcendent being and an attenuated\/descended being.\u00a0 If you assume that the relationship is one of cause and effect, you\u2019ll have joined the ranks of philosophers, who are, of course, very respectable people because their way, too, is a way of discovering God and following Him.\u00a0 But if you\u2019re proceeding on the basis of the assumption that God is a formless being that has acquired form and that it is He who is sitting in the cage of forms, then, the question of correlation arises.\u00a0 The breath that the piper blows into the pipe takes on the shape of the pipe.\u00a0 When you look upwards, the breath is formless, when you look downwards, it has a form.\u00a0 Hence, it is the same breath, but on two different levels.\u00a0 If you\u2019re proceeding on the basis of this assumption, you have to say that there is a correlation between this lower level and that upper level; it\u2019s not just a question of cause and effect.\u00a0 That upper being has reduced itself in order to sit at this lower level.\u00a0 It is a bit like topology.\u00a0 When you change a shape or a surface, regardless of how elastic it is, there are some constants.\u00a0 There is a correlation between this being, in its reduced form, and that being, which has no size or boundary or form or definition.\u00a0 It is the discovery of this correlation and knowing the language of this correlation that brings us to interpreting this world.\u00a0 From then on, we see the world as a text, with God sitting in every single line and word.\u00a0 But we can only read the book if we know the language.\u00a0 Hence, we don\u2019t discover God using arguments; we simply see Him.\u00a0 We see that God is walking, God is shining, God is speaking and so on.\u00a0 Here, it is a question of the collyrium-daubed eyes that Rumi spoke about: \u201cMystics have a collyrium that you must seek \/ then, your eyes will find the sea like a stream\u201d.<\/p>\n

Rumi distinguished the sense or senses that allow the discovery of God from the five senses that we use in our daily lives, and said:\u00a0 \u201cFor the health of these senses, the doctor will help \/ but for the health of those senses, seek your Friend\u201d.\u00a0 The ordinary senses are found in animals too, but the sense that Rumi was talking about is a different kind of eye and mind, which understands the language of the world and sees God everywhere.\u00a0 It is in this context that we can understand the poem by Sheikh Mahmoud Shabestari in which he said:\u00a0 \u201cO Muslim, if you knew what an idol is \/ You\u2019d know that your creed is to worship it\u201d.\u00a0 This is a mystical notion, presented in a philosophical form.\u00a0 It represents the deepest monotheism and the profoundest knowledge of God.\u00a0 This is what mystics meant when they said: When we view things from that elevated position, belief and unbelief are indistinguishable.\u00a0 When we view things from that elevated position, beauty and ugliness are indistinguishable.\u00a0 When viewed from above, it makes no difference what God has created in this world, because all beings speak equally of God;\u00a0 nay, they are His manifestations in the world.\u00a0 But I must issue a warning here.\u00a0 The above ruling is for the rare individuals whose eyes have been opened; otherwise, people have no right to say that belief and unbelief are one and the same.\u00a0 There were many people who used the true words of the great mystics, but applied them to achieve false ends. The words themselves, albeit poorly expressed by us, are true to their very core.\u00a0 But they are only appropriate for those who have acquired those collyrium-daubed eyes and have reached that state.\u00a0 Everyone else must pursue their ordinary lives and view themselves under the canopy of numerousness and dissonance.\u00a0 Unless and until someone has – in the very depth of their being – gone beyond this numerousness and dissonance, they must consider themselves condemned to this numerousness and dissonance and behave towards others in this same light.\u00a0 It is only when individuals become elevated that they can abandon the distinctions that others draw.<\/p>\n

In sum, to mystics, this world consists of words, the meaning of which is God.\u00a0 The relationship is the relationship between the manifest and the manifestation, not between cause and effect.\u00a0 These forms are <\/em>the formless that has taken on features and definitions;\u00a0 it is the transcendent being that has stepped down and become attenuated.\u00a0 If this is the case, then, one has to interpret the world.\u00a0 In other words, one has to view the world as a text that demands interpretation, not as a being whose laws one must discover.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Question and answer session<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q.\u00a0 What does the Qur\u2019an mean when it speaks of creation?\u00a0 Does creation not give a sense of cause and effect?<\/p>\n

A.\u00a0 This is an important exegetical point. We have the notion of creation in the Qur\u2019an. For example, \u201cSurely your Lord is God, who created the heavens and the earth,\u201d (Jonah, 3)\u00a0 Philosophers have taken creation to mean what they understand by cause;\u00a0 i.e., they have more or less equated the Creator with cause and the created with effect.\u00a0 Of course, this is also the conventional and ordinary understanding of it.<\/p>\n

Philosophers designated God \u201cthe unmoved mover\u201d or the prime cause.\u00a0 They maintained that creation means that God is the cause of this world.\u00a0 So, since they viewed the notion of creation in this mould, any problem pertaining to cause also extended to this sphere.\u00a0 When you use a mould, you have to submit to its logical corollaries and consequences.\u00a0 Everything – whether positive or negative – that had been said about cause had to and did apply to the question of creation.<\/p>\n

There\u2019s no doubt that we conventionally understand the notion of creation in the sense of causality.\u00a0 Even if we set aside all the meticulous points that philosophers have made about causality, we can understand causality in a simple sense here.\u00a0 After all, God has done something to make this world appear.\u00a0 And this simple meaning can be found in the notion of creation.\u00a0 But the truth of the matter is that we have no reason to believe and no one has presented any reason demonstrating that creation is an instance of causality.\u00a0 We have no reason to believe that God caused the world and that the world is His effect.\u00a0 This is just a conventional understanding of the notion of creation.\u00a0 This is very similar to the question of \u201cthe seven skies\u201d.\u00a0 There are references in the Qur\u2019an\u2019s to God having created \u201cthe seven skies\u201d. Many exegetes in the past used to say very simply and sincerely that these seven skies were the seven planets of the Ptolemaic system of astronomy.\u00a0 It was only Fakhr Razi who suggested a weak possibility that the seven skies may not refer to the Ptolemaic system, although even he viewed this possibility with trepidation.\u00a0 And other exegetes objected to his suggestion and said that these kinds of quibbles were the thin end of the wedge. So, no one took Fakhr Razi\u2019s suggestion seriously and it acquired no followers.\u00a0 But, in the contemporary world, we see that all modern exegetes try to extract something from that quibble in order to present a scientific interpretation that corresponds to modern findings and to explain that \u201cthe seven skies\u201d of the Qur\u2019an does not correspond to the Ptolemaic system.\u00a0 More or less the same thing has happened on the question of causality.\u00a0 This is one illustration of the ruling that I\u2019ve set out in The Contraction and Expansion of Religious Knowledge<\/em>:\u00a0 Quite naturally, sincerely and unwittingly, exegetes harmonize their interpretation of scripture with the learning of their own age.\u00a0 They proceed on the basis of the assumption that the learning of their own age is correct.\u00a0 And this learning forms the framework of their thinking and understanding; a framework that they cannot abandon.\u00a0 This has always been the case, whether in the interpretation of the Qur\u2019an or the Bible or in the interpretation of any other text.<\/p>\n

A philosopher whose mind is filled with the notion of causality and who sees everything as a chain of causes and effects will, naturally, see the relationship between God and the world as an instance of cause and effect.\u00a0 Of course, we\u2019re not saying that this view is wrong;\u00a0 we\u2019re saying that we have no reason to believe that it is necessarily the case.\u00a0 This is one interpretation, one reading and one possible understanding of the relevant verses.\u00a0 But there may well be many other understandings.\u00a0 But a philosopher who sees the world as a system of causes and effects – and who thinks that it is self-evident that it should be viewed in this way – will naturally see the notion of creation, too, as a cause and effect relationship.<\/p>\n

Francis Bacon, the English philosopher who is considered to be the father of empirical science, said: It is self-evident that the Earth is stationary!\u00a0 All scholars have used the learning that seemed self-evident in their own age to understand the world and interpret scripture.\u00a0 This has held true for everyone, including Muslims.<\/p>\n

Mystics and the followers of Mulla Sadra\u2019s school of transcendental philosophy offered a more subtle notion of creation.\u00a0 Based on this notion, even if the relationship between God and the world is one of cause and effect, it isn\u2019t so in the sense that Peripatetic philosophers defined causality; it can instead be viewed and understood in a subtler way.\u00a0 Whereupon, we have yet another interpretation and reading of the relevant verses. And if, at some future date, a more meticulous meaning of the relationship between God and human beings is discovered by mystics or philosophers – a meaning that then becomes certain and self-evident to them – the new meaning may well be read back into the words of these verses.\u00a0\u00a0 And this is quite natural.\u00a0 This is how different readings arise.\u00a0 And anyone who says that some things are self-evidently the case – and, therefore, do not admit of different readings – is unwittingly offering his own reading.\u00a0 Someone else might respond by saying that some of these things are not <\/em>self-evident or that what\u2019s self-evident to you is not self-evident to me.<\/p>\n

Some people seem to think that they can step above the different readings and issue a ruling from up there.\u00a0 But this is an exercise in futility.\u00a0 The whole point is that anything that we say is just one more reading.\u00a0 If someone says that they are speaking from a higher level than all the different readings and that all these readings must surrender to what they are saying, then, they\u2019re failing to understand the whole concept of multiple readings.\u00a0\u00a0 Trying to step above and beyond these readings is like looking into a mirror and saying: What we <\/em>see in the mirror is beyond all mirrors!<\/p>\n

When we want to see ourselves, we have to look in the mirror.\u00a0 So, whenever we speak about ourselves, we\u2019re in fact speaking about the image that we\u2019ve seen in the mirror.\u00a0 You can never say:\u00a0 Forget about the mirror, because I want to talk about myself minus the mirror.<\/p>\n

There\u2019s no image without the mirror.\u00a0 If there\u2019s an image, then it\u2019s an image in the mirror.\u00a0 And if there\u2019s no mirror, then there\u2019s no image and there\u2019s nothing to talk about.<\/p>\n

The different readings are the images of us that appear in the mirrors of our understandings.\u00a0 If you want to dispense with understandings and readings, then, of course, there\u2019s nothing to quarrel about.\u00a0 But as soon as we begin to talk and to express our views, our utterances and views become one reading among the many readings.\u00a0 So, there\u2019s no meta-language or meta-paradigm.\u00a0 That is to say, there\u2019s no model that stands above and beyond all other models and allows you to comment on all the models below it.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q.\u00a0 Is someone who denies the existence of God, who doesn\u2019t accept God at all, equal to someone who believes in God?<\/p>\n

A.\u00a0 This depends on our philosophical stance on mistakes.\u00a0 We believers and God-worshippers are of the view that people who deny God\u2019s existence are either making a mistake or they\u2019re being malicious.\u00a0 In other words, either they\u2019ve failed to understand the truth or they\u2019ve understood it but are denying it maliciously.\u00a0 For the moment, we\u2019re talking about the former;\u00a0 i.e., someone who is making a mistake, not someone who is being malicious. Why has this person made this mistake?\u00a0 There are a number of elaborate theories in philosophy about the means whereby mistakes occur and they are very interesting theories at that.\u00a0\u00a0 There\u2019s no denying the fact that we human beings do make mistakes;\u00a0 both theoretical mistakes and practical mistakes.\u00a0 We also know that we don\u2019t want to make mistakes.\u00a0 That is to say, there\u2019s no such thing as a deliberate mistake, because if it\u2019s deliberate, then it\u2019s not a mistake;\u00a0 it just shows that the person who made the mistake knows it\u2019s wrong but doesn\u2019t want to admit it.<\/p>\n

At any rate, we all hope that we won\u2019t make mistakes and that we\u2019ll grasp the truth.\u00a0 Be that as it may, we do make mistakes;\u00a0 in fact, we\u2019re wrong more often than we\u2019re right.\u00a0 The history of human knowledge shows that our mistaken ideas and misconceptions far outnumber our correct ideas.\u00a0 But why is this the case?\u00a0 There are various theories in this respect.\u00a0 There\u2019s Bacon\u2019s idols; there\u2019s Descartes\u2019 theory, which sees it as the will interfering in reason; there\u2019s the theory of our own philosophers which sees at as grasping accidentals instead of essentials. Allameh Tabataba\u2019i wrote a beautiful piece on this subject entitled:\u00a0 The nature, means and basis of mistakes in perception.<\/p>\n

The gist of Allameh Tabataba\u2019i\u2019s argument – setting aside the philosophical terminology – is that mistakes are failures to recognize something or a (mis)taking of one thing for another.\u00a0 For example, you say: \u201cI saw Hassan today.\u201d\u00a0 Later, you realize that, in fact, it wasn\u2019t Hassan.\u00a0 But why does the mix up occur?\u00a0 One of the causes is the existence of similarities.\u00a0 Maybe the person that you saw resembled your friend, Hassan, so you took him for Hassan.<\/p>\n

Another reason why we make mistakes is that our wishes and desires step in.\u00a0 That is to say, you may have been wishing that you\u2019d run into Hassan, maybe because there was something you wanted to tell him.\u00a0 Just as your eagerness to see Hassan may make you dream of him, you may experience a similar state while you\u2019re awake and imagine that someone who looks like Hassan is in fact Hassan.\u00a0 Or the other person may not even resemble Hassan, but your imagination may so impinge on your eyesight and your concentration that you confuse someone else with Hassan.\u00a0 This is what Descartes argued.\u00a0 He said that the interference of the will (in the broad sense) in reason and perception leads to mistakes.\u00a0 If we can cut the link between the will and reason, then we can prevent mistakes.\u00a0 This, at any rate, is one argument.<\/p>\n

So, to answer your question, if we set aside malice, we have to say that the person who doesn\u2019t believe in God is failing to recognize God.\u00a0 That is to say, he\u2019s seen God but he hasn\u2019t realized that it\u2019s God.\u00a0 It\u2019s exactly as if you\u2019d see Hassan, but hadn\u2019t realized that it\u2019s Hassan.<\/p>\n

Stace, the English philosopher, says that Buddhists have the experience of God, but they don\u2019t have the concept of God.\u00a0 In other words, it\u2019s a question of someone who has reached God but hasn\u2019t realized it.\u00a0 One of the greatest services that prophets rendered to us was to tell us:\u00a0 What you\u2019ve seen and found is God.<\/p>\n

In the words of Feiz-Kashani:\u00a0 \u201cOne day I\u2019ll reach the beloved\u2019s embrace, said I \/ Look well, you may have reached it already, came the reply\u201d.<\/p>\n

This is what they mean when they say that God is innate.\u00a0 It means He\u2019s with you.\u00a0 You\u2019ve discovered Him many times.\u00a0 You\u2019ve seen Him.\u00a0 You\u2019ve shaken hands with Him.\u00a0 You\u2019ve sat next to Him.\u00a0 But you didn\u2019t realize it.\u00a0 Prophets introduced Him to us and said:\u00a0 This is God.<\/p>\n

Before the advent of prophets, many theisms lacked underlying theories.\u00a0 That is to say, there was a god but it didn\u2019t have a name.\u00a0 They didn\u2019t realize that it was God.<\/p>\n

When, after a many-year separation, Joseph\u2019s brothers reached him, he said: Do you remember what you did to your brother?\u00a0 The moment he said this, their minds sped back many years.\u00a0 Joseph\u2019s words acted like a spark to their memories and they said: \u201cArt thou indeed Joseph?\u201d (Joseph, 89)\u00a0 They suddenly recognized him and realized that this was the brother who they thought had gone forever.\u00a0 It is the same with God.\u00a0 You suddenly say:\u00a0 Is that really you?\u00a0 Are you the God that I\u2019d failed to recognize?<\/p>\n

In short, there are veils.\u00a0 When the veils are pushed away, God can take His rightful place and it becomes clear that He was always with us but we didn\u2019t know it.<\/p>\n

Another cause of the failure to recognize God consists of particular motives and desires.\u00a0 That is to say, the relevant person doesn\u2019t want to see God.\u00a0 Prophets have spoken about this.\u00a0 Some people don\u2019t want to see God because it is hard and it has corollaries and consequences.\u00a0 When a guest comes to stay with you, it affects the way can you behave in your own house.\u00a0 In the guest\u2019s presence, you can\u2019t appear and behave in any old way you like. You have to be presentable and behave correctly.\u00a0 When God, who is such an immense guest, enters your life, your life really changes.\u00a0 Otherwise, knowledge of God is just a hollow claim.\u00a0 Some people understand the corollary of this knowledge.\u00a0 They realize that, when God appears, they have to behave correctly.\u00a0 So, they prefer not to acknowledge His existence at all.\u00a0 They don\u2019t see Him because they don\u2019t want to see Him.<\/p>\n

Another explanation is that someone may think that something that isn\u2019t God is God.\u00a0 In other words, they equate a being that is the product of superstition with the God that the prophets have spoken about.\u00a0 They then reject that being and think that they\u2019ve rejected God.<\/p>\n

In sum, there are a host of reasons why people remain in a state of unbelief.\u00a0 Of course, I\u2019m talking about people who think things through and have theories about things.\u00a0 Otherwise, someone might be totally ignorant or not have reached a level where they can think things through for themselves, which is an altogether different matter.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q.\u00a0 You said that God has no place or location.\u00a0 So how do you explain the Prophet\u2019s Ascension?<\/p>\n

A.\u00a0 The Prophet\u2019s Ascension to heaven didn\u2019t mean that the Prophet went from somewhere where there was no God to a place where there was God.\u00a0 God is everywhere.\u00a0 The sky is the sky for us.\u00a0 The earth is the earth for us.\u00a0 The earth is close to us.\u00a0 The sky is far from us.\u00a0 But there\u2019s no near and far for God.\u00a0 These concepts apply to us, not to God.<\/p>\n

It has been said in the Qur\u2019an and our religious narratives that Jonas went into a whale\u2019s stomach.\u00a0 The Prophet said that Jonas\u2019s experience was like an ascension.\u00a0 Jonas went into the whale\u2019s stomach and discovered some hidden truths and the Prophet ascended to the heavens and saw some hidden truths there.\u00a0 Don\u2019t judge things by the up and down that applies to us.\u00a0 Above the earth and below the earth are locations that apply to us;\u00a0 they don\u2019t apply to God.<\/p>\n

The Prophet\u2019s Ascension was a spiritual experience; an experience of the hidden, supernatural aspects of the world.\u00a0 Every prophet had an ascension.\u00a0 We are, more or less, only acquainted with Prophet Muhammad\u2019s ascension.\u00a0 This is the only one that has been recounted to us and we are familiar with some of its details.\u00a0 But every prophet had an ascension.\u00a0 No one can become a prophet without having an ascension and a spiritual experience; a spiritual experience that consists of the discovery of the hidden secrets of the world.\u00a0 This may take the form of the discovery of the supernatural world and the world of angels.\u00a0 Or it may take the form of the discovery of the inward layers of human beings.\u00a0 Or it may take some other form.\u00a0 It depends on the personality of the relevant prophet.\u00a0 But all these are forms of ascensions, at any rate.\u00a0 They are all spiritual experiences that form the basis of prophethood.\u00a0 And God remains beyond place and location, and spiritual experiences occur in that non-place.<\/p>\n

Translated from the Persian by Nilou Mobasser<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

(Forms and Formlessness 5 ) This is the published version of the last of a five-part series of talks given by Dr Soroush under the general heading \u201cSurat va bi-Surati\u201d (Forms and Formlessness). This fifth part was published in the November-December 2001 edition of the now-banned journal Aftab.\u00a0 It also includes the question and answer […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ngg_post_thumbnail":0},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/drsoroush.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/252"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/drsoroush.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/drsoroush.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/drsoroush.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/drsoroush.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=252"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/drsoroush.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/252\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/drsoroush.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=252"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/drsoroush.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=252"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/drsoroush.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=252"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}