بازنمایی طرح واره های قدرتی سلوک طریقت در حدیقه الحقیقه و تمهیدات (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
راه سلوک راهی پیچیده و پرمانع است. عارف باید قهرمانانه بر موانع غلبه کند تا به دیدار خداوند برسد. این موانع فیزیکی نیستند؛ اما براساس نظریه طرح واره های تصویری که نخستین بار لیکاف و جانسون مطرح کردند، عارف با بهره گیری از طرح واره قدرتی درباره این موانع فکر می کند و سخن می گوید. این پژوهش می کوشد با بررسی و تحلیل طرح واره های قدرتی در دو اثر حد یقه الحقیقه و تمهیدات ، نوع نگاه سنایی و عین القضات همدانی را به موانع سیروسلوک تحلیل و مقایسه کند. روش این پژوهش توصیفی تحلیلی است. واحد تحلیل، بیت و بندهایی در دو اثر است که طرحواره قدرتی دارند. حدود پژوهش کل تمهیدات و حد یقه الحقیقه را در برمی گیرد. شباهت مبانی فکری دو عارف در طرح واره های نوع دوم و سوم انعکاس یافته است. کلام الله، رذیلت های اخلاقی، وابستگی به دنیا، نفس و معرفت الله محورهای اصلی این دو نوع طرح واره در دو اثر هستند. تفاوت تجارب زیسته و نوع عرفان دو عارف نیز محملی برای تفاوت تأمل برانگیز در کاربرد طرح واره نوع اول شده است. همچنین سنایی و عین القضات با توجه به تجارب زیسته و مبانی فکری متفاوت، تفاوت هایی در کاربرد و بسامد طرح واره هایی مانند ظاهر شرع، ابلیس، رذایل اخلاقی، غیرت الهی و جاه و مقام دارند.Representation of the Force Schemas of Mystical Journey in Hadiqah al-Haqiqah (Garden of Truth) and Tamhidāt (Preparations)
The path of mystical journey is a path that is full of meanders. A mystic must overcome obstacles heroically to reach God. These are not physical barriers. According to the theory of image schemas first presented by Lycoff and Johnson, the mystic thinks and speaks about these obstacles by using force schemas. This study tried to compare Sanā'ie and Ayn al-Quzāt Hamadāni’s views about obstacles in the path of mystical journey by analyzing force schemas in their two works of Hadiqah al-Haqiqah (Garden of Truth) and Tamhidāt (Preparations) through a descriptive-analytical method. The units of analysis were the distiches and stanzas that contained force schemas in the mentioned works. The scope of our research was all their contents. The similarities of the intellectual foundations of the two mystics were reflected in the schemas of the second and third types. The word of God, moral vices, dependence on the world, soul, and knowledge of God were the main axes of these two types of schemas in the two works. The differences between the lived experiences and types of mysticism of the two mystics were found to have led to a significant difference in their use of the first type of schema. Also, they were different in their frequencies of using schemas, such as appearance of Shari'a, the devil, moral vices, divine zeal, and status, because of their varied lived experiences and intellectual foundations. Introduction According to the theory of image schemas first presented by Lycoff and Johnson, we think and speak about abstract matters by using bodily experiences. Each schema can be generally defined as a repetitive and dynamic pattern, which is the result of the poet/author's interaction with the universe (Renner et al., 2005: 15). Thus, image schemas are basic categories based on bodily experiences. The term 'schema' refers to their generality. If schemas are so fundamental, the question arises as to whether a change in culture and ideology will affect the ways schemas are used. To clarify the role of lived experiences in the application of force schemas in mystical journey, we selected two mystics, who had somewhat different lived experiences, i.e., devotional mysticism and romantic mysticism. What were the differences and similarities between Ayn al-Quzāt Hamadāni and Sanā'ie’s views on mystical journey considering that Ayn al-Quzāt Hamadāni belonged to the mystical center of central Iran and Sanā'ie lived in the center of eastern Iran and regarding that the former was a radical mystic, who lost his life on his fiery words, and the latter was a moderate mystic, who adhered to the appearance of Shari'a in his poems to a large extent? Its complete answer definitely requires reviewing all the schemas used in their works. The limitation of this article forced us to only address force schemas. Force schema is a type of schema that allows us to expand our sensory-motor experiences and improve cognition (Johnson, 1396: 259). Our mind gains experiences in the face of physical obstacles to solve abstract problems. As a result, force schemas are formed in the mind. For example, when we say, “Financial problems prevented me from continuing my education”, our minds have benefited from the experience of "facing a material obstacle" like a wall and have explained the impossibility of education by facing it (Safavi, 2004: 375) Force schemas can be divided into 3 types. The first type is related to an obstacle in the path of movement, which prevents the seeker from moving. When we say, “I have a problem that makes me have neither the way forward nor a step backward", we refer to the first type of force schema (ibid., 376). The second situation is that the seeker crosses the barrier in front of him via different alternatives. He bypasses it or changes its course or passes through it by force. Such a situation indicates a force schema of the second type (ibid., 377). The third situation is that the seeker does not get stuck in the path nor does he pass through it in any way, but destroys it. For example, when we say, "In any case, we must get rid of this problem", we are practically referring to the third type of force schema (ibid., 377). Materials and Methods In this research, we intended to go through Sana'ie and Ayn al-Quzāt’s mystical mentalities in Hadiqa al-Haqiqa and Tamhidāt by basing the mentioned three types of force schemas with this explanation that we made some modifications to the theory of schemas wherever necessary. For this purpose, we reviewed all their contents. After extracting all the force schemas related to the mystical journey, we compared the views of the two mystics on the obstacles in the path of mystical journey. Discussion of Results & Conclusion Using force schemas, a mystic can think and talk about abstract obstacles in the path of mystical journey. In Hadiqa al-Haqiqa and Tamhidāt, the frequencies of using the second and third types of schemas were so similar. The word of God, moral vices, dependence on the world, human sensuality, and knowledge of God were the main axes of these two types of schemas in the two works. However, the differences in Sanā'ie and Ayn al-Quzāt’s lived experiences and ideologies caused the two mystics to use schemas somewhat differently. The fact that their mysticisms gave more importance to knowledge of God and asceticism caused the frequencies of keywords and the types of schemas used by the two mystics to be different. This made Ayn al-Quzāt talk more about the schemas that stopped the mystical journey, while Sanā'ie sought to motivate the audience by talking less of obstacles that could not be overcome. The difference in their lived experiences caused Sanā'ie to name obstacles like status and mention moral vices as the greatest obstacle in the path of mystical journey since he wrote Hadiqa al-Haqiqa for a more general class of people, while Ayn al-Quzāt wrote Tamhidāt to their close companions and named obstacles, such as appearance of Shari'a, divine zeal, and divine arrogance. In Hadiqa al-Haqiqa, Sanā'ie believed that the two forces of attraction and effort would allow the mystic to be able to remove obstacles from the path of mystical journey though he generally attached more importance to the force of effort. In Tamhidāt, even human effort was mentioned as the result of attraction. In Hadiqa al-Haqiqa, Shari'a, wisdom, and love were the tools and forces that helped the mystic to overcome obstacles; nonetheless, Ayn al-Quzāt did not mention wisdom and Shari'a and rather considered love and knowledge as the forces that helped the mystic to face obstacles.
تبلیغات
