مستان شطح گو یا هوشیاران خاموش؟ (دیدگاه های متفاوت مولوی و شمس درباره شطح) (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
این گمان وجود دارد شمس و مولانا در همه موضوعات عرفانی با هم اتفاق نظر دارند، اما تأمل در دیدگاه های آن ها نشان می دهد در بعضی از فروع دارای اختلاف نظرند. یکی از محورهای متفاوت، آرای آن ها درباره شطح و ابعاد مختلف آن است که چرایی این اختلاف نظر و پاسخ بدان در رجحان سکر بر صحو باتوجه بر مشرب عرفانی هر عارف است. مولانا دیدگاهش با مشرب بایزید همخوانی دارد. برهمین اساس، بی هوشی و بی خویشی شطّاح در مرتبه سکر و حیرت نشانه دین داری و اتحاد نورانی او با حق است که بی هیچ اختیار و حرکتی خاموش و حیران حق است تا حق از زبان وی برای ادای سخن استفاده کند. اما شمس مطابق با مشرب عرفانی جُنید معتقد است، شطح یا سخنان بی تأویل و رسوا معنایی جز حلول، تکبر، عجز و تلوین ندارد و کسب معرفت الرب و حقیقت دین در مرتبه هوشیاری، ورای مراتب چهارگانه مستی بنیان شده است. همچنین از یافته های نوین این پژوهش، کیفیت ارتباط جبر و اختیار با شطح از دیدگاه آنان است. در نگاه مولانا شطّاحان، جبارانی هستند که از سر اختیار از حق خواسته اند آن ها را بی اختیار و فانی در خود گرداند. در نتیجه، هیچ قول و فعلی را به خویش نسبت نداده و خدا را قائل و فاعل حقیقی تمام اعمال می دانند. اما از نظر شمس، اهل سکر چون تنها نمود لطف حقند از تسلط بر احوال، ثبات و اختیار هوشیاران بی بهره و دچار جبر و ضلالت شده اند، لیکن هوشیاران، قَدَریانی هستند که به سبب برخورداری از صفات لطف و قهر حق قادرند بر احوال خویش کاملاً مسلط و شایسته مقام ولایت شوند؛ مقامی که صرفاً مختص اهل صحو است.The Inebriated Myth Tellers or the Sober Observers? (Molavi's and Shams' Different Views About Mystical State)
Although it is supposed that Molana and Shams are in all consensuses, contemplation in their slants shows their disagreement in some subordination. One diverse is their slants about the mystical state and its different dimensions which causes this disagreement and its reply is because of the preference of mystical inebriation to observation by the mystical pattern of each mystic. Molana's slant is like Bayazid. Hence, the ecstasy of mystics in inebriation’s step is a symbol of being faithful and joining God, namely, a mystic with obligatory quiescent and motionless surprise God until God uses his tongue for a satisfying statement. But Shams like Junaid's mystical pattern believes that a mystic state does not have any meaning but metempsychosis, arrogance, disability, and inconsistency, achieving God knowing the reality of religion in observation level, founded beyond quartet steps of inebriation. Also, because of the new feelings of this research quality of the relation between obligation and authorization with a mystical state are their idea. In Molana's slant, mystics are despots who optionally asked God to make them compulsive and mortal in it. So, they did not accept any action and statement to themselves considering God the teller and also the doer of all deeds. But for Shams mystics are inebriated because they are just symbols of God's blessing, they have not achieved any dominance in states, stability, and observant authorization also they faced determinism plus misguidance, but, the observant are authorities who can dominate their states because of achieving traits of God's wrath and kindness deserving to get a position of headship, typical for people of observant Keywords: Mystical State, Mystical Inebriation and Observation, Mystical Pattern, Molavi, Shams-e- Tabrizi. Introduction Shath is a traditional way of expressing mystical concepts and findings, which have long been the subject of debate and controversy among mystics and they disagreed with each other in confirming or denying it; therefore, with each mystic, according to their mystical tradition and disposition, they may achieve value and credibility or may be discredited. Rumi’s mystical disposition is connected with the first mystical tradition in the mystical principles and dealings, and in its branches, it is related to the mystical teachings of Bayazid Bastami, which today is better known as the mystical disposition or the school of Khorasan. The indicators and criteria that were prevalent in Bayezid's teachings since the third century and distinguished his method from other mystical methods, were reflected in the evolved form in Molavi's opinions. Shams’ mystical disposition also agrees with the mystics of the first tradition in explaining the principles of mysticism and in branches, in some positions, including Shath, agrees with the views of Junaid Baghdadi. As a result, mystics such as Shams and Rumi, although they agree on the principles within the framework of a mystical tradition; but in branches, they differ from each other in the details of the epistemological method and the achievement of monotheism, with regard to their mystical source. The topic of Shath, as it was said, is the way of expressing mystical topics, concepts, and findings, which is considered one of the main points of difference between the two mystics. This research aims to explain and analyze this matter separately in different sections. Literature Review In the domain of Shath, there are many sources of the opinions of Shath mystics, which have been quoted in various Sufi books, such as Manteq al-Asrar, Bebayan al-Anwar, and Rouzbahan Baghli’s Sharh-e- Shathiyat, as well as the prefaces and appendices of the great literary figures on their works, such as Dafter-e Roshanei and Mantiq al-Tair by Shafiei Kadkani and Henry Carbone's introduction to the Sharh-e- Shathiyat, with two translations that are available to researchers. Articles about this have also been published. In the article "Shath: the overflow of the soul on the tongue" (Mohammad Taghavi, 2015), the author has tried to explain issues such as the ambiguity and contradictions of Shath, the relationship between Shath and the truth, and the possibility and impossibility of explaining Shath, or in the article "Critical Analysis of Shath Definitions" (Samaneh Jafari and Seyed Ali Asghar Mirbagherifard, 2015), the authors examined the definitions of Shath, the frequency of the mentioned components and the importance of each of them, and while criticizing the traditional definitions, they reached new approaches in defining Shath. In the article "Analyzing Paradox [Shath] Based on Dissociation between Ontology and Epistemology " (Seyed Ali Asghar Mirbaghrifard and Masoud Algoone, 1389), also the indicators of ontological and epistemological dissociation and its importance in the discovery and interpretation of Shath have been examined. Also, in the article "The Opposition of Shams and Molavi's Views about Hallaj" (Fateme Mohammadi Asgarabadi and Mehdi Malekthabet, 2013), the authors have compared the views of Shams and Molavi about Hallaj, his personality and status; but so far, no comprehensive and independent research has been done on "examination and analysis of Molavi and Shams's view on Shath". Methodology The research method in this article is descriptive-analytical, which refers to the original and important works of the first mystical tradition, especially Masnavi and Shams's articles. In this research, separately, according to Shams and Rumi's mystics, their opinions about the various aspects of Shath: 1. Meaning and concept, 2. Bayazid and Hallaj's explanation of Shath, 3. Shariat-oriented level of Shath speakers, and 4. The quality of the connection between predestination and free will (مستان جبّار و هوشیاران مختار) (Inebriated despots and the sober ones with free will) are analyzed in order to find out the reason for this difference of opinions according to the explanation of the mentioned topics, which of course, its results are of special importance in the comparative studies of Molavi and Shams. It should be mentioned that the quality of the connection between the issue of predestination and free will in the opinion of Rumi and Shams is one of the new findings that has been discussed for the first time in this research. Results Shath is the result of the mystical state and a conventional way of expressing mystical teachings, concepts, and topics, which has long been a place of debate and controversy among mystics, and according to tradition and mysticism, each mystic is valued or discredited. Therefore, despite the fact that Rumi and Shams agree on principles within the framework of a mystical tradition; however, according to their mystical origins, they are different from each other in detailing the method of epistemology and achieving monotheism. The issue of Shath is considered to be one of the fundamental points of difference between the two mystical dispositions, which can be pondered and compared analytically in various aspects, including the meaning and concept, Bayazid and Hallaj's explanation of Shath, Shariat-oriented level of Shath speakers, and the relationship between predestination and free will with Shath. The reason for this difference of opinion and the answer to it is in the contrast between the meaning of mystical inebriation and observation and the preference of each one over the other, according to the mystical disposition of each mystic. According to the main indicator of Bayazid's mystical disposition, which is the preference for inebriation over observation, he believes that Shath speakers such as Bayazid and Hallaj are great mystics who are so devoid of self from the utmost inebriation and humility, and in the rank of religion, destruction, and unity with the truth that they lose the power of alertness, discernment, discrimination, and speech and attribute all their actions to the truth. As a result, instead of expressing religious and Shariah teachings, Shath has appeared in God's place so that truth can use his language to speak. Also, he considers them as tyrants who, out of their free will, begged God to have no will and be mortal in performing their actions. But Shams agrees with the supremacy of observation over inebriation, according to Junaid's mystical disposition. Therefore, in the opinion of Shams, Bayezid and Hallaj, in the course of the stages, stopped at the inebriation of the second stage, the inebriation of the soul, and did not reach the stage of atom and perfection, consciousness. In fact, Rumi's favor with them is because they are also in the same rank as an inebriated. As a result, in the opinion of Shams, on the one hand, Shath is unexplained, naked, and scandalous words that have no meaning other than holul, arrogance, helplessness, and taint, and on the other hand, inebriated and Shath ones, because they are the only expression of kindness and mercy, are synonymous with Jabryan, who remain in the veil and delusion of their words and they have become pioneers and founders of religion. But the sober observers have free will and they are Qadariani who, by possessing the qualities of the wrath and grace of God, are able to attain the knowledge of God, the truth of religion, and the rank of guardianship, a rank that is only worthy of the sober observers.
تبلیغات
