Hossein Dabbagh's article 'Rumi and Irreverent Love'

Rumi and "Irreverent" Love: Why Can Rumi's Conception of Love Be Morally Destructive?

Hossein Dabbagh

Originally published in the Journal of Spiritual Life/ Year 4/ Issue 11/ Spring 1401

Does love necessarily make a person more moral? Is there an element inherent in the structure of love that necessarily provides the capacity for moral living? Rumi's answer seems to be affirmative. In his belief, not only humans but perhaps even animals become more moral beings through love. In this essay, I argue that Rumi's account suffers from a conflict. On one hand, he considers love the cure for our human selfishness, which is "morality-building," yet on the other hand, when he ascends from the human realm and regards love as a divine matter, the destructive property of love becomes "morality-burning."

It would not be amiss to claim that in the conflict between reason and love, Rumi explicitly elevates love in several places. Whether it is where, in the story of Bayazid, reason becomes displaced and bows down before the love of the Truth:

His reason was transported, and his intellect fled; The dawn came, and his candle was rendered helpless.

Reason is like the sheriff when the Sultan arrives; The helpless sheriff creeps into a corner.

Reason is the shadow of God, God is the sun; What power has the shadow against the sun?

Or where he uses the metaphor of the bird's house and the camel's feast in the Masnavi and Divan-e Shams, and the house of reason is ruined and destroyed by the arrival of love:

When the camel set foot in the bird's house, The house was ruined and the roof fell in.

The bird's house is our intelligence and reason; The intelligence of Saleh is the seeker of God's she-camel.

And

For the sake of a house-bird, when you build a house, A camel will not fit in it, with all its tallness.

That house-bird is reason, and that house is this body of yours; The camel is the beauty of Love, with its stature and loftiness.

But in the conflict between morality and love, if there is a conflict, which does Rumi elevate? If we place morality under the umbrella of reason or consider it a product of reason, the likely result will be that love is the Sultan and morality is the subject. In such a conception, can morality rise up against love? What if we consider morality a product of love or place it under the umbrella of love? It seems no conflict would arise. Is such a conception correct? Answering this important question requires examining the relationship between love and morality in Rumi's thought. In what follows, we will explore the relationship between these two matters, hoping it becomes clear where and how one supersedes the other, if it does supersede it.

At least according to one common conception, Rumi believed that love makes a person moral, and one who does not live morally is necessarily not a lover. The practice of loving and living amorously empties a person's being of moral vices and acts as a medicine and salve for moral ailments. If you ask which moral vices? Rumi's answer is self-centeredness and selfishness. The very thing many philosophers and ethicists have considered the mother of all vices. Rumi's expressions on this matter are explicit:

The jug of the covetous eye never fills, Until the shell is content, it is not filled with pearls.

Whoever's garment is torn by a love, He is entirely purified of greed and fault.

Rejoice, O Love, our sweet passion, O physician of all our ailments.

O cure for our pride and vainglory, O you who are our Plato and Galen.

But Rumi does not stop here. It is true that love makes a person virtuous, but beyond that, it must be said that one who has fallen in love necessarily lives morally. That is, a necessary relationship exists between love and morality. One who is a lover necessarily lives morally, and for one who does not live morally, it is enough to mount them on the steed of love; then we will see that moral vices leave them one by one in their stumbles and rises. The following expressions from Rumi somewhat illuminate this meaning, where he states that even Yazid and Satan, in the station of love, are transformed into moral beings. As if love, like an elixir, changes our nature and identity:

His jealousy is for the lover and the truthful one; His jealousy is not for the demon or the beast.

If a demon falls in love, he too carries off the ball; He becomes a Gabriel, and that demon dies.

The submission of Satan became manifest there, When Bayazid became a Yazid through his grace.

Rumi's words may seem somewhat exaggerated when he says that love "completely" purifies a person of vices. Is this truly the case? Can we not cite examples of lovers who are still burdened by moral vices? Can we not claim that love can even be productive of vice? It seems possible. History is full of people who consider themselves lovers but are willing to do anything to attain their beloved. Were there not lovers who were prepared to commit murder to eliminate a rival?

But this criticism may not be entirely valid if we recall that Rumi knows very well that love can, in fact, make a person greedy and deviate from the path of justice. The stories of the Masnavi confirm that not every love is necessarily worthy and appropriate, because:

Not every reed contains sugar, not every under has an over; Not every eye has vision, not every sea contains pearls.

In two stories in particular, Rumi clarifies the point that not every love is desirable, and if "purity" does not accompany love, the love falls short. In the story of the lover who was reading letters in the presence of his beloved, Rumi explains that a lover, when separated from his beloved, busies himself with writing letters and writes of his states, from praise and eulogy of the beloved to the sorrow and grief of separation. After a while, the lover and the beloved are united, but the lover takes out his written letters in the beloved's presence and begins reading them. The beloved becomes disheartened and opens his lips in protest. Rumi, through the voice of the beloved, claims that this act bears no sign of true love, and a lover who loves authentically and purely does not fall in love with his own states and letters:

You are a lover of states, not a lover of me; You are rushing toward me in hope of a state.

Do not gaze upon the ugly and beautiful image of yourself; Gaze upon love and upon your object of desire.

Go, seek such a love if you are alive; Otherwise, you are a slave to various times.

This story clearly argues that not every love is desirable and worth seeking. True and real love is inevitably accompanied by a sign and a quality that distinguishes it from other loves. One of these signs is purity of intention in the practice of loving. That is, loving for the sake of loving, not for its results. A love that is spent for something else is unlikely to be true love and can cause ruin.

In another famous story, the King and the Handmaiden, Rumi shows even more explicitly than the story above that not all loves are necessarily desirable. The famous couplet in this story reveals this view: "Loves that are for the sake of a hue / Are not love; in the end, they are a disgrace." The handmaiden's love for the goldsmith turns cold after she falls ill and turns pale, and in Rumi's view, this is not true love. A love that comes and goes for a purpose is disgraceful. In contrast, true love is that which is pure and not for a purpose. Such love, of course, "endures."

Choose that living love which is enduring, Which is the cupbearer of the life-increasing wine.

Do not say we have no access to that King; With the generous, matters are not difficult.

In this way, Rumi can easily rescue himself from the previous criticism. Not every love is moralizing and dispels vices; rather, a love that is pure has this quality and should be cherished. But is a love that is pure necessarily moralizing and does it completely purge vices? It does not seem so. One can bring to mind many individuals who practice loving purely and love for the sake of love alone, paying no attention to its outcome, yet still cause ruin and enable a vice. For example, imagine a father or mother who, out of pure love for their child, inflicts psychological harm upon them. Or a person who has a pure love for their religious belief and harms others. If these examples are possible, then it seems the condition of purity does not necessarily contribute much to the moralizing nature of love.

Rumi, however, could still object that these examples do not work. Because if such parents' love is harmful, it is not sincere. Or a person who loves their religious belief does not necessarily do so sincerely. If we ask Rumi, then what kind of love would be sincere? He would likely answer: a love that is practiced solely for the sake of loving and is not harmful, because a love that is sincere will not be harmful. Or a love that is not selfish and is not used to fatten personal desires.

This answer will not be convincing. First, our assumption is that these individuals love sincerely. In Rumi's own words, "Loving is evident from the heart's lament." Second, adding qualifiers such as not being harmful or not being selfish to sincere love does not untie any knots. For if we say that a love is sincere if it is not harmful, it is more or less like saying that a love is sincere if it is moral. In other words, it is as if Rumi claims that the love that makes us moral is one that is moral! Because not all kinds of love make a person moral; rather, it is the love that is moral that makes a person moral. This tautological claim, of course, carries little weight on the scales of inquiry. Is it not enough to emphasize the morality of actions and behavior? Moreover, the whole controversy and debate lies in showing how a love becomes moral? And on what basis are we justified in considering a love to be moral?

If this criticism is justified, then it can be claimed that even some insincere loves can be moral. For example, one can imagine a person who loves another out of lust and caprice. But this lust and caprice so improves their psyche that they progress in their work, and through this progress, they bring good to many people. At least from a moral perspective (consequentialism), it can be claimed that this person's insincere love has made them more moral.

Although Rumi's conception of love seems to lead to the point where we must seek moral loves in order to become moral, there is another element in Rumi's understanding of love that can prevent us from this task and deprive us of the moral perspective. That is, even though love is supposed to make us moral, it can lead to a place where there is no news of morality. Like the sun, in which there is no East or West, it is as if love also has a property that dissolves good and evil within itself. Such a property in love emerges when we link it with an eternal and everlasting being and consider that being the source, and indeed love itself.

Rumi explicitly states in several places that love is an attribute of God. That is, love has a divine essence. For him, it is as if love has a structure that does not belong to this world. In Hafez's words, "The gem of Jamshid's cup is from a mine of another world." We have borrowed love from elsewhere and spend it in the world around us. Rumi's famous and beautiful ghazal expresses this meaning:

Last night I went mad, Love saw me and said: I have come, do not cry out, do not tear your clothes, say nothing at all

I said: O Love! I am afraid of something else It said: That something else is no more, say nothing at all

I said: O heart! Act like a father, is this not the attribute of God? It said: It is, but for the father's soul, say nothing at all

Love is the attribute of the "Father," and we servants live in "fear." It is this love for the Truth that can save us from fear. Look at Rumi's phrases:

Love is the attribute of God, but fear Is the attribute of a servant afflicted by the belly and the groin

So know affection and love too as the attribute of the Truth Fear is not an attribute of God, O dear one

But love is not only an attribute of God; it is also a secret from God entrusted to us humans. Rumi's famous phrase states that:

Love is the astrolabe of God's secrets The lover's cause is separate from all causes

For this reason, love is of God's kind, and its structure does not belong to this world. Rumi explicitly considers love a strange being that has entered us from "above," where he says in the ghazals:

Bravo love, bravo love, that is ours, O God How delicate it is, how good it is, how beautiful it is, O God

What a pattern, what a pattern is in this pan of hearts It is strange, it is strange, it is from on high, O God

Since love is a description of God, and indeed is God Himself, Rumi considers true love to be only love for God. Divine love is like a light that has no deficiency:

Love for other than Him is metaphorical love Love is among the attributes of God, the Self-Sufficient

Its outward is light, but its inward has become smoke For that beauty has become gilded

It is natural that such love brings passion and sets a person in motion and agitation:

Love is overpowering, and I am overpowered by love Through the passion of love, I have become sweet as sugar

I am like a cat in a bag in the hand of love One moment high, one moment low, by love

Lovers have fallen into a fierce torrent They have set their hearts upon the decree of love

The passion placed within love, in Rumi's expression, turns a person's existence "upside down":

I said, "What is this, tell me? I will be turned upside down" He said, "Be thus upside down, say nothing at all"

This passion-stirring, overturning property of love is such for Rumi that it can even bring ruin and burn the wet and the dry:

What a wondrous nightingale this is that opens its mouth To consume the thorn along with the rose garden

What nightingale? This is a fiery leviathan Through love for Him, all unpleasant things are pleasant to it

He is the lover of the All, and he himself is the All He is the lover of himself and the seeker of his own love

But Rumi had no fear of ruin or disgrace and believed that ruin could bring auspicious results. In his expression, one can attain a hidden treasure beneath the ruins. Rumi's phrases on this matter are explicit when he says:

Bind it, for it will cause a flood and a torrent Otherwise, it will cause disgrace and ruin

What sorrow do I have if there is ruin? Beneath the ruin is a kingly treasure

The destructive property is not only found in love as a creature of God and His vicegerent on earth, but Rumi also attributes such a property to God Himself:

I am a painter, a maker of forms, every moment I fashion an idol And then I melt all those idols before You

I conjure a hundred forms and infuse them with spirit When I see Your form, I cast them into the fire

Are You the cupbearer of intoxication, or the enemy of sobriety? Or are You the one who ruins every house I build?

But if love for God as true love is destructive, how can it be ethical? If a true love destroys matters to such an extent that no good or bad remains, what will be left of morality? It seems that the idea of the "irreverence" of love in Rumi's thought refers to this very meaning. The lover is irreverent and does not outwardly confine themselves to the moral rules of this world. Rumi's expression is as follows:

The pulse of the irreverent lover leaps up

           He places himself in the scale of the King

No one in the world is more irreverent than him outwardly No one is more reverent than him inwardly

Although the lover is outwardly irreverent, they are reverent within. Such reverence, however, seems to be inward and hidden, and still does not become meaningful under the moral rules of this world. If there is any reverence or morality, it is "subjective" and flows within the lovers. It is as if lovers express moral rules through a "private language," if they express them at all. But why is the lover irreverent in the first place? The answer is simple: because it is difficult to observe reverence in intoxication. From the excess of intoxication, the lover abandons reverence:

In such intoxication, the observance of reverence

            Itself does not exist, and if it does, it is a wonder

Would such a love not ultimately be morality-immolating? The love that was supposed to purify our vices and make us more moral now burns virtues and vices alike in its fire, leaving nothing of morality behind. Can such a love still make us more moral? It seems that this love is so morality-immolating that it unravels everything Rumi had woven until now.

Let us cut the matter short. This essay argued that Rumi's morality-building love becomes so exalted and so distant from the human realm that it gradually turns morality-immolating. The love that was supposed to bring a moral human being for society can now become so destructive that it leaves nothing of good and bad, vice and virtue. It is evident that in such a society, even loving may be endangered, let alone living morally! What can make the individual and society moral are just structures that provide the possibility of a moral life and a loving life.

.

---

.

Download the article from academia.edu (Persian)

.

---

.