Sasan Habibvand's Article “Rumi and Philosophy”

     The philosopher killed his own self with thought;            Tell him, he has his back turned to the treasure.

Tell him, the more he runs,     the further he becomes from his heart's desire.   (D. VI/4-2363)

The philosopher hasn't the gall to utter a breath;              if he utters a breath, the true faith will confound him.    (D. I/2162)

 

Who is the "philosopher"? Can Rumi, in the strict sense of the word, be considered a philosopher? Beyond Rumi's mystical and amorous perspective, does his thought also possess a philosophical dimension and sapiential, logical inquiries? If so, what is the reason for his denigration of philosophy? Why does Rumi repeatedly repudiate philosophizing and speak of philosophy as an impotent and unreliable knowledge? In the following discourse, we will briefly address these questions.

A. What is Philosophy?

If, at the beginning of this discourse, before any preamble, you desire a clear and explicit answer to the question "Is Rumi a philosopher?", it must be said with the utmost certainty: Yes! And if you are eager to read the account of the matter, please continue to follow along. To find a clear answer to the question of whether Rumi, apart from his brilliance in the realm of Sufism and mysticism, was also a philosopher, one must ask what philosophy is and what kind of perspective is called a philosophical perspective. Then, with this definition, we must see whether Rumi is also counted as a philosopher. In defining philosophy, or specifically metaphysics, it has been said that "philosophy is the knowledge of the essences of things as they are, to the extent of human capacity." The subject of philosophical discussion and investigation in the branch of metaphysics is the knowledge of existence, and "ontology" is the human endeavor to become aware of the phenomena of the world and their nature, as they are (not necessarily as they appear to us). Now, a word from Rumi:

        Pass beyond the name and look at the attributes,     so that the attributes may guide you to the essence.   (D. II/3695)

       You are an idolater, as long as you remain in the form;        abandon its form and look at the meaning.    (D. I/2906)

 

Rumi says that to know anything, one must pass beyond its "name" or appearance and "form" and instead pay attention to its attributes and characteristics, so that by knowing those characteristics, we may understand its true nature. He repeatedly warns that if you stop at the form and appearance, you will be like an idolater who is so absorbed in the appearance of the idol that they are oblivious to the reality of the idol, which is a lifeless and ineffectual object. Furthermore, to arrive at a precise definition of any phenomenon, he provides a specific formula and recommends that we follow this instruction so that, instead of getting lost in the names and titles of things, we may understand the meaning and essence of each thing:

Pass beyond the form and rise from the name,       flee from the title and the name into the meaning.

        Then ask about its definition and its action,      seek it amidst its definition and action.   (D. IV/7-1206)

 

And as we have seen, this mode of questioning is the very definition of metaphysics. A philosopher is one who strives, to the extent of their ability and capacity, to understand the essence of the world's phenomena and to know the universe, as far as possible, as it truly is. And the first step in this endeavor is to cast aside conventional "names" and descriptions and, instead, to attend to the essence and properties of each thing. By this definition, Rumi must undoubtedly be considered a philosopher and a sage. Of course, this is not the whole story; the greater part of the discussions that Rumi, especially in the Masnavi, sets forth and elaborates upon—such as the concepts of love, intellect, creation, humanity, Satan, death, heaven, hell, predestination and free will, and so on—are, willy-nilly, philosophical discussions that are situated within and arise from his ontology. This is an ontology partly derived from the text of the Quran and Hadith, and partly inspired by Sufi commentaries and his own or other mystics' gnostic readings. Since we have previously presented a concise outline of Rumi's ontological philosophy in the article "The World from Rumi's Perspective," we will refrain from repeating it here and invite you to refer to that discourse (which is available on the Sedanet website).

Beyond what has been said, upon reading Rumi's works, we observe that his philosophical knowledge and outlook inevitably cast a shadow over the entirety of his speech and expression. For example, throughout the Masnavi, he employs philosophical and logical language and terminology to convey his meaning. In one place, he discusses the knowledge of "existence" and "essence":

The inability to perceive the essence is common to all; do not speak absolutely

For essences and the secret of their secrets are manifest before the eyes of the perfected ones (Book III/3652-3)

Elsewhere, he defines "substance" and "accident":

Substance is that which subsists by itself; accident is that which is a branch of it (Book IV/809)

In a third instance, he warns against the improper use of "analogical reasoning":

From his analogical reasoning, laughter came upon the people, for he deemed the wearer of the cloak to be like himself

Do not judge the works of the pure by analogy with yourself, even though "shir" (milk) and "shir" (lion) resemble each other in writing (Book I/263-4)

And in another place, he engages in the "definition" of concepts such as justice and injustice, which is a philosophical activity:

What is justice? To give water to the trees. What is injustice? To give water to the thorn.

Justice is the placing of a bounty in its proper place, not watering every root that exists

What is injustice? Placing something in an improper place, which can only be a source of calamity (Book V/1091-3)

B. Rumi's Philosophical Discussions

As mentioned, Rumi addresses dozens of different philosophical discussions in the Masnavi, the topic of "predestination and free will" being one of them. For example, to prove that humans possess free will, he puts forth several arguments, including that evidence such as "inner conscience," "feeling shame and embarrassment," "regretting an action," "hesitation in performing or abandoning an act," and the existence of command, prohibition, and obligation in the Quran all indicate that humans are free in their actions and decisions:

We undoubtedly have free will; you cannot deny the manifest sense (Book V/2969)

This, that I will do this or that tomorrow, is itself proof of free will, O idol

And that regret you felt for that misdeed, through your own free will you became guided

The entire Quran is command and prohibition and threat; who has ever seen commanding a marble stone? (Book V/3025-28)

Also, in a subtle anecdote, he says that even those who have made the theory of predestination a pretext for committing injustice, laziness, or violating the rights of others, if they are treated unpleasantly under the same pretext—that is, that humans are compelled—they will inevitably confess to human free will in order to save themselves from the torment of retaliation. Recounting this story here is not without charm:

One was climbing up a tree, scattering the fruit fiercely, like a thief.

The orchard's owner came and said: "O lowly one, have you no shame before God? What are you doing?"

He said: "From God's orchard, a servant of God eats dates which the Truth has granted him;

Why do you chide me like a commoner? Are you miserly at the table of the Generous Lord?"

He said: "O Aybak, bring that rope, so I may give my answer to this Abu'l-Hasan."

Then he bound him tightly to the tree at once, and struck his back and legs hard with a stick.

He cried: "At last, have some shame before God! You are killing this innocent one miserably, miserably!"

He said: "With God's stick, this servant of His is striking the back of another servant of His, gladly.

The stick is God's, and the back and side belong to Him; I am but a slave and an instrument of His command."

He said: "I repent of determinism, O rogue! It is free will, it is free will, it is free will!"

C. Rumi's Epistemological View

As we have said, a great part of Rumi's perspective and message possesses a philosophical nature, and as we know it today, one of the main branches of philosophy is "epistemology." The grand question of this branch of knowledge is: what are the limits of human understanding, what are the boundaries of human knowledge, what errors infiltrate it, and how can one, by pushing aside the veil of one's own subjectivities, attain as pure and unmediated an image of the world as possible? A study of Rumi's works clearly testifies that such a question was at the center of his attention. Among Rumi's recurring messages is drawing the audience's attention to the specific angle of vision, way of thinking, or particular inclinations through which they view the world.

The world's crookedness is the frame of your perception; the veil of the pure is your impure senses. (D. IV/2385)

Since you are a part of the world, whatever you may be, you see the whole according to your own description, misguidedly.

If you turn around and your head spins, your view will see the house revolving.

And if you go upon the sea in a ship, you see the shore of the sea running.

If you are distressed by a calamity, you see the entire world as narrow.

And if you are happy, in accord with your friends' desires, this world will appear to you like a rose garden. (D. IV/73-2369)

Rumi's emphasis is on the necessity of being aware that the world and what is in it is not necessarily as we see it; therefore, we must become aware of the "yellow and blue glasses" before our eyes and strive to push aside those veils and, as much as possible, behold the face of the world without mediation:

You had a blue glass before your eyes; therefore, the whole world seemed blue to you.(D. I/ 1338)

When you make a yellow glass a veil, you see all the sunlight as yellow.

        Break that blue and yellow glass,          so you may know the dust and the man.   (D. I/4-3973)

 

We humans have colored glasses before our eyes and through them we relate to the world. We see the entire world through these tinted lenses and are heedless that whatever we observe is the color of the lens before our eyes, not its actual form. He says: to see the truths of the universe, one must break that glass so as to encounter reality as it is. This is the same important discussion raised both in philosophy, in the field of epistemology, and in the realm of psychology and psychotherapy, particularly holding a significant place in the domain of "cognition" and "cognitive errors."

D. "A Snare Called Word"

One of the most profound and fascinating points in Rumi's philosophical outlook is the attention he pays to the nature of language and its abundant capabilities. Among these characteristics is language's capacity for sedition and incitement. He repeatedly warns that speech, if not spoken judiciously and wisely, can become the cause of igniting the fire of malice and discord:

This tongue is like stone and also like iron,     and what leaps from the tongue is like fire

Do not strike stone and iron together in vain,      sometimes for the sake of quoting, sometimes for boasting.     (D. I/4-1603)

 

Elsewhere, we read a wise warning from him about the deceptiveness of words and "names":

   The road is smooth, beneath it are snares,                   a famine of meaning amidst the names.

 Words and names are like traps,   the sweet word is the sand that swallows our life's water.     (D. I/5-1604)

 

These two couplets, despite their brevity, reflect the rare depth of Rumi's vision: the human path in life appears smooth and even on the surface, but inwardly, various traps and snares lie in ambush everywhere, from which one must wisely beware. But the curious thing is that the substance of these "snares" is not of wood and iron, but of name and word! With a little reflection, we see that what first deceives and misleads a person are the bombastic and deceptive names and words attached to hollow, vile, or harmful phenomena, which, by concealing their true nature, compel a person to incline toward or commit that illusory or dangerous thing. In truth, there is no wrong behavior or improper act that people consent to commit without the existence of a seemingly good and justifiable word. Wherever ugliness takes shape, there is a beautiful and justifiable word that serves as a cover to hide its reality from the eyes of our reason and others. If it were not for these colorful and deceptive words, people would confront the true nature of things, clear and naked, and the path of deceit, justification, and wrongdoing would be closed. As we see, many individuals, under justifiable names such as "love," "friendship," "entertainment," "gift," "patriotism," "pride and honor," "defense," or "power," and thousands of other seemingly attractive and admirable titles, have committed errors, vile acts, and even horrific human crimes, and this current of delusion and corruption in human life continues unabated. He continues: the irretrievable spring of our life is still bubbling and flowing, and we heedlessly occupy ourselves with the sand of rigid, lifeless words.... It goes without saying that all these linguistic and conceptual analyses and scrutinies possess a philosophical nature and approach.

E. "The Plato of Love"

Be joyful, O Love, our sweet passion,      O physician of all our ailments,

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

In these famous lines from the preface of the Masnavi, composed in praise of a mighty force called love and devotion, Rumi calls the kindling of love's flame within a person the source of their soul's healing and liberation from all sufferings and "ailments." This is, of course, not the only example of such a view. Elsewhere, he says:

Whoever's garment is rent by a love,
Is wholly purified of greed and flaw.

Here, Rumi considers the entry of love into the seeker's heart as the cure for all his spiritual, psychological, and even moral ailments. But another important point is hidden in these lines, and that is the implication this view has for the lofty status of knowledge and philosophy in Rumi's eyes: that Rumi holds knowledge and philosophy in such high regard that he compares them with love and devotion. To show the tremendous impact of love on the human soul and spirit, he likens the power of love to the immense capabilities of Plato and Galen, the former being the great symbol of philosophy and the latter the ancient emblem of classical medicine. In other words, Rumi says: the power of love is like the intellectual power of Plato, the great ancient sage, and Galen, the famous Greek physician; the first, through the power of thought and philosophy, was capable of creating dazzling enlightenments, and the second, relying on the power of knowledge and science, treated human sicknesses and ailments.

C. "Which Philosophy?"

Nevertheless, the question remains: why did Rumi speak against philosophy in various places and disparage it? What is the reason that he repeatedly condemned the way of the "philosophical man" and deemed the steed of philosophy incapable of delivering man to the land of truth? To correctly understand Rumi's message in this regard (as in most other instances), it is necessary to refer to his context and era and grasp his words within their historical and social setting.

It must be understood that what Rumi opposes as "philosophy" or "philosophizing" is not the discipline of "philosophy" in its broad modern meaning and application. Today, the science of philosophy, in its main branches, is divided into three domains: "metaphysics" ("ontology"), "ethics," and "epistemology," not to mention its many other branches such as political philosophy, philosophy of art, philosophy of science, philosophy of religion, and philosophy of history. But in Rumi's era, philosophy was limited to metaphysics, meaning it only encompassed ontological discussions whose aim was to understand the existence and essence of phenomena. Topics such as the problem of knowledge, ethics, and politics, although they existed, were either not presented as an independent and separate science (like the subject of knowledge) or were placed under a larger umbrella called religion or mysticism (like the topic of ethics). But more specifically, in that time, what Rumi meant by philosophy was "Kalam" (scholastic theology). The philosophy whose impotence and worthlessness he ridicules is the science of "Kalam," that is, ontological discussions about religious concepts and doctrines such as God, creation, the afterlife, resurrection, Satan, and angels.

Kalam is a branch of religious sciences that attempts to enter into the teachings and decrees of religion through logic and reasoning, and to negate or affirm them, a method derived from the logical and argumentative method of the philosophers. It must be kept in mind that Rumi was a mystic and thinker of the 7th century AH (13th century AD), a time when philosophical texts, especially Aristotelian Greek philosophy, were abundantly translated into Arabic and Persian by Muslims and studied with interest and curiosity, and their spread among the public had stirred much debate, controversy, and commotion. The philosophical views of the Greeks were used by atheists to cast doubt on religious teachings, and by theologians and philosophers to explain and prove them; and in this context, Rumi and others like Ghazali opposed the first method and were suspicious and distrustful of the second. In such a context and era, it is natural that Rumi, as a Muslim thinker, would react to the intellectual and doctrinal currents of his society, confront what he considered wrong and deviant, and take action to enlighten public opinion.

One problem was that most philosophers of kalām claimed that their philosophical and dialectical method would be able to plant the seed of faith in the scholar’s heart and assure it of the existence of the Creator, the truthfulness of the Prophet, and the reality of the Resurrection. Moreover, many scholars of that era—including some grammarians and theologians—went even further, turning their linguistic or theological knowledge into a means of personal vainglory and self-aggrandizement, or fashioning it into a weapon for strife and disputation to prove their own correctness and righteousness. It is in such a context that Rumi mocks peddlers of erudition like the grammarian aboard the ship, and in describing the ludicrous and deadly self-conceit of this group of pseudo-scholars, he sings:

A certain grammarian embarked upon a boat; that self-worshipper turned his face to the boatman,

Saying, “Have you ever studied grammar?” “No,” he replied. Said he, “Half your life has gone to waste.”

The boatman’s heart was broken with vexation, but for the moment he kept silent in reply.

The wind cast the boat into a whirlpool; the boatman cried aloud to that grammarian:

“Tell me, do you know how to swim?” He said, “No, O fair-spoken, goodly man!”

He said, “All your life, O grammarian, is naught, for the boat is sinking in this whirlpool.” (Book I/2847-52)

And as we have seen, he rebukes the “quarrelsome staff-bearers,” telling them to shatter their weapon-like “staff” and cast it away:

What is this staff? Analogies and proofs. Who gave them that staff? The All-Seeing, the Majestic.

Since the staff has become a tool of war and clamor, shatter that staff, O blind one!

He gave you a staff that you might come forward; would you, in anger, strike that very staff at Him? (Book I/2147-9)

These are among the key points one must know to understand the meaning of and reason for Rumi’s opposition to what he calls “philosophy.” Rumi warns the seeker of truth that disputation and reasoning are incapable of planting the seed of faith and certitude in the heart’s tilth; and even if they were, the path is exceedingly rough, a route full of peril and of little credit. He says: by swimming in this sea, the likelihood of drowning is great, and the hope of reaching the shore is slight. Instead, he counsels that the truth-seeking person, rather than treading through the thornbrake of theological arguments, should mount the sharp, high-soaring wings of love, so as to reach the goal by a far shorter and more certain way, and not wear out his capital on the arduous and insecure path of rational demonstration:

Cleverness is a swimming in the seas; seldom does one escape; in the end, he is drowned.

Love is as a ship for the elect; seldom is there calamity; in the end, there is deliverance. (Book IV/1404 ff.)

Rumi holds that where one can board the safe ship of love, traverse the sea of perfection, and safely reach the shore of union, what place is there for swimming and struggling, and casting oneself into the danger of waves and storms? Of course, here too, as we see, he does not reject the path of reason and logic, but on the path to union with the Truth, he considers it a perilous route where hope of safety is scant, while the path of love and submission is far more secure and closer to salvation and deliverance. Nevertheless, as we have seen, Rumi himself is a rational philosopher who considers riding the steed of reason necessary to reach the vale of love, and he points this out in many places (see the article "Rumi and Rationality" by the same author on the "Sedanet" website). Of course, the purpose of all these explanations is not the unquestioning acceptance of Rumi's views and judgments or devotion to his character and status; rather, the aim is an effort to attain a correct and reasoned understanding of his words and message. Otherwise, Rumi's personality and thought, like that of any other human being, is not exempt from the necessity of critique and scrutiny.

Thank you for your company

.

---

.

Rumi and Philosophy

Author: Sasan Habibvand

[email protected]

.

---

.