Shams' Third Script

[Ibrahim]

Salâm Mohammadreza,

In response to my question, “Is one of the mystical secrets in which you believe a belief that Hazrat-é Shamsuddîn was an avatar of God?”--you asked if I was familiar with a Persian book, “The Third Script” by Dr. Saheb al-Zamani.

REPLY: I have seen this book, but I did not buy it. I understand that it is about 900 pages long and was published in 1972 in Iran. It is said to be an analysis of everything Shams was recorded as saying in the earliest Persian sources: the biographies of Sepasâlâr and Aflâkî (often legendary), as well as the “Discourses of Shams of Tabriz” [Maqâlât-é shams-é tabrîzî], the words of Shams as recorded by his disciples. The author (Saheb al-Zamani) used the edition of Ahmad Khôshnevîs, published in 1970 and now regarded as a poor edition. The best current edition is by Movvahed, published in 1990, based on the oldest manuscripts (the  best of which is believed to be in the handwriting of Soltân Valad, who was a disciple of Shams). The best translations in English (of selections from Movvahed’s edition) are by Franklin Lewis, “Rumi; Past and Present, East and West” (2000) and William Chittick, “Me and Rumi: The Autobiography of Shams-i Tabrizi” (2004). 

As  result of Dr. al-Zamani’s book, a quote from the “Discourses of Shams” became well-known in Iran, known by the title of “The Third Script” [khaTT-é sevvom]. The full quote was translated by Chittick (p. 156) as follows (Persian text attached):

 

“They said, ‘Make an exegesis of the Koran for us.’ I said, ‘As you know, my exegesis is not from Muhammad, nor is it from God. My “I” also denies it. I say to it, “How can you deny it? Leave me alone, go away, why do you give me headaches?” It says, “No I won’t go. I’ll just keep on denying.” And that’s my own self--it doesn’t understand my words. This is like the calligrapher who used to write three kinds of calligraphy. One, he read but no one else. Another, he read and others too. The third, neither he nor anyone else could read. That’s me when I talk. I don’t understand, nor does anyone else.”

--Movahhed edition, p. 272 (Khôshnevîs, pp. 326-27)

COMMENT: In other words, Shams is saying that he has no commentary [tafSîr] on verses of the Qur’ân to share that are traditions [ahâdîth] of the Prophet, he has no inspirations [ilhâm] from God about Qur'anic verses to share, and he has no commentary on Qur’ân that is from himself that is intelligible to others or even to himself. 

An example from the Prophet is his interpretation in a Hadîth that relates to Q.52:25, “We sent before Our apostles with… the Book and the Balance [al-mîzân]”--- “A good character is the heaviest weight in the Balance.” And an example of a sufi interpretation is of Q.50:16, “We are nearer to him [man] than (his) jugular vein”--- "God is nearer to you than your very own self."

It is my understanding that Dr. Saheb al-Zamani analyzed the passage about the three calligraphic scripts and concluded that, “The third, neither he nor anyone else could read--I am that [ân man-am]…” meant, “I am that third script.” As a result, the idea that Shams was the “third script” became quoted separately from the context of the exegesis of the Qur’ân. And, unfortunately, some writers (beginning with Saheb al-Zamani?) have made the radical interpretation that the calligrapher is God. Here is a version in English with this interpretation: “...the scripture writer of the universe wrote the truth in three scripts: One he could read and no one else! One he could read and everyone else! And one he could not read nor could anyone else! I am that third Script!” This interpretation has led some to the interpretation that Shams said that he is the “third script” that not even God can read (!!!). Years ago (2000), I heard an Iranian-American woman actually say this. She said that there were three scripts, one which everyone could read, one which only God could read, and one which not even God could read (na`ûdhu bi-llâh). She said, rather dramatically, that Shams-i Tabrizi was able to read this third script. I was outraged and became inwardly constricted at hearing this, but held my tongue and never  mentioned it to anybody.

Unsurprisingly, I have had a negative feeling about al-Zamani's book since then.

Ibrahim

-------------------

[Panevis]

Salam to everyone,

   Dear Dr Gamard, unfortunately this concept and approach of "being so mystical and so complicated and so unique that "nobody can understand me(or us)"" exists among some groups and people who want the religion and spiritual path to be full of mist of ambiguity, so that no-one can ask them to clear what they mean. And if one asks, they already have this answer that "I am the third one"!, "no-one(even God!!) can understand me"! , "let alone you"!

   What king of God is that God that can't understand something or a human?! 

   This book, "Khatt-e sevvom" is popular between these kind of minds.

   Also between those who leave clear teachings of Quran and Masnavi, and cling to unclear and ambiguous books and teaching, for life.

Regards,

Panevis

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dar-al-Masnavi" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dar-al-masnavi+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to dar-al-masnavi@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/dar-al-masnavi.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[David Perrault]

Dear SHK ( may Allah continue to be pleased with you,,,),

 

This is an old post but gives opportunity to commend you for your true and solid groundedness in Islam and the discursive precision you use in analyzing translating and bringing the truth to bear of the Mevlevi. I have no knowledge of the context of the supposed statement of Shems but wonder if such statements are hyperbole and meant to draw a distinction between the conceptual Lord and the true Lord and draw attention to the high status given  by the Lord to the to the Perfect Man...??? If true there may be gems in the more accurate  discourses

dust and sophistry

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dar-al-Masnavi" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dar-al-masnavi+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to dar-al-masnavi@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/dar-al-masnavi.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

M. Perrault

[Ibrahim]

Thank you for the kind remarks.

In my view, it is not hyperbole, but a deliberate misreading of Shams' words, translated accurately by Prof. William Chittick, whom I regard as the best translator of Rumi into American English, as: "The third [[script]], neither he [[the calligrapher]] nor anyone else could read. That’s me when I talk. I don’t understand, nor does anyone else” [yekî na û khwândy, nah ghayr-é û; ân man-am. keh sukhan gûy-am: nah man dân-am, wa nah ghayr-é man]. In contrast, Dr. Saheb al-Zamani interpreted that Shams meant that he himself was the third script and that the calligrapher is God––an outrageous and anti-religious view. 

There has been an effort for many years and in many places (such as Turkey, Europe, America and Iran) to promote non-Islamic interpretations of Sufism, as well as to promote Hz. Mawlânâ Rumi (the most famous and universally loved Sufi) in the same way. This is done primarily by promoting "Rumi quotes" that are not authentic, such as: "I am neither Christian nor Jew, nether Magian nor Muslim." "Sometimes I am a (Muslim) believer [mû'min] and sometimes a Jew and sometimes a Christian." "In all Mosques, Pagodas, Churches do I find one shrine alone." (This one about the shrine is fake Rumi fabricated by a German scholar in 1819, translated into English by William Hastie, 1903.) “We have kept the marrow of the Qur'an; we have left the skin for the donkeys/dogs” [mâ ze-qur'ân maghz-râ bar dâsht-êm/ pûst-râ bahr-e kharr-ân/sag-ân be-g'zâsht-êm]." The last quote about the Holy Qur'ân was one of hundreds of verses added to the Masnavi over the centuries; it may be found in older editions of the Masnavi (preceding 2: 1763) prior to Nicholson's important achievement of using the earliest manuscripts of Masnavi in order to attain maximum authenticity. For more examples, see my article: http://dar-al-masnavi.org/apparently-irreligious-verses.html

[Mohamadreza Lahfatan]

Salam  

I read the Third Script book again. But I did not find your quote from the commentary of Sahib Al-Zamani

(Dr. Saheb al-Zamani interpreted that Shams meant that he himself was the third script and that the calligrapher is God––an outrageous and anti-religious view.)

. Which book page is it?

The quotes I found in relation to the Third Script.

[Ibrahim]

Salâm,

Thanks for the excerpts from Dr, Zamani's book. Originally, I did not say that he himself interpreted that the calligrapher is God, but I questioned whether he did: "It is my understanding that Dr. Saheb al-Zamani analyzed the passage about the three calligraphic scripts and concluded that, “The third, neither he nor anyone else could read--I am that [ân man-am]…” meant, “I am that third script.” As a result, the idea that Shams was the “third script” became quoted separately from the context of the exegesis of the Qur’ân. And, unfortunately, some writers (beginning with Saheb al-Zamani?) have made the radical interpretation that the calligrapher is God." I wondered if it started with him because I heard an Iranian American woman make that claim about the Third Script.

I see from the samples from his book you posted that (in contrast to Prof. Chittick's translation: "And that's my own self--it doesn't understand my words.... The third, neither he nor anyone else could read. That's me when I talk. I don't understand, nor does anyone else"), Dr. Zamani did interpret "that's me" [ân man-am] as meaning, "I am that third script" [ân (khatt-é sevvom) man-am]" (image U 10), which is confirmed in another place where he wrote: "I am the third script, an indeterminate/unintelligible script..." [man khatt-é sevvom: khattî mubham...] (image U 19). And his interpretation that Shams was the "Third Script" seems to have caught the imagination of many in Iran for a time (including those who believe that Shams was a "deified" human being). But, in fairness to al-Zamani, I understand now that he did not assert that the calligrapher is God. And he wrote that Môlavî Rumi, Sa'dî, and Hâfez were also the "Third Script" (image U 21).

I still think that this quote from Shams needs to be understood in the context that it began when students of Shams said, "Make an exegesis [tafsîr] of the Qur'ân for us." In that context, he answered that his case was like a calligrapher who had three scripts, and he was like the third script in regard to (mystical) commentary about verses from the Qur'ân--the words that he spoke were of unclear meaning to himself and others--because such mystical secrets about the Qur'ân cannot fit into words, and cannot be understood by the intellect.

[Mohamadreza Lahfatan]

Dr. Mohammad Hassan Naseraddin Sahbalzmani is one of the greatest professors in Farsi language. These misconceptions are really unfair.

In general, the third script is meant: No one understands my talks.

As Mowlana says:

                              آنچه نبردست وهم عقل ندیدست و فهم               از تو به جانم رسید قبله از آنی مرا

گوهر معنی از اوست پر شده جان و دلم               اوست اگر گفت نیست ثالث و ثانی مرا                          

[Ibrahim]

That is:

"That which imagination has not conceived, (and) intellect has not seen or understood, has come into my soul from you; because of that, you are my prayer-direction [qibla]. 

.......

He is the essence of (spiritual) meaning [gôhar-é ma'nà]; my soul and heart have become filled. Although he said he is not my second and third, he is."

--from Rumi's ghazal 207 

[Mohamadreza Lahfatan]

Salam

We discussed much in the past.And you know that I do not need translation.I am interested in interpreting verses.

[Ibrahim]

Yes, you have said before that you are interested in mystical interpretations, not translations of Rumi's words. I translate some of your quotes from Rumi's Dîvân--not for your sake--but for the benefit of the active members of this discussion group (that is affiliated with my website), most of whom do not read Persian and Persian script. Another reason is that you often quote some very special verses from Mawlana.

[David Perrault]

 First Shk i defer to your judgment, but wish to take the conversation into a slightly different direction touching on one of the core issue that makes a possible divide between some Sufi schools and Orthodoxy.

Clearly the Adab of safety is to make no proclamations and take refuge in servant-hood and avoid egoic wiles. From a purely Islamic  point of view i  must admit have been contaminated from views that are not purely Orthodox. When faced with statements that clearly could be viewed as heretical rather than becoming outraged i sometimes look to the context, source and the reason for heterodoxy fully realizing that in this age and time many would like to de-capitate or take the heart out of Islam and use it for their own purposes.

It is not unusual of course even historically for this to happen for man's ego oft times clearly expresses the wish to replace Allah or anything that is Supreme and Ultimate and in authority. There have been Sufi's that clearly maintain that in the end that Man is Allah.

Ibn al- Arabi and others have been quoted as saying that when man knows himself he knows his Lord or even becomes his Lord or recognizes there is no difference for what man had been is not...

He further goes on to clarify that at least for most that that Lord is the only Lord that man will come to know and that the Lord of All is Transcendent and Unknowable.

Not making the distinction or not keeping quiet of course could mean death as an idolator. This Lordly Self also is mentioned by Henri Corbin as the Heavenly Witness or Twin originating in the Old Persian religion and carried into Persian Sufism. It also  has correlates in Hinduism in the relationship of Krishna and Arjuna as well in Gnosticism, Neo-Platonism and in Master -Disciple relationships across spiritual and religious boundaries.

The question is whether these are delusions, corruptions, Egregors or portents of some Universal truth or... and whether such discussions have merit for poor seekers such as i.... or simply threaten the foundation of relegious society Islamic or otherwise.

dust at best.....

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dar-al-Masnavi" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dar-al-masnav...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to dar-al-...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/dar-al-masnavi.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

M. Perrault

[Ibrahim Gamard]

Thank you for sincerely raising a core issue.

First, I do not believe that Ibn 'Arabî interpreted the saying (usually attributed to Hz. Muhammad, sometimes to Hz. 'Alî), "He who knows himself [or: 'his self,' 'his soul'--nafs] knows his Lord [Rabb]," as meaning "becomes his Lord" or "knows His Lord as himself."

Ibn 'Arabî said did say, in one of his interpretations: "In the same way, we know that there is something that moves us or keeps us still, exercising its ruling properties within us as it wills, only when we look at our own souls. Then, when we know our souls, we know our Lord, like two exactly similar things. That is why the Prophet reported in the revelation through his words, 'He who knows his soul knows his Lord,' and why God sent down the report, 'We shall show them Our signs upon the horizons and in themselves...' (Qur'ân 41:53)."  Futûhat al-Makkiya III: 314.22, translated by William Chittick, "The Sufi Path of Knowledge," p. 312)

"It is impossible for realities to change, so the servant is servant and the Lord Lord; the Real [al-Haqq] is the Real and the creature creature." (Futûhat, trans. Chittick, p. 312)

"God requires from those who declare His Unity that they do not compete [muzâhama] with Him, so that the Lord may remain the Lord and the servant servant. The Lord does not compete with the servant in his servanthood, and the servant does not compete with the Lord in His Lordship, even while servant and Lord exist. Hence he who declares God's Unity does not assume the traits of the divine names." (Futûhat, trans. Chittick, p. 313)

"At root the servant was created only to belong to God and to be a servant perpetually. He was not created to be a lord. So when God clothes him in the robe of mastership and commands him to appear in it, he appears as a servant to himself and a master in the view of the observer." (Futûhat, trans. Chittick, p. 323)

"Do you not see that when the spirit is heedless of itself, it intrudes upon and is audacious toward the Divine Station? Then it claims lordship, like Pharaoh. When this state overcomes it, it says, 'I am Allah' or 'Glory be to me!', as one of the gnostics has said. This is because he was overcome by a state. That is why words like this have never issued from a messenger, or a prophet, or a friend who is perfect in his knowledge, his presence [huzûr], his clinging to the door of the station which belongs to him, his courtesy, and his observance of the material [maddâ] within which he dwells and through which he becomes manifest." (Futûhat,trans. Chittick, p. 320)

Prof. Chittick explained it well, following the first quote above ("It is impossible..."): "From this point of view, the servant cannot assume the character traits of God, since that would mean that he had come out of his own attributes. It would involve a  sharing [ishtirâk] of attributes and a partnership [mushâraka] between Lord and servant. This would be an 'association' [shirk] of other gods with God, which conflicts with Islam's fundamental axion, tawhîd, the declaration of God's Unity." Chittick's commentary, p. 312)

---------------------------

This one first became a mystic in college, when he had an experience of the transcendent unity of the universe: all was simultaneously One, Many, and Nothing. All was a single Ocean of infinite Love. He felt a natural and effortless love for all things because all was One Being; he loved his neighbor as himself because his neighbor was part of himself. Fear of death (of not being) vanished with the certainty that it is impossible for the part to not always be united with the Whole, the One infinite Being. He was amazed by the reality of infinite and boundless Oneness, hidden like the ocean from fishes; he understood that he could not communicate this to others, for whom the separateness of objects is the most obvious reality. At the same time, everything was also separate and the manifestation of unique, infinitely beautiful and special qualities. And at the same time, when he closed his eyes, all was no-thing, a blissful nothingness. After this experience faded, this one was a pantheistic mystic (= all [the universe] is God), with no need to worship (= there is no separate being to pray to). This may be called the "horizontal dimension" of mystical equality. Later, he experienced clearly that the locus of power was not in himself, but in the Divine Other, whose loving and protective guidance brought this one to tears of gratitude. The Divine Other also manifests Divine Will and Power, and is worthy of worship, submission, service, and love--ultimately not a separate Being, but a higher level of the One Being or Reality that has the function of Lordship: ruling and guiding all things. This may be called the "vertical dimension" of mystical hierarchy. After that experience, he was a religious mystic (and then a Muslim). Thanks be to God!

-----------------------------

Elsewhere, I have made the distinction between "theocentric mysticism" and "anthropocentric mysticism" (http://dar-al-masnavi.org/mevlevi-vs-gurdjieffism.html). The motto of the former is, "There is no (true) divinity except (the one) God." The motto of the latter is, "There is no (true) divinity except Man." The former includes monotheistic religions (and I would regard some forms of Hinduism as theocentric as well). The latter includes all forms of Gnosticism: Theosophy, Freemasonry, Esoteric Christianity, Rosicrucianism, and other kinds of Western Occultism and Esotericism--as well as some heterodox Middle Eastern sects and secret religions with roots in Gnosticism, such as Ismailis and Druzes, Ahl-i-Haqq, Mandeans, Alevis, Yazidis (some of these groups may have, at times, developed a Sufi exterior--as a way to survive persecution), plus Sufi-like groups such as Bektashis and Hurufis (one of the latter declared, "There is no god except the son of Adam"). 

Some Ismailis regarded al-Hakim, the 11th century Ismaili Caliph of the Fatimid Dynasty as a Divine manifestation, as well as their seven Imams (or leaders--supposedly descendants of 'Ali). Some of the Ismailis who worshipped al-Hakim survive today as the Druzes. Via groups such as these, heterodox beliefs have survived in Middle Eastern cultures, such as metempsychosis [tanaâsukh], incarnation of God [hulûl], and return [rij'at] of previous "Divine emanations" of God. Hz. 'Alî (may God be pleased with him), the cousin, son-in-law, and fourth successor or Caliph [khalîfa] of the Prophet Muhammad (may the peace of God be upon him) was regarded in Ismaili literature as a manifestation of God, who said (according to Ismailis): “I am the Sign of the All-Powerful. I am the Gnosis of the Mysteries. I am the Threshold of Thresholds. I am the companion of the radiance of the divine Majesty. I am the First and the Last, the Manifest and the Hidden. I am the Face of God. I am the mirror of God, the supreme Pen, the Tabula secreta.” 

Wallace D. Fard Muhammad (said to be of Greek and Turkish ancestry, and a Bektashi or Alevi) was the founder of the Nation of Islam in Detroit in 1930.  His student was Elijah Muhammad, who declared that Fard was the incarnation of God (or later a prophet or the Imam Mahdi) and that he was himself the prophet or messenger of "Almighty God" (Fard). As someone wrote: "The Nation of Islam was not Islam as we understand it. It was a mixture of black nationalism, Christianity, Islam, and a long list of ingredients that W.D. Fard and Elijah Muhammad mixed and cooked in a pot like gumbo. So, while I am very critical of certain ideas and aspects of the Nation of Islam, I give credit where credit it due. W.D. Fard loved black people. He combined his Islam with all kinds of questionable elements; however, he believed that such teachings were necessary to build up a broken people." Elijah Muhammad's son, Warith al-Dîn Mohammed, tried to persuade members to change their beliefs to those of normative Islam, but that apparently has not succeed well and Louis Farrakhan is said to have revived the (heterodox beliefs, with a stronger response. (Has orthodox Islam been less attractive because it has been presented as non-mystical  [=non-Sufi]? Certainly, it is much more exciting and motivating to believe that one's group is guided and led directly and in person by a Prophet, Mahdi, or incarnation of God. A charismatic spiritual leader who may be rightly guided, or may be inflated with delusions of divine grandeur is, in my view, half of the equation; the need of the people/ community to have a mystical dimension in their lives--even a purely superstitious or obviously fanciful one--is the other factor.)

Here is what Rumi said about "incarnation of God: "Mowlana said to a Christian, who said that Jesus is God [`îsà huwa ‘llâh], “How could it be that a frail body… whose form was less than two cubits, should be the preserver [[Hâfiz]] of the seven heavens, the thickness of each of which is a distance of… and the thickness of each heaven to the next a distance of… and under the Throne a sea whose depth is likewise…. How could your reason acknowledge that the disposer and controller of all these is the feeblest of forms?” (Fîhi Mâa Fiihi, "The Discourses of Rumi," translated by Arberry, Discourse 29, pp. 134-35)

Shams-é Tabrîzî was critical of Mansûr al-Hallâj (d. 10th century), who was executed for supposedly declaring (in an ecstatic state): "I am God" (or: "I am the Real") [anâ 'l-Haqq]. He said: The beauty of the spirit had not yet completely shown itself to Hallaj. Otherwise, how could he have said, 'I am the Real'? What does 'I' have to do with God? What is this 'I'? What are words? Even if he had been immersed only of the world of the spirit, how could letters fit there? How could 'I' fit in? How could 'am' fit in?" --Maqâlât-é Shams-é Tabrîzî, translated by William Chittick, "Me and Rumi: The Autobiography of Shams-i Tabrizi," p. 88

Returning to your posting: Like most adherents of Sufism, I believe that Sufism [tasawwuf] is the heart of Islam. And I am appalled when I read that ignorant and fanatic Wahhabi/Salafi extremists bomb Sufi Muslim mosques or shrines per their beliefs that Sufis are "innovators,' "saint worshippers," and "infidels." But keeping the mystical dimension available to seekers does not necessitate adopting extremist religious beliefs. That is why I believe that the teachings and way of Jalaluddin Rumi and other traditional Sufi Muslims are the soundest guide.

Ibrahim

-----

[Mohamadreza Lahfatan]

salam

Waḥdat al-Wujūd (Unity of Existence)

 

Unity of being is a technical term in Islamic philosophy and in the field of Islamic mysticism. Throughout history, different interpretations of the unity of existence have been given by supporters, opponents and most recently Western orientalists. The first explanation is usually attributed to Ibn 'Arabi by the full meaning of this term, although Ibn' Arabi himself did not use the term 'unity of existence', and the people before him had the same sayings. For example, Mohammad al-Ghazali states that "there is no existence other than God ... existence exists only to a unique one." According to Ghazzali, the fruit of the spiritual growth of a Sufi is "to certify that no entity exists Except for God and that everything except the face of God is destroyed”.

book :Resale Vojodeye  Written in Ibn' Arabi