The lamp has become different

[Ibrahim]

A brother from Malaysia recently wrote:

Salam,
Dear Sheikh Ibrahim,
I would appreciate very much if you can show me the persian text of
Nicholson's translation on The One true Light. (Nicholson, Rumi: Poet
and Mystic, 1950, p. 166). Where he says: "The lamps are different and
the light is the same, it comes from the same source". (Nicholson said
it is in Mathnawi III: 1259) but when I refer to it I only get (as in
your translation): 1259 (An) elephant was in a dark building.

Dear K,
Salâm,

Nicholson’s citation here is not correct; he should have written: III:
1255. There is a problem with his rendition, which is that it is a
version and not a literal translation (compare below). Rumi
popularizers have used the version as a “Nicholson translation” in
order to promote Mawlana as teaching the universality of religions, as
in a recent example on the Internet: “...the eternal yet timely
message of Love,  the essential Oneness of all faiths and of life
itself, as taught by Jalaluddin Rumi and his dervish mentor, Shams of
Tabriz.”

The rendition, “The lamps are different, but the light is the same”
can be interpreted to mean that Mawlana taught that all religions have
an essential equality and validity because they are illuminated by the
same Light of Truth. But Mawlana did not say that the lamps (=
religions) are different. He said that the lamp (meaning the outward
form of the true religion since the time of Moses) has become
different but the Light (of Revelation) remains the same; the lamp and
wick (which are also different) are illuminated by the same Light.
Although the context has to do with the “Light of Moses” (the series
of Divine revelations transmitted by the Prophets), there is also here
a reference to the Light verse in the Qur’an (24:35). And Mawlana did
not imply the equality of those of different religions by saying, “the
disagreement between Moslem, Zoroastrian and Jew [Muslim-o Gabr-o
Jahuud] depends on the standpoint”-- he said “between the (true)
Believer [muu’min], Zoroastrian, and Jew”.

Interestingly, Nicholson did not himself interpret these verses as
implying the universality of religions. He wrote: “Religions are many,
God is One. The intellect, groping in the dark, cannot form any
conception of His nature. Only the clairvoyant eye of the mystic sees
Him as He really is.”

On another topic, Mawlana uses the word “Hendow” in three ways: as a
Muslim from India, as a slave, and symbolically as someone with a dark
nature (often contrasted with “Turk”, someone with a bright nature).
Here, the Hindus exhibiting the elephant are best understood as Indian
Muslims.

Ibrahim
----------

The lamps are different, but the Light is the same: it comes from
Beyond.
If thou keep looking at the lamp, thou art lost: for thence arises
the appearance of numbers and plurality.
Fix thy gaze upon the Light, and thou art delivered from the
dualism inherent in the finite body.
O thou who art the kernel of Existence, the disagreement between
Moslem, Zoroastrian and Jew depends on the standpoint.

Some Hindus brought an elephant…
--Nicholson, “Rumi: Poet and Mystic,” 1950, p. 166



The mention of Moses serves for a mask, but the Light of Moses is
thy actual concern, O good man.
Moses and Pharaoh are in thy being: thou must seek these two
adversaries in thyself.
The (process of) generation from Moses is (continuing) till the
Resurrection: the Light is not different, (though) the lamp has become
different.
This earthenware lamp and this wick are different, but its light
is not different: it is from Yonder.
[în sufâl-o în palîta dîgar-ast *** lêk nûr-ash nêst dîgar z-ân sar-
ast]
[این سُفال و این پَلیته دیگراست *** لیک نورش نیست دیگر زان سرست
If thou keep looking at the glass (lantern), thou wilt be lost,
because from the glass arise the numbers of (the plurality inherent
in) dualism;
But if thou keep thy gaze (fixed) upon the Light, thou wilt be
delivered from dualism and the numbers (plurality) of the finite body.
From the place (object) of view, O (thou who art the) kernel of
Existence, there arises the difference between the true believer and
the Zoroastrian and the Jew.
[az naZar-gâh-ast ay maghz-e wujûd *** ikhtilâf-e mû’min-o gabr-o
jahûd]
[از نظر گاهست ای مغزِ وجود *** اختکافِ مؤمن و گبر و جهود
The disagreement as to the description and shape of the elephant.

The elephant was in a dark house: some Hindus had brought it for
exhibition.
--Masnavi Book 3: 1252-59, translated by Nicholson, 1930

[Ibrahim]

K replied:

W'salam,
Thank you Sheikh Ibrahim, for your information, the problem of
religious pluralism in Malaysia and Indonesia becoming serious today
and many pluralists use Rumi's statement to justify their idea. I
checked the English translation and the Arabic one, I compared to the
Persian translation, as I know little bit, I found out that
Nicholson's rendition in the book (Rumi: Poet and Mystic) misleading,
especially his attempt to mix the last part of fasl 48  with the
beginning of fasl 49. Although his English translation can be still
reliable. A person who depend on the small book assuming his authority
in the literature will reasonably believe that Rumi did promote
religious pluralism. So, what I'm doing is to explain what exactly
Rumi said in his Mathnawi by giving the whole story and not a partial
rendition as Nicholson did. Now that you have confirmed that Maulana
has nothing to do with this misunderstanding, I'm glad and very
thankful for your kindness.

[E.S.Quinlan]

Ask yourself why you want to believe that Rumi did not accept religious pluralism.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dar-al-Masnavi" group.
To post to this group, send email to dar-al-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to dar-al-masnav...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/dar-al-masnavi?hl=en.

[Ibrahim]

For years I believed that he accepted it, mainly based on the verses
from the story of Moses and the Shepherd, in which God tells Moses:
"In the Hindoos the idiom of Hind (India) is praiseworthy; in the
Sindians the idiom of Sind is praiseworthy....I look not at the tongue
and the speech; I look at the inward (spirit) and the state (of
feeling)." [Masnavi II: 1757-59, trans. by Niccholson]. But later I
came to understand the first quoted verse differently. And after
studying Mawlana's works for years in Persian, I simply did not find
the evidence for it and concluded that he knew little about other
religions besides what he learned from a traditional Islamic
education. I found that most of the verses used in support of
religious pluralism are inauthentic (not in the earliest manuscripts).
As a result, I found myself having a minority viewpoint--in contrast
to the majority who strongly believe he accepted religious pluralism.
Now I'll ask you: what authentic verses from Mawlana's works can you
cite that support the view that he accepted religious pluralism?

Ibrahim

On Nov 29, 8:42 pm, "E.S.Quinlan" <eqp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ask yourself *why* you want to believe that Rumi did not accept religious

[Iljas Baker]

Salaam all,

I can't see Rumi "promoting" religious pluralism, but nor can I see him rejecting any value in other religions. One has to be careful to avoid seeing what one wants to see and in this case Ibrahim's remarks may be seen as a corrective. But equally one has to avoid seeing Islam (the religion) as more than it is.

Iljas

[E.S.Quinlan]

Good comment, Ilias. It reminds me of Ghandi's statement: "God has no religion."

Sakinah

[E.S.Quinlan]

Salaam, Ibrahim.
My question was not about textual evidence;  I'm famiilar with both sides of the issue. My question was about your motives i.e why  you want Mevalana not to be perceived as a religious pluralist--which I take to mean someone who agrees that "all authentic spiritual ways lead to The Truth (Al-Haqq)." A few years ago I presented a paper on the nature of Rumi's ecumenism at  a conference. If you are interested, I can send it as an attachment.

Sincerely,
Sakinah

[Ibrahim]

Dear Sakinah,
Salâm,

Yes please attach your paper, if you can. For years, I wanted Mawlana
to be supportive of religious pluralism (thanks for giving a good
definition of the term), and presented such at inter-religious
gatherings. But, as I said, over time I could not see enough evidence
to support this view. My belief in it just gradually withered. I
didn't have a desire or motive that Mawlana not to be viewed as a
pluralist (such as based on a view that Islam is the only religion
that contains true teachings). Religious pluralism is very modern and
many people project it on to Mawlana as if he was as broad-minded as
we. But, unlike us, he did not have access to translations of the
Bible, the Bhagavad Gita, the Diamond Sutra, the Tao Te Ching, etc.
The derogatory references to Jews and Christians in his Divan-e Kabir
shows him to have held conventional Muslim views of people of other
religions. If he was so conventional in his views of Jews and
Christians, how could he be accepting of "Hindoos"? Tolerance of other
religions necessitates knowledge of the selfless detachment and
compassion of many Buddhists, the love of God cultivated by many
Bhakti Hindus, the service to the poor of many Christians, the
historical willingness of Jews to be martyred for the sake of pure
monotheism rather than be forced to worship an idol or king, the
pursuit of good thoughts and actions of many Zoroastrians, etc.
Mawlana's works do not show evidence of such appreciation. Yes,
Aflaki's hagiography describes some stories of Mawlana's kindness
toward Christians, but most of those stories end with the requisite
conversion to Islam.

Ibrahim

On Nov 30, 12:17 pm, "E.S.Quinlan" <eqp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Salaam, Ibrahim.
> My question was not about textual evidence;  I'm famiilar with both sides
> of the issue. My question was about your motives i.e why  you want Mevalana
> not to be perceived as a religious pluralist--which I take to mean someone
> who agrees that "all authentic spiritual ways lead to The Truth (Al-Haqq)."
> A few years ago I presented a paper on the nature of Rumi's ecumenism at  a
> conference. If you are interested, I can send it as an attachment.
>
> Sincerely,
> Sakinah
>

[E.S.Quinlan]

Dear Ibrahim,
It's true that the Mathnawi doesn't show much appreciation of other traditions.
I think it's more useful for us to ask what would be Mevlana's position were he alive to day and if he had access to those other texts and contact with those other saints and mystics that you mention. His poetry has done much good in bringing believers together--and come together we must in these times  full of fanaticism, fundamentalism, and materialism. The people who wrote about Rumi in his own time and afterwards, like Aflaki,  were not on his level, so we can't take their view of him as definitive. I've attached my paper. Please note that it was written for an  oral presentation to audience that knew next to nothing about Mevlana. Thank you for your reply. I would value any comments you have about the paper.

Salaam,
Sakinah

[dha...@juno.com]

Ibrahim Efendi and Friends:  I am appreciating this conversation.

Please explain how the 25 Prophets mentioned in the Qur'an, and the 100,000 Prophets, thought to have come before the final Prophet, fit into the conversation. 

 

Peace

Arsalaan

 

____________________________________________________________
Groupon&#8482 Official Site
1 ridiculously huge coupon a day. Get 50-90% off your city's best!
Groupon.com

[E.S.Quinlan]

Salaam All,

A few thoughts on Arslaan's question:

We know there is only One Light (Al-Nur):  the hearts of all the Messengers are illuminated by that One Light. To carry the metaphor a bit further, we could say that some lamps are larger than others, but why do that? One can walk through a forest with a flashlight or a lantern.

The wonderful, beautiful thing is that Allah sends light to all people to guide them through the forest of this world on their journey back to their Creator. Even people who have no recognized Messenger, have a heart that when not covered over by ignorance, is a small light.  As we know though, it's only too easy for this small light to be dimmed by forces of darkness and circumstances. Hence the wisdom of aligning one's little lamp with the large lamp of a Messenger.

Kind Regards,
Sakinah

--

[Iljas Baker]

Salaam,

Interesting comment from ESQ but I wonder what aligning one's smaller light to a bigger one might mean. You don't need a flashlight when the sun comes out and clearly the sun and a flashlight are different. Of course metaphors have their limitations. Practically speaking, it seems impossible for everyone to accept the same path and even those who think they are on the right path would be foolish to think it guarantees them anything. And who really understands the right path these days or the reality of a Messenger? You have to have a certain wideness of heart and a willingness to learn because clearly God knows best.

Iljas

[Ibrahim]

Dear Sakinah,
Wa `alaykuma 's-salâm,

Thank you for uploading your paper, which shows that you have studied
a lot about mysticism. When you posted it, I was busy preparing for a
three-week trip to Istanbul and Konya in December, but now that I am
back I had time to study it and do some reearch. You said you would
value any comments I might have about it, so...

Your paper must have communicated very well, I think, to an audience
who had little knowledge of Rumi.

You do not agree that Rumi advocates an inclusivist ecumenism that
would blend religious distinctions into an interfaith mélange; an
inclusivism that would be a spiritual path not based on any particular
religious tradition and that patches together practices and doctrines
that suit one’s tastes. Instead, you view Rumi as advocating a
pluralistic ecumenism (which you defined elsewhere as believing that
all authentic spiritual ways lead to the Truth [al-Haqqq]). You also
view Rumi as advocating a convergent ecumenism, which you describe as
the nature of mysticism to unify distinctions based on the experience
of absorption in the Divine in which language becomes utterly
inadequate.

You explain well how Rumi was the fruit of an established esoteric
spiritual tradition of Islamic mysticism, that he was a devout Muslim
who performed the daily prayers required of all Muslims, and that he
observed the other pillars of Islam. And you mention how contemporary
popularizers of Rumi’s poetry downplay his Islamic heritage because of
the negative view of Islam in the West.

p. 1--"This son of yours will set the spiritual aspirants of this
world on fire": These words of the sufi poet, `Attar, allegedly spoken
to Rumi' father when Rumi was a boy are not in the oldest Persian
sources; this apocryphal story about meeting `Attar was written two
hundred years after Rumi’s death. This story is commonly included in
books and articles about Rumi.

--"He has crossed the boundaries of East and West and the boundaries
of all religions." I see little evidence of the second half of the
sentence, as you know.

--"He himself predicted that his works would cross all boundaries."
This is true; Aflaki quotes him as saying, "By God, by God, from the
place where the sun rises to the place where it sets, the deep
spiritual meaning [ma`nâ] (of the words of the Mathnawî) will take
hold and extend. And it will travel to (all) the climates [or regions]
(of the world)."

--"the best-known translator of Rumi, Coleman Barks": He is not a
translator, he cannot read Persian, he re-Englishes the real
translations of others and interprets them however he pleases.

--"translator… Edmund Helminski": He is not a translator for the same
reason as Barks; his reinterpretations are usually more responsible
because he is a Muslim sufi and a Mevlevi.

--“Out beyond ideas of right doing and wrong doing there is a field.
I’ll meet you there”: This is one of the best-known and memorized
"Rumi poems" in English–-but it is more Barks than Rumi. Here is an
accurate translation: "Beyond Islam and unbelief there is a 'desert
plain.' For us, there is a 'passion' in the midst of that expanse. The
knower [of God] who reaches there will prostrate [in prayer],/ (For)
there is neither Islam nor unbelief, nor any 'where' (in) that place."
Footnote on beyond Islam and unbelief: "For Muslim mystics, the
presence of God's reality is so evident that mental concepts about
belief or unbelief about God's existence can seem irrelevant."--from
The Quatrains of Rumi, translated by Ibrahim Gamard and Ravan Farhadi,
2008, p. 407. From an interview: "For example, Barks says he rewrote a
Rumi line that originally read in English, 'out beyond what is holy in
Islam and what is not permitted in Islam' to 'out beyond ideas of
wrongdoing and right- doing.' 'I took the Islam out of it,' Barks says
in a phone interview from his home in Athens, Georgia. 'Yeah, the
fundamentalists or people who think there is one particular revelation
scold me for this.'"

p. 3--"He could feel completely comfortable practicing one religion
while simultaneously accepting the efficacy of other religions. He
could do this because Islam teaches that all the traditions lead to
God and thus all traditions have a divine power to “save” human
souls." Where does Rumi state or suggest that other religions are
effective in the salvation of the souls of their believers? Do you
really believe that Islam teaches what you stated (and later called
pluralism)? To me, the Qur'an is mildly "pluralistic," in that it
states that the Jewish prophets of the past and their faithful
followers, as well as the Christian disciples of Jesus and some
Christian monks were sincere submitters (muslims) to the Will of God.
But religions other than Christianity are not mentioned in the Qur'an
(that is, except for polytheism and the monotheism of the Sabians, who
are not clearly described). Yes, as Arsalaan wrote, Islam teaches that
there are known prophets and many other unknown prophets. But even if
we assume that the originators of Hinduism and Buddhism were rightly
guided prophets sent by Allah, the conclusion is the same: these
religions somehow developed idol-worship, and in the view of the
Muslims, these had similarities to the idol-worship of the pagan
Arabs.

p. 4--"..these words of Rumi come to mind: 'Every prophet and every
saint has a path, but all paths lead to God. / All paths are really
one.' Mathnawi, Book I:3086" This is a reinterpretation of
Nicholson's accurate translation--"Every prophet and every saint hath
a way (of religious doctrine and practice), but it leads to God: all
(the ways) are (really) one." [har nabî-wo har walî-râ maslakê-st/ lêk
tâ Haq mê-bar-ad jumla yakî-st] هر نبی و هر ولی را مسلکیست * لیک تا
حق می بَرَد جمله یکیست This quote is completely consistent with the
teachings of traditional Islamic sufism. It does not refer to other
religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism, as version-makers have
changed it to imply.

p. 5--"I am neither Christian nor Jew nor Magian, nor Muslim": This is
from an inauthentic ghazal, not by Rumi, not in the oldest
manuscripts; its final verse ("O Shams...") is a forgery.

--"...in the Discourses, he puts it this way: While beliefs vary from
place to place, faith is essentially the same.....If you break the
cups, the water will be unified and will flow together.": These appear
to be two separate quotes taken from the Internet. I did word searches
in Masnavi and the Discourses and could find neither. (But the first
quote may be an interpretive version made from Masnavi IV: 408: "The
Faithful are numerous, but the Faith is one"). Did find this quote,
translated from Turkish, but no source: "There are many languages in
the world, in meaning all are the same. If you break the cups, water
will be unified and will flow together."

--"Come back! Come back! Whoever you may be, Whether an infidel, a
fire-worshipper, or a pagan": This is not an authentic quatrain; it
was composed two hundred years before Rumi. Here is an accurate
translation:
"Return (in repentance), return! Whatever you are, return! 
Even if
you are an unbeliever or a Magian, or an idol worshipper, return!
This court of ours is not a court of despair. 
Even if you have broken
(your) repentance a hundred times, return!"
A calligraphy of this quatrain used to be in Rumi's mausoleum (but not
in the entrance way), but the calligraphy has been removed (as I
noticed last month when I was in Konya). The version you quoted ends
oddly: "Just come as you are"--There may be some confusion here with
another inauthentic Rumi quote (popular in Turkey): "Either appear as
you are or be as you appear".

p. 6--"Eyewitnesses said, “All the religious communities joined in the
procession": This is an accurate translation from Aflaki's story of
Rumi's funeral procession. But "all the religious communities" means
all the religious communities present in Konya (Jews and Christians in
addition to the Muslims leading it). It does not mean members of all
the world's major religious communities (Hindus, Buddhists,
Zoroastrians, Manichaens, etc.) were in Konya for the funeral as some
popularizers have interpreted.

Sakinah, you asked for my comments on your paper. I hope you won't be
too reactive. I've tried to minimize my opinions and give you accurate
information. You had no way of knowing that so many of your Rumi
quotations are inauthentic, and you trusted that a quote from a book
or a web page was from Rumi because it said so--like thousands of
others have believed. But I've researched these things for many years
and have learned not to accept any quote unless I've seen it in a
Persian text (from an edition based on the earliest manuscripts).

Ibrahim
-----------

> ...
>
> read more »
>
>  Quinlan_Rumi's_Ecumenical_Vision.pdf
> 352KViewDownload

[E.S.Quinlan]

Iljas,
As you say, metaphors have limitations and Allah knows best. My point was that each human being by virtue of being created by Allah has a little divine spark (ruh) which is our little light or flashlight. If we align that little light with the greater light of a Messenger, we will see more than we could on our own. It's that little light in us that recognizes the big light,to put  it  very simply.

 I wouldn't dare claim I know the full reality of  what a messenger or prophet  (rasul or nabi)  is--but I do know  that all human beings are Allah's, so of course he has sent guidance to them all, in many guises. Consequently, strikes me as astoundingly arrogant for people to claim that they know who Allah guides when He has told us in The Book that "each person acts according to his nature and Allah alone knows who is rightly guided" and  that "whoever surrenders his whole being/self to Allah and acts beautifully" will be saved. 

Sincerely and with Salaams,
ES

[Iljas Baker]

Salaam Es, I agree entirely with what you have written here. But we were talking about religions and paths and teachings and I don't see them as necessarily fostering that inner light we are all born with. Indeed even Islam and Sufism doesn't automatically do that. It's more complex isn't it? Iljas