Document Type : علمی- پژوهشی
Author
Department of Persian Language and Literature, Semnan University, Semnan, Iran
Abstract
Shams' first conversation with Rumi was about Bayazid. Shams specifies this point at the end of an Arabic speech in Maqalat-e Shams-e Tabrizi (Discourse of Shams-i Tabrīzī). In a similar way, Bayezid's criticism appears many times in the words of Shams. The same criticism is repeated about Hallaj. After all, the points related to this critical remark are often seen in the articles; reflections on obedience and heresy, shath (an ecstatic utterance) and drunkenness, sobriety after drunkenness, predestination and silence. But the main point is that Rumi obviously has a different view and words on this issue. He is not only a praiser of Bayezid and Hallaj; rather, he talks about drunkenness and romantic predestination with increased passion. At the same time, in the mind and language of Rumi, the spirit of Shams' speech is present without its application in the criticism of people like Bayazid. This article is an attempt to analyze the first question of Shams and propose various aspects of the duality of Shams and Rumi's view in this perspective, as well as suggestions to explain this distinction and independence of the perspective.
Highlights
Bâyazid between Shams and Rumi
Extended abstract
There have been many discussions and questions about the encounter between Rumi and Shams, but this rebirth still remains mysterious. Especially since the first meeting and what was said between them is of great concern. In several ancient narratives (such as Faridun Sepahsalar's Risala and Manâqeb al-ârefin Aflâki), the story begins with Shams' question, which places Bâyazid's position, perspective, and speech in comparison with the Prophet. Sultan Walad also makes significant references to the point of Shams. There may be some doubt: have we reduced a complex and mysterious process to a simple question and answer? It should be noted that the illusion of sudden transformation has a shadow and dominance over the fate of mystics. On the other hand, Rumi's destiny is mixed with myths. These are careful precautions. But in Shams' articles, there is an Arabic statement in which Shams states that the first words between him and Rumi were about Bâyazid.
Next, it should be remembered that in Shams' articles, we repeatedly come across Bâyazid, and his criticism by Shams is close to the first conversation. This same criticism and judgment are repeated several times about Hallâj. The teachings that Shams' speech mentions in this regard, such as the necessity of following and condemning drunkenness and intoxication, and criticizing delusional claims, are prominently displayed in his words. The articles testify clearly that even if Shams' question is not his first speech in their first meeting, and if he cannot be considered the initiator of that sudden resurrection in Rumi, it undoubtedly had a place in Shams' concerns and teachings, and he continuously returned to it and mentioned it.
But the complexity of the story appears in another horizon; where we turn to Bâyazid and Hallâj from Rumi's perspective and find him enthusiastic about these two and their drunken states.
The key point in Shams' question is undoubtedly "obedience" as well as the comparison of guardian with prophet and of course the prophet who has a special and unique position in the ranks of saints and prophets.; that is, Muhammad. He also speaks of ecstasy and the words that flow from the tongue of the mystic during moments of selflessness. Shams compares "Subhâni" in Bâyazid's famous Šattâh with "Subhânaka" in the words of the Messenger. It subtly contrasts saying "I" with saying "you".
But why does Shams wrap so much around Bâyazid? Of course, he has a provocative personality and does not shy away from criticizing the greats. Many prominent figures in Sufism have been wounded by his sharp tongue. Nevertheless, his attacks on Bâyazid are more noticeable. Only Hallâj stands alongside Bâyazid in this regard. In many cases, he criticizes both of them together from one perspective. Of course, he is harder on Hallâj.
It should be noted that Bâyazid and Hallâj are two revolutionary figures in the history of Sufism and have played a fundamental role in shaping the Sufi gaze and discourse. Shams goes to these two leading Sufis. But the striking point that makes these two an unparalleled pair in the history of Sufism is their disregard for transcendence. Undoubtedly, subhân and ana al-haq are the most resonant elevations in the history of Sufism. Shams also puts his finger on this openness of the two.
But did Shams have in mind linking Rumi to that mystical tradition in his visit to the elders of Khorasan? Can this behavior of Shams also be considered part of his effort to make Rumi absolutely detached, especially from all previous links?
Let us not forget that Shams does not belong to any particular group among the outwardly religious people. He is familiar with the justifications surrounding the subhan and the ecstasies of Bâyazid and Hallâj.
Although Rumi undoubtedly had familiarity with all of this, his perspective and speech are clearly different. He is not only fond of Bâyazid and Hallâj, but also praises them as heroes of intoxication. At first glance, some may see Rumi's references as a response to Shams' doubts. On the other hand, it seems that Shams intentionally misinterprets some of Bâyazid's stories. The psychology of Shams' personality is certainly distinct from Rumi's. Shams is quite provocative and does not hesitate to harshly criticize even the respected elders. He sometimes even sharpens his tongue against Rumi himself. However, Rumi always maintains respect for the sanctity of the saints and considers them united and colorless souls. Shams severely criticizes Shah Ferdows and the originator of Khorasan Sufism. His critique has roots in an ancient tradition but is more prominent and extensive. Perhaps in the midst of this effort to detach Rumi from all previous links, Shams also had in mind linking Rumi to that mystical tradition during his visit to the elders of Khorasan. The focus of his effort is the rush and flow created from the pretext of ecstasy and intoxication to the prophetic method of immersing oneself in secrets while simultaneously being self-aware and grasping the people. Although Rumi sympathizes with Bâyazid and Hallâj in terms of their criticisms, and even though he praises intoxication and ecstasy with an enthusiastic tone, he still receives the spirit of Shams' words and accompanies it in another horizon. He often flees from speech to silence and even returns from the ecstatic and drunken ghazals to the didactic and preaching couplets of the Masnavi. The Masnavi, especially, reflects a fluctuation between speech and silence or intoxication and sobriety. It shows a blend of Bâyazid's intoxication and Shams' sobriety. From a broader perspective, the connection between Shams and Rumi is much freer than that of a disciple and a master, beyond imitation and surrendering, and repetition. These two have their own independent and special worlds, despite all their love and unity.
Keywords: Rumi, Shams Tabrizi, Bâyazid, shath, drunken and ecstatic (sukr)
References
Aflâki, Shams al-Din Ahmad, (1996), Manâaqeb al-ârefin, vol.2, edited by Tahsin Yazici, Tehran: Donyâ-ye Ketâb
Alâʾ al-Dowleh Semnâni, (1983), Al-orveh, edited by Najib Mâyel Heravi, Tehran: Mowlâ.
Attâr Neyšâburi, (2008), Elâhinâme, edited by Mohammad Reza Šafiʾi Kadkani, Tehran: Soxan
Attâr Neyšâburi, (2014), Mantegh-o al-Teyr, edited by Mohammad Reza Shafii Kadkani, Tehran: Sokhan
Attâr Neyšâburi, (2009), Mossibatnameh, edited by Mohammad Reza Shafii Kadkani, Tehran: Sokhan
https://doi.org/10.22034/perlit.2023.57368.3522
Keywords
Main Subjects
', './data/perlit/coversheet/531695392977.jpeg'))