IDEAS

Ramona Jaan

Firstly, Thank you for your blog and also responding to my previous comment here.

However, I think you mis-read my earlier comment! I never blamed GOD!

I fact , I am in line with your thoughts on GOD and State of Consciousness... I only blame men (and women) who through out history have made fake GOD for ignorant masses who came to BELIEVE that GOD has the very same Characteristics as human beings have!!! Traits such as : Judgement, Envy, Hate, Prejudice, Discrimination and so many other human failures....!!!

Religions in general are based on SHEER FEAR OF UNKNOWN, SERIOUS LACK OF SELF ESTEEM AND MASSIVE DOUBTS about this life and unknown answers to WHAT HAPPENS TO US ALL WHEN WE DIE!!! Religions have taken advantage of all those human fears and insecurities into TOTAL EXPLOITATION AND CONTROL OF MASSES LIKE IGNORANT SHEEPS WHO WOULD BELIEVE AND BRAINWASH THEMSELVES TO WHATEVER THEIR PARTICULAR RELIGIONS COMMANDS THEM TO THINK, SAY AND DO!!!

GOD IS WAY WAY BEYOND ALL THESE RELIGIOUS NON-SENSE!

GOD IS CONSCIOUSNESS, GOD IS AWARENESS , LOVE AND .................. GOD IS THE SOURCE!!! Why letting the Middle Stupid/Ignorant man in between YOU and Your GOD????

At age 10 in Tehran, I learned a phrase from my Kung Fu Master (Ebraheem Mirzaee) at "Daneshkadeh Enshaa Tan va Ravaan" which said:

گر به خود آیی، به خدایی رسی‌، به خود آاا

"If You awake to yourself within, You will Reach God (or God's level), Wake up within!!!"

Thirty three years later, I still BELIEVE IN THAT GOD....

AWARENESS, CONSCIOUSNESS, LOVE & PEACE

Confusion

Dear Theosopher,

Confusion usually runs rampid if one is not talking face to face. I also get confused, that's why I asked you to elaborate on your comment. Thanks for your clarification. I'm glad that this post has instigated some interesting discussions, challenges, clarifications, poetry and so on. 

Ramona

Ramona

If you have read my comment carefully and correctly, my reference regarding your lack of acknowledment was not with regard to Mowlana Rumi in general, but was with regard to the particular poem by Mowlana that was posted by Massoud below!

If I may, I have one suggestion for you: When writing comments in response to other commentators, please take the time to be more organized, and concise! Brevity is an art form, and not necessarily long-windedness, especially if not properly structured and organized (ie. adequate paragraphs, etc.) - Please take a look at some of your comments below, and you'll see what I'm talking about :)

Sincerely,

R D

P.S. Please take this suggestion as a constructive criticism - If you have been studying Mowlana's works and Sufism in earnest for the past ten (10) years, then one of the things that you should be fully aware of is the development of a Spirit Of Humility in oneself - I sincerely hope that you fully understand what I'm saying!

Confusion!

Dear Ramona,

I am sorry if my comment created some confusion! sincerely speaking, I was confused too. There happened a misunderstanding:

What I understood from Kooshan's first commentary was that he was criticising comments in which some individuals had inferred homosexuality in the relationship between Molana and Shams which is totally wrong and baseless. My comments refer to that. But Kooshan's recent comments show that he meant something else!

So there was some misunderstanding running in the discussion which I hereby apologize.

overall, your blog has developed into a nice and fruitful discussion with some very knowledgeable people (like Mr. Nur and yourself)  being involved. Thanks. 

Theosopher

Kooshan

You make a broad generalization that everything I said about Rumi, I have taken out of context. Then as example you say you wish I had elaborated on  the words "raw", "cooked" and "burned."

If you read my comments, in my attempt to show Rumi's transformation after he met Shams and adopted the religion of love as opposed to Islamic fiqh and jurisprudence, I cited the famous verse "I was raw, I became cooked, I was burned."

I explained what is meant by raw as "spiritually immature". Naturally, it follows that "cooked" means the opposite, someone who has attained to a higher spiritual state and maturity. I also clearly stated that after he was cooked, he was "burned" in the fires of Love and separation. That means he lost himself in the Beloved, but then suffered the pain of separation when Shams left.

What about that is taking things out of context? I wish you would explain.

Also, every Iranian knows that Mowlana wrote the Masnavi after meeting Shams. That is obvious because he dedicated his whole kolliyat to Shams. In my book, stating the obvious is insulting the reader's intelligence.

But thanks for offering one of my favorite poems of Mowlana "Oh heart!"

Kooshan and Theosopher

Kooshan,

Are you making a point? If so, what is it? Do you mean to say that people who love Khayyam, Hafez, Mowlana and Shams are alienated from their culture or heritage? Are you serious? That doesn't make any sense to me!

Theosopher,

Do you care to elaborate on your comment please?

Reply to Ramona: You have

Reply to Ramona:

You have totally taken all the concepts of Rumi out of context. For example, I was hoping ypu can elaborate what "raw", "cooked" and "burnt" meant to Rumi?

And, remember that all the poems Rumi has in "kolliat" were created after he met Shams. This is critical to understand. Poetry was considered unprofessional (per say) to scholars such as Rumi.

You can find traces of heavens in every poem of Rumi!

O
heart let go of your soul
Until you see the soul maker
Leave behind this deceptive faker
So you reach your real goal.

Unless you pass through here
You will never reach the beyond
Free yourself from worldly bond
Doubtless clear, to you appear.

If it is a sign that you seek
In this path, my dear friend
Yourself you must transcend
And signs to you will speak.

Go past the four and five
From six and seven look away
Rise above this earth and clay
Seven skies become alive.

When you’ve seen the seventh sky
Go to the eighth sphere
Step upon the things that appear
You’ll find the void nearby.

Within the void you shall see
The souls of dear friends
Disembodied floating heads
In the spaceless roaming free.

Close the critical eye
Appeal to the inner sight
From yourself briefly take flight
The beloved will appear nigh.

You who have never taken a pace
On the path of misfortune
To soul’s treasure won’t attune
Unless this costly pain embrace.

O hear ye, Shams-e Tabriz
Silently speak the word
With your soul be in accord
Which you’ll see joyously frees.

R2-D2

Thank you for your comments and suggestions. But I'm afraid you have made a couple of wrong assumptions about me, what I have read and what not. First of all, I'm a proud Iranian with enough knowledge of Farsi to read and understand poetry and prose in Farsi. Secondly, I've been a serious student of Mowlana Rumi as my primary mentor and spiritual director for more than a decade and have extensively studied the Masnavi, Divan and Fihe Mafih, though I'm no scholar .

You intimate that I haven't given credit to Mowlana's own words in my article. Everything I say about Mowlana comes from him alone; I have no original ideas stated in the article or the comments. Of course I may be mistaken in my interpretation of what I read. So if you disagree with the content of my words, I'll be more happy to learn and discuss. But making arbitrary and erroneous presumptions about the author of an article doesn't serve any positive purpose.

Secondly, I'm quite familiar with the poem that Massoud was kind enough to post as it is very apropos to the discussion at hand. I have also read the various translations of most of Rumi's poetry that has been translated. I don't particularly like Barks' versions, because they are not translated from the original Farsi. Shahriari's translations are beautiful and poetic, but don't always reveal the many levels of meaning in the ghazals or Masnavi.

My favorite translators who are great scholars in their own right and translate from the original Farsi with footnotes and explanatory comments are the famed Reynolds A. Nicholson and A.J. Arberry, Nicholson's student. I also appreciate William Chittick who has written the wonderful book "The Sufi Path of Love."

Ramona

First it was Khayyam, then

First it was Khayyam, then I heard about Hafiz, NOW it's about Rumi and Shams!

It is baffling how alienated some Iranians are with motherland culture, god knows.

But, it is very understanding how desperately and absurdly some want to detach fruits of Islam from their roots!

I'm sure the next is going to be our very own Leyli - لیلی  مرد  بود  یا  زن!!!!!!!!!!

It is very scientific though - The more departed we are from source, the fuzzier objects look and feel!

Massoud Jaan

Thank you very much for your comment below, and the link that you provided to Rumi's Poem - My guess is that Ramona, the author of this blog, doesn't speak or understand  Persian (Farsi), and consequently hasn't truly understood the total and complete meaning of the poem that you posted: Both in your comment below, and also at your link which also provides the English translations by Barks, Nicholson, and Shariari!

I hope that she, and others who do not speak Farsi, take the time to at least read the English Translations - Many of the issues that are raised in the comments below by various commentators, are actually addressed by Mowlana Jallal'udin Rumi himself in this poem, in his very own words!

Very Sincerely,

R D

P.S. Ramona, I appreciate this article - However, please take the time to read this poem that is posted below by Massoud (or its English translations at the link), if you haven't done so  - Many of the issues that you have raised below in your comments are actually directly addressed by Mowlana Rumi himself! - I see no acknowledgment of that in your part - Pure And Simple!!

Re-ligare

In Latin literally means to "re-bind" or "re-connect" (ligare, meaning 'to bind', 'to connect' etc).

Ya NUR

Yolanda

Your honest active participation in this discussion is much appreciated as it is done with the intent of learning only. The best students also happen to be the best teachers and vice-versa. 

The story of the reed is one of the best of Masnavi which is a whole other discussion. I'm glad you found it. I wonder if you could try to ponder it and give us your take on it if you please.

Warmly,

Ramona

Ramona

One of the last book reviews composed before her death by Annemarie Schimmel in 2003 was of Lewis' book, Rumi: Past and Present, East and West: The Life, Teachings and Poetry of Jalaluddin Rumi (Oneworld: 1999). Her review was absolutely glowing and she herself said that Lewis' scholarship in several places surpassed her own in the Triumphal Sun. From the point of view of scholarship, this book is outstanding, nay magisterial, and without wishing to sound any more pompous than I already am, I have read pretty much everything (in Persian, English and French, anyway).

Ditto, to everything else you said!

Nur-i-Azal

Thank you for your comment.. You are a very intelligent and enlightened individual... We had our little disagreements in the past regarding some issues, but here we are on the same page here...

Peace

Farid agha

The only way I can respond to your question is to read Mowlana intently and extensively, then you shall know what I mean by the religion of love, which is not figurative or just literary poetic language for Mowlana, but a living reality.

Respectfully,

Ramona

Spelling corrections!

Through out human HISTORY, Most Religions, (If not all!) HAVE PROVEN TO
BE THE MOST DIVISIVE ELEMENT IN HUMAN LIVES!!!Over and over again...

Response to Artemis re: consciousness

The word religion is a derivation of the latin word re-ligio which means to link back to (the Source), or to connect with (the Source). The Source is that which I choose to call God.

Religion is only a way to God, not God as fanatics like to impose. And that was Mowlana's belief. You are right that throughout history every war has been fought in the name of religion or other mass-minded ideology (like communism, socialism, etc.) And this has caused not only divisiveness and enmity, but much violence and death. But to blame that on God is wrong.

You applaud consciousness, with which I'm with absolute agreement. But what is consciousness without knowledge of the Higher Self or God within? As all wise people have said before, including the pagan Greek God Appollo:

"Know thyself and you shall know God.

And that is true consciousness, love and peace. 

Warmly,

Ramona

Arthimis, ditto!

That is spot-on! This is also the Mazdaean understanding as well, hence the word Daena which in Avestan means simultaneously consciousness, soul, angel and religion.

Ya NUR

Ramona

I read your response and even though your style of writing is not always clear yet I did not find much contradiction with what I previously said. I think we are mostly saying the same thing in different words.

"The religion of Love is apart from all religions: for lovers, the (only) religion and creed is-- God."

I once more beg you to differentiate between the language of poetry which is figurative, concise, metaphoric and often not precise (poets often uses exaggeration) and the true belief of the poet(s).

Nur

Mulla Nasrudin was made a magistrate. 

During his first case the plaintiff argued so persuasively that he exclaimed: “I believe you are right!”

The clerk of the court begged him to restrain himself, for the defendant had not been heard yet.

Nasrudin was so carried away by the eloquence of the defendant that he cried out as soon as the man had finished his evidence: “I believe you are right!”

The clerk of the court could not allow this.  “Your honor, they cannot both be right.”

“I believe you are right!” said Nasrudin.

All perception depends on one’s experience, and we all have different experiences and ideas of what “shaykh-hood” entails. Assuming your definition is the correct one, then “I believe you are right!”  

For me, the true Shaykh is a mirror as you properly indicate. My definition of a true Shaykh is one who has ceased to be their personal self and has become at one with God. Their individual existence ceases to be, and God's existence becomes theirs. There is no duality, no I or You. The Sheikh and God become one and the same (at-one-ment). Their will is God's will and therefore surrendering oneself to the sheikh is like surrendering to the will of God. For Rumi too, these are the requisite qualities that a sheikh must have; they must have attained unity (vessAl) with the Beloved and must be able to reflect that back to you as a mirror, or they are not qualified to become sheikhs and/or lend themselves out as sheikhs/masters.

That is why for Rumi, attaining the state of fanA through naughting the personal self is an absolute requirement of “shaykh-hood” and the Masnavi is replete with verses maintaining this value. As for the rest of your comments, I stand in unity with you my friend.

Ramona

To find GOD and salvation,

To find GOD and salvation, man needs to have Consciousness, NOT religion!

Through out human HISTORY, Most Religions, (If not all!) HAVE PROVEN THE BE THE MOST DEVISIVE ELEMENT IN HUMAN LIVES!!!

Freedom, Consciousness, Love and Peace. 

The Leiges of Love (fedeli d'amore)

 //henrycorbinproject.blogspot.com/2009/02/corbin-dante-i-fedeli-damore.html

Response to Faridagha re: Religion of Love

If there was an “official” religion of love, I would think that the whole world would convert! But according to Rumi: "The religion of Love is apart from all religions: for lovers, the (only) religion and creed is-- God."

Mathnawi Vol. II: 1770

It is true that Mowlana was a Muslim Faghih and jurisprudent before he ever met Shams-I Tabrizi. He had his own school and disciples. But after meeting Shams he transformed completely and admits that whereas before he was “raw” (spiritually immature), after meeting his Shaykh and mentor, Shams-i Tabrizi, he became “cooked” and then burned in the fires of Love and separation from the Beloved: 

"The result of my life is no more than three words: I was raw [khâm], I became cooked [pokhteh], I was burnt [sookht]." (Dîvân,ghazal 1768).

Ramona, Shams was Mowlana's preceptor (mirror), not shaykh

Here is another source of confusion regarding the actual relationship between Rumi and Shams. Shams was not Rumi's shaykh, nor Rumi Shams'. These two had a completely different relationship altogether than a conventional master/disciple relationship. Shams' was Rumi's preceptor and mirror, and vice versa. Besides being a religious judge and conventional religious dignitary in Konya in his own right, Rumi was already an accomplished Sufi as well (not to mention his father's successor in both the Sufi robe and the religious judge's turban)  long before Shams arrived on the scene. He had already been initiated into the Path by his own father, Sultan'ul-'Ulama Baha'uddin Walad Balhki, an accomplished master in his own right, and later after his father's passing, Rumi was a murid/disciple to his own father's major disciple, Borhanuddin Muhaqiqq, having accomplished several solitary 40 day retreats (khalvat) at Borhanuddin's hands and given 'ijaza (permission, transmission) from the latter for the accomplishment.

Shams was to Rumi the Mirror who completed him in his 3rd Journey to the Divine: al-haqq fi'l-haqq (the Truly Real in the Truly Real). His final journey, the 4th (from the Truly real to Creation, al-haqq ila'l-khalq), which gave the world the Masnavi, was with Husamuddin Chelebi. But we digress...

Shams and Rumi met each other sometime after Borhanuddin had left, and in Shams' case he was actually out searching the world for a perfect Pir and murshid (spiritual guide) that could guide him to perfection, since he had broken with his own Sufi initiator some time before because he (Shams) believed he had surpassed this man. When he gave up searching, after having met all the great Sufi luminaries of his time and been unimpressed with all of them (even fighting and rebuking many of them publicly), he and Rumi finally met. And the question legend has it that Shams asked Rumi that knocked the latter out cold and hurtled Rumi into a state of absolute intoxicating spiritual attraction (jazbeh) whilst he was riding like a Peacock through the streets of Konya followed by his disciples in his stead,  with the dishevelled qalandar Shams standing on the street corner waiting, was the following:

O Mowlana, who was greater, Bayazid Bistami who said "Glory be to me, how great is my state" (subhani ma 'azama sha'ni) or the Prophet Muhammad who said, "Glory be to the Godhead" (subhan'ullah)?

Yolanda, yes

Same reed :-)

beshno een nay chon shekaayat mikonad

az jodaa'eehaa hekaayat mikonad

chon az nayestaan taa maraa bobreede'and

az nafeeram mard or zan naleedeh'and

etc.

(Per Este'lami's text)

pass sokhan kootah, vassalaam :)

Ya NUR

Kooshan

"First it was Khayyam, then I heard about Hafiz, NOW it's about Rumi and Shams!
How alienated some Iranians are with motherland culture, god knows.
It is very scientific though - The more departed we are from source, the fuzzier objects look and feel!"

You are right sir, the absurdities some people utter about these great ones is partly due to their lack of knowledge and partly due to self-comparison, their attitude is best reflected in the following Farsi saying:

KAFIR HAMEH RA BEH KISHEH KHOD PENDARAD!

......

Hi! Ramona,

 Both your blog and post are very beautiful! I enjoyed reading them!

Thanks,

Rumi's Cry of the Reed in Farsi and English

.....

Hi! Captain,

      Farsi looks like the hardest language in the world! I read a lot of English poems translated from Farsi.....a lot of them blew me away......I am sure the Farsi version is many times better than the translated version! I know it is definitely a privilege to know Farsi and to be able to read the Persian literature! If I have a 2nd life, I hope I can be born in Iran! :O)

Thank you again for your input to this blog! It is very interesting!

Ms. Yolanda

No disrespect, but I only wished you could read my mother's tongue and digest its beautiful intended meanings.

You are so loved in this community for your openness and civility.

-YT 

@ fussy gorrilla regarding Mowlana's love of Shams

Please do not mistake Rumi's love of Shams as a physical or homosexual love as many ignorants have done. Shams was Mowlana's shaykh, mentor, morshed. In Mowlan's view, a Shaykh is clearly above and beyond any notion of the common person as s/he has become a manifestation of God's Love on earth. Through the Shaykh, one can attain union with God because the Shaykh is "one who has attained union with God" (has attained 'vessAl'). Rumi describes the Shaykh as "the infinite elixir;" "the very Sea of Eternity;" an object of manifestation of God in all its glory; one whose "light has no bound;" one who speaks the word of God; "the perfect man who has become superior and has passed beyond the utmost limit (reached by men and angels)." Since he is immersed in Love itself, when he "speaks, the scent of Love is springing from his mouth into the abode of Love. If he speaks (formal) theology, it all turns to (spiritual) poverty: the scent of poverty comes from that man of sweet and beguiling discourse. And if he speak infidelity, it has the scent of (the true) religion..." The Shaykh has the power and ability to transmute copper into gold. He or she can bring about a transformation of the total personality in the disciple by transmitting the experience of Love in his words, actions and presence. He or she serves as the mirror of the Divine in the individual who does not yet see with the inner eyes or hear with the inner ears (which applies to most of us, myself included). Therefore, if Mowland deemed Shams as his Shaykh and Murshid, felt closer to God by allowing himself to be touched by his Presence for long periods of time, it is worthy of emulating if one is on the path of love, not misinterpreting and contempt. Mowland did not merely love Shams as an individual per se, but yearned to emulate or be affected by him as one who has naughted the personal self (nafs), and attained unity with the Beloved. Ramona