Learning from Hafez

thanks

Khaleh Mosheh: Thanks for the clip - The Persian connection to poetry is always deeply touching = (although, I find poets like Hafez don't get stuck in the anger, or constant put downs, they simply go to another place.)

As for the "Sufi" concepts etc. - without going to far into it, the idea of the "Grape" is that the essence of all religions is the same - and we often get obsessed with the details, yes, those are different. But the moral of the story is to not forget the big message, because of the details. Not to go to war with each other, (like the 4 men in the story) over the difference in details.

Dr. Mohandes - Thanks for your comments. Listen, we have 2 openly devout vice-Presidential candidates professing their religious adherence, here. In Europe, very rarely would one leader, let alone two, come on TV and be so open about their "faith" -  America is a far more "religious" country than Western Europe - just as a matter of fact - I'm sure there are surveys on church attendance etc.  But anyway, that wasn't the point of the Blog - rather, that we allow each to their own, as Biden said.

Albaloo - Biden is just very Irish! (check out the SNL sketc) - the part about "malarky" is very funny:

//www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/vice-...

Thanks for the blog

Now that I know its about connections, here is poem -(its the second poem starts at 3.50)

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhU7Q62re94&feature=related 

HFB

The percentage of those observing religionists! if you will, are on a decline and you can't label the american society religous as a whole, even when comparing it to the european countries.

More than even before, the religion has become a private matter and hence has promoted secularism in an unprecedented manner.

thanks for your comments

Freedom of Religion: The genius of "Freedom of Religion", a clause in the US's First Amendment, is  that it is also associated with "separation of church and state." American law does not say "be secular" - it only says keep your personal beliefs and religion outside the structure of governance (and in fact Americans are far more "religiously observant" than their European counterparts.)

THE POINT OF THE BLOG: My impression that the Freedom of Religion can be thought of as the first step of then moving on to seeing the Universality of all Religions.  And the possible connection from Cyrus to Molavi (Rumi) and Hafez via this chain of thought.

Biden is funny.  I am not

Biden is funny.  I am not sure about the whole thing but I like him more than the republican candidate. 

Thanks dear Afsaneh

for you clarification about the point of the blog being about interconnectvity of religeons as sufi theme.

Although when you look at things from the prespective of each religeon's theology, this is only applicable at best in a partial manner and conditional manner-Say if you are a muslim although the people of the book are accepted to have some spiritual common ground the Bahai's are excluded for example as Muhammad is supposed last prophet. There is also no interconnectivity in a theological sense with a muslim if your are for example an evangelical christian.

I accept the religeons are  however clearly connected by events within human history.

So although sufi theme of universal spiritual connectivity is elegant, theologically it is not shared amongst religeons.  So I am still at a loss about this sufi matter and the relation to the question on abortion in the  vice presidential debate of the on going US presidential elections. 

As far as USA not being a secular society, the country undisputably has secular legal and governance systems and this was what I meant by 'society'. 

So in summary whilst at a push one can put forward an elegant argument for some common sprititual ground between all religions, it is difficult to expand this supposed interconnectivity across all spectrum of human belief and thought systems. As an extreme example to make the point- I see no spiritual common ground betweem me as a non believer and say a Taleban fundamentalist. 

Hafez for the beginners

The American society is the most secular society in the world by all standards and accounts. It is not just advocating of the separation church and state in theory. 

That fact has been reflected upon in the constitution of the country and is respected by all segments of the government and judiciary.

Perhaps you either have not lived in the states long enough or just do not recognize this obvious fact.  

From "respect" to "interconnectivity"

Khaleh Mosheh: Thanks for your comment. Are "we" saying...? No, it is "Molavi"(Rumi) who  is saying:  that all religions are speaking the same message with different tongues. And the universality of the "message" is not the details (abortion, drinking alcohol, adultery etc.) but the overall message of each religion.  The Point of the Blog was to outline the fact that the mystic's notion of Universal Spirituality, has its seeds in that first ingredient of respecting all religions. And that perhaps all the Persian mystics have Cyrus as their ancestor. Their mysticism didn't appear out of the "blue", in my personal opinion.  That's the whole point of this Blog, to point to a theme, a  connection, from Cyrus to Molavi (Rumi) and Hafez.

PS - America isn't a "secular" society: It employs "secular" governance. It calls for the separation of Church and State. But the "society" is not scecular, far from it, and here, Joe Biden, its Vice President, is speaking of being an observant Catholic. Under Cyrus, too: the idea was that societies should allow the free practice of religion. (I am assuming that the ruler would not impose his own faith on the entire land.)

THE POINT OF THE BLOG: was to see what I saw that didn't feel "forced" at all - that there is a linking chain from the idea of respecting all religions, to the concept of then seeing the unity between them. Respect is the first step, and it enables you to scratch deeper to then find the jewel of Universality. At least to me.

To me, it seemed a natural progression - the same Iranians going from "respect of all religions" to calling you to "see their interconnectivity."

So do I get this argument correctly?

Are we saying that all religeons are one and the same just in the same way as the turk, arab,persian and the european were meaning the same thing (ie grapes) but could not communicte becaue they were using diffenerent languages. 

I think we are futher saying that  everyone  has the same doctrine with respect to the issue of abortion but are articulating it different dialects in this debate? And given the catholics are anti abortion and now that we have argued that everyone actually means the same, then everyone is anti-abortion ?

I think the flaw in the argument here relates to the underlying attempt to force Sufi doctrine of universal spirituality into a debate that in a secular society  is separated not in various shades of religosity but probably mostly along the lines of religeous and secular beliefs. In this debate we really are about grapes and cherries rather than grapes being referred to in differing languages.  

I am glad for the secular society in the US that Joe Biden has said he will not force his religious views on others. 'IRI'sation of the US luckily is not close to happening- not at least in the forseeable future. 

Perhaps a more relevant Hafez theme/motif relates to how hypocritical religous men and rulers can and do exert an oppressive influence on the freedom loving populace.

Well enough said on my part- Im off to have a glass of wine and have a 'chat' with my handsome boyfriend.

thanks

Demo: Thanks for the chains of connectivity. The line I chose, was analyzed in one of my books as a kind of nod to that jewel of a tale from Massnavi on "Grapes" and the concept that  regardless of the language we speak, we are often talking of the same thing when it come to "love."

بی حرمتی به حافظ و رومی؟

«جو بایدن» نه ترک و نه تازی بود / که حرفاش به کردار همه بازی بود!

شرح جلالی بر حافظ – دکتر عبدالحسین جلالی:

نسیم صبح سعادت بدان نشان که تو دانی    گذر به کوی فلان کن در آن زمان که تو دانی
تو پیک خلوت رازی و دیده بر سر راهت    به مردمی‌نه به فرمان چنان بران که تو دانی
بگو که جان عزیزم ز دست رفت خدا را    ز لعل روح فزایش ببخش آن که تو دانی
من این حروف نوشتم چنان که غیر ندانست    تو هم ز روی کرامت چنان بخوان که تو دانی
خیال تیغ تو با ما حدیث تشنه و آب است    اسیر خویش گرفتی بکش چنان که تو دانی
امید در کمر زرکشت چگونه ببندم    دقیقه‌ایست نگارا در آن میان که تو دانی
یکیست ترکی و تازی در این معامله حافظ    حدیث عشق بیان کن بدان زبان که تو دانی

خواجوی کرمانی:

آیا صبا خبری کن مرا از آن که تو دانی بدان زمین گذری کن بدان زمان که تو دانی

به نوک خامه مژگان تحیّتی که نوشتم بدو رسان و بگویش چنان بخوان که تو دانی

٭

اوحدی:

نسیم صبح کرم باشد آنچنان که تو دانی گذر کنی زِ بَرِ من به نزد آن که تو دانی

٭

نظامی:

من آن نیم که تو دیدی، تو آنی و به از آنی ترا فزوده جمال و مرا نمانده جوانی

به مردمی‌نه به فرمان رعایت دل ما کن نگویمت که چه غایت، بدان قدر که توانی

٭

حافظ در سرودن این غزل بدون شک به غزل خواجوی کرمانی و همچنین به مضامین غزل نظامی‌چشمِ عنایت داشته و این وزن و ردیف و قافیه را برای ارسال پیامی‌به شاه شجاع در زمان متواری بودن او و حکومت شاه محمود متناسب یافته است.

حافظ در غیاب شاه شجاع، گزارشات شیراز را به وسیله پیک مخصوص به او می‌رسانیده و نامه و دستورالعملهایی نیز از شاه دریافت و بدان عمل می‌کرده است و این غزل یکی دیگر از مدارکی است که این نظریه را تأیید می‌کند.

البته نباید تصور کرد که پاسخ حافظ به همین مفاد غزل خلاصه شده است، بلکه حافظ با نوشتن نامه یی به صورت کنایه و رمز و با اصطلاحات عربی و ترکی و فارسی و اشاراتی که فیمابین آن برقرار بوده اطلاعات و اخبار محرمانه را ارسال و به منظور حسنِ ختام هم همیشه غزلی را ضمیمه نامه خود می‌کرده است. امروزه آن نامه‌ها تمامی‌از بین رفته امّا غزل‌ها بعضاً باقی مانده و این غزل‌ها جای پاهای مناسبی است که محققین از روی مفاد آنها می‌توانند تا حد زیادی پی به اوضاع و احوال آن زمانه و روابط بین حافظ و شاه شجاع ببرند.

شاعر در بیت دوم غزل خود عبارت(چنان بخوان که تو دانی) را از خواجوی کرمانی گرفته است. مختصر مفادی در بیت چهارم غزل، این نظریه مدلّل می‌دارد که به ضمیمه این غزل مطالبی نوشته شده بوده که جنبه رمز داشته و بنا به مفاد بیت مقطع این غزل این عبارات رمز به عربی و ترکی و فارسی بوده است چه حافظ به خوبی بر این موضوع آگاهی داشته که شاه شجاع نیز بر این سه زبان مسلط و غالباً اشعار خود را به صورت ملمّع می‌سراید از این جهت متن نامه محرمانه خود را چنان به صورت رمز رقم می‌زده که رقیبان و طرفداران شاه محمود، در صورت دسترسی بدان چیزی از آن در نیابند.

نکته ظریفی که در بیت ششم این غزل به چشم می‌خورد تشبیه لطیفی است که حافظ از کمر ظریف و باریک محبوب خویش در معنای ظاهری بیت به عمل آورده و در آن ایهامی‌نهفته که چنین معنا می‌دهد:

در کمر زرکش تو، جای گذشتن سکه‌های زر می‌باشد و در وسط آن کمربند نقدینه‌های جالب توجهی است که تو خود بهتر می‌دانی، و من نمی‌توانم بدان سکه‌ها چشم امید نبندم. این ایهام، تقاضای غیر مستقیمی‌است که حافظ برای گرفتن هزینه زندگی و اقدامات خود از شاه دارد، اما به هیچ وجه به خاطرها خطور نمی‌کند مگر اینکه کسی بر نحوه غزل‌سرائی و ایهام پروری حافظ آشنایی کامل داشته باشد.

video clip -

4 min. Clip from the VP debate on "Faith" and Abortion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDiZpZlqkGw